Bradley Proposal Triggers Praise, Criticism : Economy: Low-cost housing advocates endorse goal, but members of business community see plan for levy on commercial construction as detrimental.

Advocates of low-income housing on Thursday cheered Mayor Tom Bradley’s eight-point housing plan as a way of injecting several million dollars into much-needed housing construction and doubling the number of apartments built each year.

But a number of critics said a proposed levy that would finance new affordable housing would further dampen the economy, and some said the mayor’s proposal was a sign of estrangement between Bradley and the business community.

The most controversial aspect of the plan is a proposed levy on commercial construction--ranging from 65 cents to $6 per square foot--aimed at raising about $30 million a year to pay for low-income and moderately priced housing.

Other parts of the plan include a proposal to waive the environmental review process on all but the largest apartment developments and an education campaign by city housing officials to soften neighborhood opposition to the construction of low-income housing.

The sharpest reaction to the mayor’s plan has come from economists, developers and other executives alarmed about the proposed levy on commercial development.

“There is a perception that Los Angeles is extremely anti-business, and this (levy) contributes to that perception,” said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. “There is a sense that the city’s agenda has shifted and that it is much more cautious as far as economic growth is concerned.”

George Mihlsten, a downtown lawyer who lobbies for real estate developers at City Hall, said he did not think Bradley was turning his back on business, but he criticized the mayor for failing to come up with “an overall game plan” that deals with all aspects of the city’s economic troubles.

“City Hall is very perplexing,” said Mihlsten. “One day there is much hand-wringing about businesses leaving because they can’t afford fees and exactions. The next day, there is a new fee.

“It’s time for the mayor to step back and look at everything together, housing, jobs, economic development. It’s time to stop addressing each one of these issues piecemeal. It sends the wrong message.”

Aides to Bradley insist that the proposed levy is necessary to find homes that the city’s work force can pay for. They argue that the levy will fall lightly on those who can least afford it--small businesses in depressed parts of town. As for pointing fingers at middle-class homeowners, Bradley’s aides contend that massive downzoning efforts by homeowner organizations during the past decade is one of the main reasons why it so hard to find land on which to build affordable apartments.

“Lack of federal money, lack of land and downzoning are the main problems,” said Michael Bodaken, the mayor’s housing coordinator.

Even critics of the mayor’s housing plan agree with Bradley that the shortage of low-cost housing is helping to cool the local economy.

Wilford D. Godbold, president of the Los Angeles-based Zero Corp. and head of a state Chamber of Commerce task force to save jobs, said the high cost of housing is a principal cause of corporate flight from California.

Godbold also said he did not think Bradley’s proposed levy was a constructive approach to the housing shortage.

“By itself, (the levy) is minimal. But when you add it up with all the other costs and regulations that business has to bear, it becomes one of the straws that is breaking the camel’s back,” Godbold said.

Godbold said the state was responsible for the lion’s share of costs imposed on businesses, but he maintained that Bradley’s proposed levy “is an indication of the direction the city has been taking.”

The levy is not without its defenders in the business community.

Nelson Rising, an executive with Maguire Thomas Partners, one of the nation’s largest commercial developers, maintained that the health of the city’s central business district requires a massive amount of housing, much of it priced for people of below-average means. “Getting housing downtown is critical,” Rising said.

In the long run, he said, the levy will not have much impact on downtown development. “A lot of developers will argue that (the levy) will drive the cost of business up, and that is true in the short run,” Rising said. But, in the future, he said, the levy will push the market value of commercial property down, allowing developers to pay less for the land.

For people such as Juanita Tate, who are involved in nonprofit housing development corporations, the mayor’s proposal was particularly welcome.

“It’s the sweetest thing since 7-Up,” said Tate, the executive director of Concerned Citizens of South-Central Los Angeles, a group that is building low-income apartments in a part of town where the need is most acute.

“If the mayor can get us that kind of financial help, it means we will be building affordable housing for the next 40 years,” Tate said.

Tate said she was also pleased that Bradley, in announcing his plan, blamed homeowners’ groups for posing the greatest opposition to affordable housing.

“Our problems all go back to the AB 283 lawsuit,” she said, referring to a suit brought by a federation of Westside and San Fernando Valley neighborhood associations that led to the rezoning of land throughout the city from multifamily to single-family designations.

However, Jerry Daniels, who headed the federation that brought the suit, said he was puzzled by the mayor’s comments about homeowners.

“To blame environmentalists and neighborhood associations for the lack of low-cost housing is ridiculous,” Daniels said. “Both as groups and as individuals, many of us have advocated affordable housing in our communities.”

“I don’t know why the mayor singled us out. It doesn’t make much political sense to strike out at groups that have been basically friendly to him,” he said.