At Monday night’s West Hollywood City Council meeting, I said something that sounded a little silly, but also felt exactly right: NIMBY? No. YIMBY? Not exactly. SIMBY BWAP? Yes.
Sure In My Backyard, But With A Plan.
Silly, right? Underneath the humor is something very real. Most West Hollywood residents are not anti-housing. In fact, I believe most of us are pro-housing, especially pro-affordable-housing. We know people are struggling. We know renters are scared. We know workers, seniors, young people, artists, service employees, hotel workers, and longtime residents are being priced out of the city they helped build and keep alive. What residents are asking for is not inaction … they are asking for a plan.
That is why West Hollywood needs to commit to creating a TODAP, a Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan. Under SB 79, California is moving toward allowing more housing density near qualifying transit stops. The goal matters. We need more homes. We need more affordable homes. We should build near transit and make it easier for people to live closer to where they work, serve, love, and belong. But reducing car dependency should never mean shaming people who still need their cars, or pretending parking does not matter in a city where many residents, workers, seniors, caregivers, and people with disabilities rely on driving every day. A thoughtful plan can support transit, create housing, and still respect the real lives of the people who already call West Hollywood home.
The question is not simply whether housing should be built. The question is where, how, for whom, and with what protections. Beverly Hills understood this. They moved forward with a local plan so they could help shape where future SB 79 housing density goes instead of letting the state default decide everything for them. If Beverly Hills can take that step, West Hollywood should, too.
And West Hollywood may have an even stronger reason to act. We are only 1.9 square miles. Every decision touches someone. Every new building changes a block. Every lost rent-stabilized unit matters. Every empty storefront says something about the health of our city. And every commercial corridor that has gone quiet is also an opportunity waiting for new life.
That is where much of our future housing growth should be focused: in commercial corridors that already need renewal. Thoughtful housing in those areas could bring new residents, new customers, new foot traffic, and new energy to parts of West Hollywood that need it most.
We can build more affordable housing and still protect renters. We can welcome new neighbors and still respect longtime residents. We can create density and still care about design, infrastructure, parking, transit, trees, shade, safety, and neighborhood character. We can say yes to housing without saying yes to chaos.
We need housing for the server finishing a late shift on Santa Monica Boulevard. Housing for the hotel worker who keeps our hospitality economy running but cannot afford to live near the city they serve. Housing for the senior who has lived here for decades and is terrified of being displaced. Housing for the young queer person who comes to West Hollywood looking for safety and community, not just a rainbow crosswalk they cannot afford to live near. Housing for artists, students, caregivers, retail workers, small business employees, and people rebuilding their lives.
I know what it means to need a place to land. Housing is not an abstract policy issue to me. It is the difference between fear and breath. It is the foundation beneath every other dream we ask people to have. So yes, build housing. Build affordable housing. Build near transit. Build in places where new residents can support local businesses and help revive corridors that need new life. But do it with a plan.
Right now, West Hollywood has time, but time is not the same thing as immunity. SCAG’s current SB 79 map does not include West Hollywood’s three planned K Line station areas at Santa Monica and San Vicente, Santa Monica and Fairfax, and Santa Monica and La Brea, meaning the city will not face SB 79’s upzoning requirements on July 1. But that is a reprieve, not a permanent exemption. The K Line is still moving forward, and when West Hollywood eventually lands on a future version of the map, SB 79 will come with it. Waiting until that moment to start planning would mean starting late.
At the very least, the City Council should commit now to creating a TODAP. Not after another round of confusion, not after residents feel blindsided, and not after the state map changes and we suddenly find ourselves scrambling under a deadline.
A TODAP would not mean saying no to housing. It would mean saying yes to housing with intention. Yes to affordable housing with renter protections. Yes to density in the right places. Yes to local control that serves people instead of simply protecting politics. Yes to a West Hollywood future that is bold, compassionate, and planned.
The housing crisis is real. The affordability crisis is real. The fear of displacement is real. The need for new life in our commercial corridors is real. And so is the opportunity. West Hollywood can reject the tired binary that says you are either anti-housing or willing to let anything happen anywhere. We can be smarter than that. We can be more honest than that. We can be more WeHo than that.
NIMBY? No. YIMBY? Not exactly. SIMBY BWAP? Absolutely.
Sure In My Backyard, But With A Plan.
Now let’s make one.
The WE in WEHO are asking the council to make a plan. Listen to us.
A good win for property rights; no exclusionary zoning for residential property period! The best plan for SB79 implementation is whatever a willing homeowner and a willing contractor agree to do on that homeowner’s lot.
Kody, nothing in the plan will lower rents for anybody. In fact, evicted tenants will be forced out of their units for the new development, and any new affordable housing unit that is built is auctioned off in a lottery. West Hollywood residents do not have any advantage over a resident in San Francisco or Seattle to obtain that unit. You are confusing ‘affordable housing’ with ‘housing that is affordable.’
Larry, I actually agree with an important part of what you’re saying. “Affordable housing” and “housing that is affordable” are not the same thing, and I do understand that difference. A lottery unit does not automatically solve the crisis for a resident who is already struggling to stay here. But I also think West Hollywood needs both. We need deed-restricted affordable housing for people who qualify, and we need more housing that is actually affordable to the workers, seniors, artists, students, small business employees, and longtime residents who make this city what it is. That is exactly why local planning… Read more »
There are close to 900 rentals and 250 units for sale on any given day in West Hollywood.
Availability is not the same thing as affordability. A full-time worker making West Hollywood’s current minimum wage can afford roughly $1,050 a month in rent under the standard 30% affordability guideline. Even hotel workers moving to $20.87/hour in July would be around $1,085 a month. Meanwhile, West Hollywood’s median rent is around $2,200, with average rents closer to $2,500, and studios often over $2,100. So the real question is not just how many units are listed. It is how many of those units can actually be afforded by the hotel workers, restaurant workers, bakery employees, retail workers, caregivers, students, seniors,… Read more »
Can we build density by the beach so I can afford to live there too? Not everybody gets what they want,
Actually, under SB 79, if there is a qualifying transit stop near the beach on the SCAG map, then yes, that area likely will be expected to allow more density, too. That is the point. This is not just a West Hollywood conversation, and it is not just about what any one neighborhood wants. SB 79 creates state standards around qualifying transit stops, and cities that do not plan locally may have less control over how that density shows up. So my argument is not “give everyone everything they want.” It is the opposite. We need a realistic plan that… Read more »
Are you sure hotel workers etc even want to live in WeHo? The reality is, more density means more expensive. This has been proven. WeHo may be at its limit.
A nice breath of fresh air and common sense. In all my years in West Hollywood I have yet to see NIMBYS ever stop a project from being approved. Seldom have we ever seen NIMBYS filing lawsuits to stop a project. Usually opponents to housing developments have legitimate concerns about scale and lack of parking or just poor design, such as a drive way that is really in the wrong place. The notion that there are folks out there absolutely opposed to ANY new housing is just a concocted myth. Mostly NIMBYS just want to see better developments, not derail… Read more »
Steve, thank you. This means a lot coming from you, especially given your long history of fighting for West Hollywood and understanding how this city actually works. I completely agree that residents with concerns about scale, parking, design, displacement, and neighborhood livability should not be dismissed as anti-housing. Most people I hear from are not saying “build nothing.” They are saying: build better, build thoughtfully, protect renters, respect the people already here, and do not let developers write the future of our city for us. West Hollywood has always been willing to do its part, but our 1.9 square miles… Read more »
If I didn’t purchase heavy bags of groceries on a regular basis, I wouldn’t need a car – more or less.
Solve that for me and I’ll figure out how to get around by alternative means.
More or less.
Stuart, you’re absolutely right. Housing and transportation planning work best when they reflect how people actually live, not just how planners think they should live. I enjoy driving my small car and plan to keep it as long as I can, but I also understand the importance of reliable transit and better transportation options. People need practical ways to get to work, buy groceries, attend medical appointments, care for family members, and handle everyday responsibilities. That’s why thoughtful local planning is so important. We can encourage new housing in appropriate locations, such as commercial corridors and areas near services, while… Read more »
Walk to the market every day that way you don’t have to carry as much in a single trip. You may still need your car but you won’t need to drive as much.
Shopping every day is simply not realistic or practical, but thank you for your suggestion.
100%…….Shopping is not the same as going to Trunks everyday.
Kody Christiansen- Thank you for everything you are doing, both in person and in this forum, to foster sensible development in West Hollywood and to promote the creation of a TODAP. That you have responded thoughtfully to comments below is also noted and appreciated. I think SIMBY (for either sensibly or smartly in my backyard) works! The wave of development is coming. Do we channel it productively to capture energy, or let it run wild over our city and then assess the damage? Assuming that you view the Fountain Ave road/ parking diet as the folly it is, I look… Read more »
Jay, thank you, I really appreciate this. Sensible or smart in my backyard works for me, too, and I completely agree with your framing. The wave of development is coming, so the question is whether we channel it thoughtfully or let it run wild and assess the damage later. On Fountain, I do have real concerns about the current project. Fountain absolutely needs safety upgrades, but I am not a fan of this version, especially because it removes already-needed parking spaces in a city where residents, workers, caregivers, and small business customers still rely on cars. I believe there are… Read more »
Thank you Kody for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to my comment, and I appreciate your nuanced thinking- a too rarely seen ability from the majority of our current City Council (Byers, Erickson, Hang). You have my vote, Kody Christiansen!
Yes‼️‼️ The WE in Weho is along for a plan!!!
Yes! WE see you, WE hear you, and WE deserve a real plan for the future of West Hollywood.
No we do not! Been noticing a lot of units are just sitting vacant and not even being listed..building owners are looking to rezone and then sell most likely!
I hear you, and vacant units sitting empty is absolutely part of the problem. We should be looking at that too. But the question is not really whether West Hollywood wants more housing. The state already requires WeHo to plan for 3,933 new housing units this cycle, including 1,755 lower-income units. So the real question is how we do it. SB 79 could eventually bring major upzoning near future transit stops, especially once the K Line moves forward. If WeHo does nothing, we risk letting the state framework decide where that density goes. A TODAP gives us a way to… Read more »
Exactly! what we don’t want is CIMBY, Corruption In Ourr Back Yard!
💯 Exactly. And we know what to do on November 3rd! Vote, vote, vote.
YES‼️
Absolutely vote those three out of office!
This is part of a broader problem in West Hollywood politics: too many people seem determined to make this tiny 1.9-square-mile city all things to all people. That is naïve thinking in a vast, interconnected metropolitan region. West Hollywood does not exist in isolation, nor should it be expected to solve every regional housing, transportation, social, or economic challenge on its own. West Hollywood is already one of the most densely populated cities in California, with tens of thousands of residents packed into less than two square miles. Yet some politicians continue to act as though the city has a… Read more »
Alan, I agree with a lot of this. West Hollywood cannot and should not be expected to solve the entire region’s housing crisis alone. We are 1.9 square miles, already dense, and every decision here affects infrastructure, mobility, public safety, small businesses, renters, and quality of life very quickly. That is exactly why I think a local plan matters. The state is still requiring WeHo to plan for more housing, and SB 79 may eventually bring major density near future transit stops once the K Line moves forward. So the question becomes: do we wait and react, or do we… Read more »
Your last two paragraphs are important. It appears that the city has been repeatedly unrealistic and acted as though their options were unlimited. They failed to evaluate the true logistical value it inherited upon incorporation and did not obtain the proper guidance for its direction and growth. Impossible to be all things wished for and promised to the residents through exponential growth with an eye on revenue without providing quality of life services and allowing the city to visibly deteriorate. All these bright shiny objects have more than a steep price.
Read Mao Tse-tung, “On Practice”. “Theory” must be tempered by actual conditions and facts on the ground. Too many current “Progressives” simply don’t let real world facts get in the way of political “purity”.
Yes, I completely agree with your analysis and I’m making additional commentary on where we are as a city. Two truths can coexist in the same space. We must have a plan that reclaims as much local control as possible and TODAP can be that plan. The toxic ideologues must be called out for their intransigence that has clearly been bought and paid for by developers.
Alan, I appreciate that, and I agree that two truths can coexist. WeHo has real limits, and we still need to plan responsibly for the housing the state is requiring us to accommodate. I also think residents have every right to ask who is shaping development conversations in our city. When elected officials, candidates, developers, lobbyists, or special interests are spending time together, attending events, or socializing, transparency matters. Residents deserve to know who is in the room and what relationships may be influencing decisions. For me, the priority is simple: local control, renter protections, small business stability, transparency, and… Read more »
Just keep talking like this Kody and I will have to vote for you!!