Every now and then, I read an article that infuriates me so much that I have to challenge it. An article in this morning’s L.A. Times by Sharon Bernstein entitled “Southern California is becoming a tight fit” is such an article; sadly, it’s typical of what happens in L.A.

The article is a not-so-covered critique of Southern California’s shift towards more urban (and more sustainable) mode of living — a trend that Bernstein laments in her nostalgic loss of the good ol’ days when L.A. was a white, Protestant Eden (Bernstein notes that “the region’s history [was] as a haven for people who moved west to escape the cramped apartments of their metropolitan hometowns”). What’s the problem? To Bernstein and her NIMBY neighbor friends to whom she so frequently gives a voice, the problem is the usual suspects: “overcrowding” and of course, traffic. As Bernstein warns: “the shift has implications for infrastructure, congestion, schools and even the style of neighborhoods, as apartments encroach on single-family enclaves.” (Note: apartments aren’t encroaching on single-family areas, because R1 zoning precisely protects single-family houses from being replaced by multi-family apartments).

Bernstein proceeds to claim that “top planners say that if cities and counties are not careful about where they place these high-density projects, the development could overcrowd schools, burden water, sewer and power systems and make traffic worse.” Yet, apparently, she could find no reputable physical planners (from the city or reputable academics, not even the ubiquitous sprawl-lover Joel Kotkin…) to back up her claims, instead relying on the testimony of her Neighborhood Council and Homeowner Association friends (whose raison d’etre is to maintain the status quo) to substantiate her claims. To be fair, she does quote Mark Pisano (head of SCAG), but he more a bureaucrat than planner, as evidenced by his misinformed claims that the City has allowed development in areas without amenities (like public transportation); this is despite the fact virtually all of L.A.’s new high density development is occurring along the arterial boulevards and around transit stops. (And by the way, there are really only two ways to build transit: subsidize it until the density arrives or build the density that creates the demand for transit. And guess what? L.A. has tried the former and people don’t want to subsidize it, so we’re on to Plan B, build the density first).

“What we have is a city in crisis,” said Ellen Vukovich, a board member of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. “I don’t know how long the homeowners are going to be able to stem the tide.” (Note: the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, SOHA, recently appealed on spurious grounds — and lost — a decision by City Planning for a mixed-use development along Ventura Boulevard, a project that had already been reduced from 118 to 88 units. Their mission, it seems, is to block all development on their ‘turf’. A casual search reveals SOHA has appealed numerous projects and often threatens litigation to gets its way. I hate to be the bearer of bad news by the Sherman Oaks “neighborhood” is home to 60,000 people, hardly “a village” as they like to believe).

And more: “We’re just trying very hard to preserve some semblance of human-scale life here,” said Barbara Burke, who is a vice president of the Studio City Neighborhood Council but who said she was speaking as a homeowner. “The congestion is huge.” (Note: the high limit along most of Ventura Boulevard — covered by L.A.’s “1VL” height district — is a whopping 45 feet i.e. 5 stories).

But the crux of the matter is revealed at the end of the article: “Vukovich, of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., said plenty of people still want to live in quiet single-family neighborhoods and worry that their ability to do so will be reduced as more condos are built.”

Let me translate that for you: because a few rich white people don’t want to be inconvenienced by traffic congestion, they feel it is their right to deny less well-off people a roof over their head. And that’s what this really comes down to: the inconvenience of a few who scream loudly vs. whether or not the workers of this city have a roof over their head. Apparently, it is OK for rich people to hire Latinos for minimum wage, and have them take a bus for two hours from East L.A. (the only place they can afford, given that L.A. hasn’t met its annual housing demand for 15+ years) to the Westside and South Valley, as long as they go back to the “other” side at the end of the day. People like Vukovich and Burke want you to believe that we actually have a choice here — that we can simply choose to block housing and people will just go away. Unless we build a wall around L.A., you have two choices: to house the people that are here, or not. Apparently the problem isn’t really overcrowding — that’s precisely what the Vukovichs and Burkes of the world have already created by blocking housing — they are OK with it over there (East L.A.), they just don’t want multi-family housing on their turf, because, good golly, it might take them an extra two minutes to drive to Starbucks. Only in a city as decadent as L.A. could you get away with allowing the inconvenience of a few trump the housing need of many. And you know what’s the sad part? These people see themselves as progressive. Think again, people.