Los Angeles Economic, Social, and Demographic Data

[saiholmes]

Businesses pinched as commercial rents soar in Southland
By Roger Vincent, Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2007



Sizzling demand for offices, warehouses and retail space is hitting Southern California and other major urban centers. That is resulting in smaller cubicles and longer commutes for workers, higher prices for consumers and closure of businesses unable to meet landlords' demands for higher rent.

Office rents have climbed more than 25% on average in the last three years in much of Los Angeles County. In some of Orange County's thriving office parks, rents have risen by more than 50% in that period, with the Irvine Spectrum posting the region's biggest average jump, at nearly 57%, according to a recent report from real estate brokerage Cushman & Wakefield.

Rents on hot retail strips such as Melrose Avenue, Rodeo Drive and Robertson Boulevard have more than doubled in the last two years.

Vacancies have plunged to well below 10% in many areas, making it harder for businesses to find space. Only 3% of the region's industrial space — used for warehouses and factories — is available, a level that is considered drastically low.

Shoe store operator Young Moon shuttered the Santa Monica branch of his O' My Sole chain in December when his rent went up and said he planned to boost prices as much as 6% at his seven other Southern California stores this year to help meet higher rent charges.

"Rents are too high," he said.

While the residential real estate market has flattened, a strong global economy is boosting demand worldwide for space for offices, warehouses, retailers and other businesses. In Southern California the market is particularly tight, in part because of a lack of available land and regulations that have made it difficult for developers to construct office or industrial buildings.

Surging international trade through the region's ports is pushing up demand for warehouses to hold and distribute goods.

In the Inland Empire, where relatively more raw land is available for construction, hundreds of thousands of square feet of warehouse and distribution buildings are being built every year — and nearly all of them are leased or sold.

"There is no historical precedent for this," said broker Jim Center of commercial real estate firm Grubb & Ellis.

Faced with a rent increase of about 60% to keep his offices near Ontario Airport, Carlos Lacambra was prompted to search for new digs to house the 160 workers at his branch of A-Check America, a business that does background checks and drug tests for employers.

After a long search, he moved the office in January into a rented building in east Riverside that he expects to eventually buy.

The move came at a cost in personnel, however. As he had feared, almost a third of his employees quit because the additional 20-mile commute from Ontario to Riverside was too far for them. He paid bonuses to some workers to stay on longer while he hired replacement employees in Riverside.

"We lost some very good people we wanted to keep," Lacambra said. The move "was a calculated risk we had to take."

Higher rents also are the result of economic redevelopment that is transforming some neighborhoods into more upscale shopping and entertainment venues. The waves of change that swept through Santa Monica and Old Pasadena years ago are now being felt in other older districts such as Hollywood, Culver City, Alhambra and downtown Los Angeles.

Shopkeepers in many of these changing retail districts are feeling pinched.

Even though the family-style Italian fare at Jay Handal's San Gennaro Cafe made it one of the most popular restaurants in Culver City, Handal shut down the eatery a few months ago when his landlord nearly tripled the rent as his lease expired.

"I couldn't afford it," he said.

Moving into San Gennaro's space will be a more upscale, all-organic restaurant run by celebrity caterer Akasha Richmond.

"There is going to be an attrition factor," said Handal, who also operates a restaurant in Brentwood. "Small business today is being squeezed out of the market. You're not going to have many family-friendly community restaurants — only big guys with deep pockets."

In Hollywood, storefront food joints as well as longtime shopkeepers who sell knickknacks to tourists are giving way to high-end bars and boutiques. An outlet of Hamburger Hamlet, a Hollywood Boulevard mainstay, closed last month and will be replaced by trendy Swedish apparel retailer H&M.

Neighborhood activists will rally next week in Larchmont Village to try to prevent the loss of a popular restaurant and other local businesses threatened by rising rents.

In Culver City, the city spent more than $60 million over the last decade on public improvements largely intended to attract new restaurants and businesses, said Kellee Fritzal, economic development administrator.

The plan appears to have worked. Demand among merchants is high enough that average store rents have jumped from $1.85 per square foot per month to $4.50 in the last three years.

Rents across the region are going higher for other reasons too. Because property values have been rising with increased sales, property taxes have more than doubled on many buildings in recent years. Most leases allow landlords to pass those higher costs along to tenants.

Rents also are rising because investors with deep pockets have scooped up vast collections of buildings with the expectation that businesses will continue to expand and values will continue to rise. Just last month, for example, Los Angeles developer Maguire Properties Inc. announced it would pay almost $2.9 billion for 24 office buildings in Orange County and downtown Los Angeles. Maguire and other buyers are expected to raise rents to recoup some of their investments.

Maguire executive Bill Flaherty predicted that landlords in downtown L.A. office buildings would soon boost rents by double digits, following a pattern set in the last two years as available office space dwindled in Orange and San Diego counties.

"When rents increase, they increase in a spike," Flaherty said. "Absolutely, rents are going to go up."

Rents here are still lower than in such dense urban centers as New York, San Francisco, London and Tokyo. But that is no consolation for businesses such as Blue Shield of California. Facing a rent increase, the health insurer decided to leave its prominent tower along the San Diego Freeway in Westchester for less expensive offices nearby on Sepulveda Boulevard by June. The move will save 30% in real estate costs over the next seven years, Blue Shield spokeswoman Elise Anderson said.

"We are a not-for-profit industry, and with rising healthcare costs, every penny matters, even our real estate overhead," she said.

For landlords in the months ahead, the trick will be to figure out how high they can raise rents before tenants shun their buildings. Brokers said some landlords might have to lower their asking prices in a few months if they don't find enough tenants willing to pay the new rates.

"The market will take care of itself," said broker Rafael Padilla at Par Commercial. And some tenants are never going to be happy, he added. "I have yet to meet a tenant who is not complaining about what they are paying."

[Fern~Fern*]

Good Bye Mom & Pop joints....

[saiholmes]

U-Haul Names Los Angeles as Top 2006 Destination

PHOENIX, March 14, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) (PRIMEZONE) -- U-Haul, celebrating more than 60 years of serving the do-it-yourself household moving industry, today released results of the 2006 U-Haul National Migration Trend Report titled "Top 50 U.S. Destination Cities Report." According to moving data reflective of nationwide statistics for calendar year 2006, Los Angeles takes the No. 1 spot, while Houston remained in number two position for the second year in a row. Atlanta, Ga. ranked No. 3, while Chicago, Ill. dropped to fourth, down from last year's top rank. Sacramento, Calif. followed in fifth place, down three spots from last year's ranking. Orlando, Phoenix, Dallas, Baltimore and Tampa rounded out the top 10.

U-Haul President John "J.T." Taylor said, "Over the past 60 years U-Haul has built a long and proud history of relocating Americans. Now more than ever, consumers are relying on U-Haul to provide affordable services. We are proud to be able to offer an economical way for families to move."

The ranking reflects destinations for movers traveling more than 50 miles, and considers every city in the country, regardless of size. However, the data is not stated as a percentage of population and is not reflective of overall growth.

The 2006 Top 50 U.S. Destination Cities Report was compiled from over 1.62 million

U-Haul transactions occurring between Jan.1 and Dec. 31, 2006.

Since 1945, U-Haul has been the undisputed choice for the do-it-yourself mover, with a network of more than 15,400 locations in all 50 United States and 10 Canadian provinces.

U-Haul has the largest truck rental fleet in the world, with more than 93,000 trucks, 80,675 trailers and 33,500 towing devices. U-Haul also has been a leader in the storage industry since 1974, with more than 380,000 rooms and more than 33.5 million square feet of storage space at more than 1,050 owned and managed facilities throughout North America. U-Haul is the consumer's number one choice as the largest installer of permanent trailer hitches in the automotive aftermarket industry, and is the largest distributor of propane across North America.

Note to editors: The annual mileage of North American U-Haul trucks would move a family to the moon and back more than seven times per day, every day of the year.


U-Haul Top 50 U.S. Destination Cities*
January - December 2006

1. LOS ANGELES, Calif. 26. WASHINGTON, D.C.
2. HOUSTON, Texas 27. ANAHEIM, Calif.
3. ATLANTA, Ga. 28. KANSAS CITY, Mo.
4. CHICAGO, Ill. 29. SAN ANTONIO, Texas
5. SACRAMENTO, Calif. 30. NASHVILLE, Tenn.
6. ORLANDO, Fla. 31. COLUMBUS, Ohio
7. PHOENIX, Ariz. 32. FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.
8. DALLAS, Texas 33. INDIANAPOLIS, Ind.
9. BALTIMORE, Md. 34. NEW ORLEANS, La.
10. TAMPA, Fla. 35. BOSTON, Mass.
11. DENVER, Colo. 36. SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.
12. JACKSONVILLE, Fla. 37. PITTSBURGH, Pa.
13. DETROIT, Mich. 38. RALEIGH, N.C.
14. PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 39. BROOKLYN, N.Y.
15. LAS VEGAS, Nev. 40. OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla.
16. SEATTLE, Wash. 41. MANHATTAN, N.Y.
17. MIAMI, Fla. 42. CINCINNATI, Ohio
18. SAN DIEGO, Calif. 43. FAYETTEVILLE, Ark.
19. PORTLAND, Ore. 44. TUCSON, Ariz.
20. SAN JOSE, Calif. 45. RIVERSIDE, Calif.
21. FALLS CHURCH, Va. 46. FREDERICKSBURG, Va.
22. FORT WORTH, Texas 47. VAN NUYS, Calif.
23. AUSTIN, Texas 48. MEMPHIS, Tenn.
24. CHARLOTTE, N.C. 49. NORFOLK, Va.
25. RICHMOND, Va. 50. SAINT LOUIS, Mo.


* Data compiled from over 1.62 million transactions from January -
December, 2006.

[saiholmes]

L.A. plan could raise stakes for condo projects
The council tentatively approves a proposal to double and triple payouts to tenants evicted for conversions.
By Steve Hymon and Francisco Vara-Orta, Times Staff Writers
April 5, 2007



After hearing from a nearly packed chamber of feisty tenants and anxious landlords, the Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday voted to dramatically raise the relocation fees that condominium developers must pay before kicking out residents of rent-controlled apartments.

The move, which doubled some and nearly tripled other current fees, marked a significant escalation in the condo conversion wars that have swept the city over the last five years — particularly on the pricey Westside — as a dwindling stock of affordable housing has been rapidly outpaced by a growing middle-class population.

Even after more than three hours of debate, several council members acknowledged that the city still needs a broader housing policy and must build more units.

"I can name a lot of people who in all honestly, even with relocation fees, will not be able to move and live in the same community that they have for years," Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said. "And that's what gets to our heartstrings."

Putting a human face on the debate were dozens of tenants who spent the day at City Hall. Among them was Esther Escamilla, who lives with her husband and two children west of downtown in a $466-a-month apartment slated for conversion. Her husband makes only about $600 a month buying used cars and selling the parts.

"Our whole life is rooted here," said Escamilla, 42. "My kids are used to going to the schools in the area. My husband and I love living here…. We can barely make ends meet as it is. They told us there is nothing we can do."

The public testimony reached an apex when Hollywood resident Kerby Norris — soon to be forced from her apartment — tearfully pleaded "Help me!" to the council as she clutched the hand of her 9-year-old, Matthew.

The council voted 9 to 5 for the new fees, which range from $6,810 to $17,080. They all agreed the fees should be raised, but were divided because the new law would allow developers to adjust relocation fee amounts based on variables such as age, length of tenancy and income. Voting against were Greuel, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Tom LaBonge and Bill Rosendahl.

Landlords and developers had lobbied for that provision, fearing they might have to pay a high set fee to tenants who could afford to accept less.

About 61% of L.A. residents are renters, and there are about 600,000 rent-controlled units in the city. About 12,000 apartments have been converted to condos or demolished since 2001, with the Westside and the area around Studio City hardest hit. Tenant complaints reached such a pitch last year that the council agreed to look at policies that might slow the pace without discouraging development.

Los Angeles has had a law on the books since 1981 that allows the council to deny a condo conversion permit based on several conditions. After city lawyers told the council last year they weren't enforcing the law because of concerns over its legality, the council ordered them to begin using it.

In deciding to set fees based partly on a tenant's income, the council majority ignored protests from the city's planning chief, housing chief and members of the Planning Commission, all of whom supported a simpler, fixed structure.

Planning Director Gail Goldberg, for example, said that when she ran the planning agency in San Diego, officials decided to get rid of the so-called means-based approach because it was difficult to administer and mediate tenant-landlord disputes.

Because the fee hikes did not pass with at least 10 votes, a second vote will be required next week. The measure is expected to again pass.

The current relocation fees are $3,450 for most tenants and $8,550 for those who are 62 or over, disabled or have minor dependent children. If the law is approved next week and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signs it, the new fees would take effect in late May. A Villaraigosa spokesman said that the mayor won't decide whether to sign the law until the second council vote.

The fee hikes approved Wednesday are:

‧ $6,810 to tenants who have lived in their apartments less than five years (or $14,850 for those older, disabled or with minor children).

‧ $9,040 to tenants who have lived in their apartments more than five years (or $17,080 for those older, disabled or with minor children).

‧ From $9,040 to $17,080 to tenants whose income is 80% or below the area's median income — $55,450 for a family of four, regardless of the length of tenancy.

Under the new plan, building owners will be required to hire relocation assistance providers to ensure tenants get the proper amount. Developers would pay a fee to cover the cost of disputes the city ends up mediating.

Councilman Herb Wesson said the new fees were a good compromise because tenants and building owners each got some of what they wanted.

"Generally, when that happens it's a sign that you're close to doing the right thing," he said.

Also Wednesday, council members delayed voting on a law that would give them the power to slow condo conversions by denying developers a permit to demolish buildings.

Last summer Councilman Bill Rosendahl asked for a moratorium on conversions in his 11th District, which includes the hot real estate markets of Brentwood, West Los Angeles, Venice, Playa del Rey and Pacific Palisades. Rosendahl's motion has yet to be scheduled for a hearing in the housing committee.

Among developers, response to the fee increases has been mixed. Some building owners have complained loudly that rent control keeps them from making any money, and the higher fees are so burdensome they won't be able to convert to condos. Others, however, said the new assessment system would prevent developers from having to give large amounts of money to short-term tenants.

Kate Bartolo, a vice president in the development firm the Kor Group, said the new system is very fair and will serve more of the city's neediest residents.

"We're trying to give more money to people who stayed [in rent-controlled apartments] longer because they are the ones who are going to have the biggest sticker shock when trying to find a new apartment," she said.

Goldberg, the city's planning chief, said the solution probably involves providing incentives to developers to build apartments for the middle class.

Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, believes the new fees are a plus for low-income tenants, but the city should do more to preserve existing affordable housing until more is created.

"Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels," he said.

Also attending was Kathryn Mendelson, 61, who has lived for 27 years in a Silver Lake apartment near Glendale Boulevard and Waverly Drive.

The building was sold last year, and Mendelson is being evicted from her $624-a-month unit. She is mildly hopeful that the higher relocation fees will help her buy a home.

"Silver Lake is a hot spot, and the owners know that they can get a lot of money for it," she said.

"Developers are going to have to stop gouging tenants," she said, "and tenants have to understand that the landlords are under a lot of pressure to not only make ends meet, but get a profit to meet market price demands."

Relocation fees

To help tenants move from rent-controlled units, landlords would pay them:

‧ From $6,810 to $14,650 if they lived there less than five years.
‧ From $9,040 to $17,080 if they lived there more than five years.
‧ From $9,040 to $17,080 if their income is 80% or less of $55,450 for a family of four.

[saiholmes]

Developer says housing policy is a fixer-upper
The challenge to L.A.'s affordable-unit demand may trigger more fights.
By Amanda Covarrubias, Times Staff Writer
April 7, 2007

Los Angeles' push to have developers set aside portions of new residential projects for below-market-rate housing is facing a showdown at City Hall this month, with the outcome likely to shape the city's future housing policy.

In recent years, Los Angeles has gradually increased the percentage of units that developers must set aside for moderate-income residents.

Now, a developer is pushing back after the city ordered it to reserve 25% of the 438 units planned at a Warner Center apartment complex — the largest set-aside the city has ever required.

The resolution of the issue could have major implications not only for city policy, but, ultimately, also for the availability of housing for middle-class workers.

The average monthly rent in the city has nearly doubled in the last 12 years and now stands at about $1,700. About 13,000 below-market housing units were built in L.A. over the last six years.

But during that same period, about 11,000 below-market apartments were either torn down or converted into condos, according to a study by the Southern California Assn. of Non-Profit Housing.

The idea behind the city's "inclusionary housing" rules, officials say, is to allow people who work in an area but might not be able to afford market rents — such as teachers, shopping mall employees and police officers — to live near their jobs.

When a development opens, the first renters for the below-market units must work nearby and meet the economic qualifications.

Last year the City Council approved an ordinance requiring new housing developments in the fast-growing Warner Center area of the west San Fernando Valley to set aside 25% of the units.

Councilman Dennis Zine, who represents the area, said the goal was to prevent Warner Center from turning into "another Century City," where many people who work in the office towers, schools and shops cannot afford to live nearby.

"We've got to maintain the livelihoods for working people so they don't have to move to Lancaster and Palmdale and spend $2 to $3 a gallon on gas to drive the freeways every day," he said. "It's a quality-of-life issue. I want hard-working people to be able to afford a residence in Los Angeles."

Average rents in Warner Center range from about $1,800 to $2,200 a month. Under the city's rules, units set aside for inclusionary housing in the district would rent for $1,463 for a one-bedroom unit and $1,674 for a two-bedroom.

But Simms Commercial Development is demanding that the city reduce the 25% requirement, arguing that it is onerous and that officials have never proved that such set-asides reduce traffic. Additionally, Simms wants L.A. to drop a $1-million fee for the project that the city would use to lessen the impact of traffic the development is expected to generate.

The developer said setting aside such a large portion of the complex for below-market housing sets a bad precedent.

"If they do 25% in Warner Center, then they can do 25% … in other areas of the city," said Ben Reznick, an attorney for Simms. "Economically, it's more bearable if you do 10% of a project. Then it can still be done."

Housing advocates and some council members worry that if Simms prevails, it will prompt other developers to challenge their workplace housing requirements.

"It's going to send the wrong message and make it harder for those who look at the bigger picture and who are trying to provide affordable housing in this city," said Councilman Ed Reyes, who represents parts of the Eastside.

Two years ago, Reyes proposed a citywide inclusionary housing policy that would have required developers to set aside some below-market units in most new apartment and condo complexes. But the idea stalled amid opposition from developers and others.

So today officials consider inclusionary housing set-asides primarily on a development-by-development basis (there are a few places where specific percentages are required, including parts of downtown and coastal areas). In some cases, the city encourages builders to reserve more units for below-market rents by allowing them greater density for their projects, said Jane Blumenfeld, principal city planner.

Some projects have as little as 5% of units set aside. But most new larger downtown L.A. housing projects must include 20% affordable housing.

Two highly publicized projects — the Hollywood & Vine mixed-use development and the Grand Avenue Project designed by Frank Gehry — have a 20% set-aside.

Affordable housing has become an issue in many parts of L.A. in recent years. Workers in some of the city's more affluent areas, such as the Westside and West Valley, complain that they cannot afford to live near their workplaces, forcing them into punishing commutes.

Wrestling with the ongoing affordable-housing problem, the City Council earlier this week approved sweeping new rules designed to aid renters who lose their apartments when the owners convert them to condos.

The reduced-rate housing in Warner Center would be available to people earning 120% or less of the county's median family income, which is roughly $58,000 for a single person and $83,000 for a family of four.

But in its appeal to the City Council, Simms questions whether the set-asides would actually reduce traffic. The developer noted that under the rules, any units that are unoccupied after four months can be rented to anyone who meets the income requirements, regardless of where they work.

Councilman Jack Weiss, who sits on the planning and land use committee, said the developer might have a point.

"I'm a strong supporter of additional affordable housing in Los Angeles," said Weiss, who represents parts of the West Valley and Westside. "But it would hurt the cause if the city did something contrary to the law and later it was overturned by a court."

Some housing advocates believe a lot is riding on the outcome of the Warner Center fight.

If Simms prevails, "one would have to question all the talk about needing to produce affordable housing in the city as hollow words," said Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, an advocate for low-income housing.

Reznick, the attorney for Simms, said the debate is about whether the city is trying to boost its affordable housing numbers on the backs of developers.

He said other builders support the appeal but are "afraid to speak up" for fear that their projects will be jeopardized.

If the City Council approves Simms' request, Zine said, he will push for a moratorium on new development in Warner Center until a new specific plan for the office, apartment and shopping district is completed.

"We're asking developers to have a little compassion and not build, build, build," he said.

[saiholmes]

Safest Cities in the Nation

The FBI says the safest place in the country is Irvine, down in Orange County. The FBI measured violent crime rates in cities with more than 100, 000 residents.
For the third year in a row Irvine came out on top. Compared to 2005, violent crimes there dropped by 17%.
Four other California cities made the top 10 list; Sunnyvale came in fifth, Thousand Oaks is seventh, Simi Valley is ninth, and finally is Santa Clara at number 10.

[CITYofDREAMS]

Originally Posted by saiholmes

Safest Cities in the Nation

The FBI says the safest place in the country is Irvine, down in Orange County. The FBI measured violent crime rates in cities with more than 100, 000 residents.
For the third year in a row Irvine came out on top. Compared to 2005, violent crimes there dropped by 17%.
Four other California cities made the top 10 list; Sunnyvale came in fifth, Thousand Oaks is seventh, Simi Valley is ninth, and finally is Santa Clara at number 10.

Good to know that we have some of the safest cities in our metro.

[godblessbotox]

so whats the worst?

[CITYofDREAMS]

Probably Compton...

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

nope, Compton is not the worst. its usually Gary Indiana, East St. Louis, somewhere in Miami or in New jersey.

[godblessbotox]

no no, i mean in greater los angeles

[CITYofDREAMS]

Then I'am almost sure it's Compton.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

oh in that case, i guess it would be. although its not THAT Bad, ive been there during the evening for work and it wasnt horrible, still wouldnt want to live there, but i think its exaggerated a bit.

[CITYofDREAMS]

I agree I worked there for 2 1/2 years and it's not that bad... Of course it's not a place I would live either.

[saiholmes]

World's most expensive cities
Moscow wins again, with London as runner up. New York drops five places to No. 15, while San Francisco plunges 20 places to No. 54, according to Mercer's 2007 survey.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
June 18 2007: 5:01 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If your boss wants to transfer you to Moscow this year, he'd better offer you a fair sum to do so - or even a downright handsome one depending on where you live now. That's because Moscow has just been designated the world's most expensive city for the second year in a row by Mercer Human Resource Consulting.

Using the cost of living in New York as a base, Mercer determined Moscow is 34.4 percent more expensive after taking into account the cost of housing, transportation, food, clothing, household goods and entertainment.

World's most expensive cities 2007
1. Moscow
2. London
3. Seoul
4. Tokyo
5. Hong Kong
6. Copenhagen
7. Geneva
8. Osaka
9. Zurich
10. Oslo
11. Milan
12. St. Petersburg (Russia)
13. Paris
14. Singapore
15. New York City
16. Dublin
17. Tel Aviv
18. Rome
19. Vienna
20. Beijing
Source:Mercer

"The appreciation of the ruble against the U.S. dollar, combined with ever-increasing accommodation charges, has driven up costs for expatriates in Moscow," Mercer research manager Nathalie Constantin-Metral said in a statement.

A luxury two-bedroom in Moscow now rents for $4,000 a month; a CD costs $24.83, and an international newspaper, $6.30, according to Mercer. By comparison, a fast food meal with a burger is a steal at $4.80.

London takes the No. 2 spot, up from No. 5 a year ago, thanks to higher rents and a stronger British pound relative to the dollar. Mercer estimates London is 26 percent more expensive than Gotham these days.

Following closely on London's heels are Seoul and Tokyo -- Nos. 3 and 4, respectively -- both of which are 22 percent more expensive than New York, while No. 5 Hong Kong is 19 percent more costly.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Asuncion in Paraguay is ranked as the world's least expensive city for the fifth year running. Mercer estimates that to live in Asuncion costs half as much as it does to live in New York.

Among North American cities, New York and Los Angeles are the most expensive and are the only two to rank in the top 50 of the world's most expensive cities. But both have fallen in their rankings since last year's survey -- New York came in 15th, down from 10th place, while Los Angeles fell to 42nd from 29th place a year ago. San Francisco came in a distant third at No. 54, down 20 places from a year earlier.

Toronto, meanwhile, ranks as Canada's most expensive city but fell 35 places to take 82nd place worldwide.

In Latin America, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are still the most expensive cities, coming in at Nos. 62 and 64 worldwide. In Australasia, Sydney is the priciest place to live and ranks No. 21 worldwide. In the Middle East, Tel Aviv takes the cake, coming in at No. 17 globally, while in Africa, Accra in Ghana will cost you the most. It ranks No. 76 worldwide.

[saiholmes]

Irvine among the fastest-growing cities in the nation
Four Southland cities make the list, according to the latest census numbers.
By Anna Gorman, Times Staff Writer
June 28, 2007

Seven California communities made this year's ranking of the 25 fastest-growing big cities in the country, according to statistics released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Lancaster ranked 10th in the country, with a population of nearly 141,000 — up 5% over the previous year.

"We're really the last area in L.A. County that has space to grow," said Steve Malicott, president and chief executive of the Antelope Valley Chambers of Commerce. "We have room and a lot of it."

Other cities on the list included Bakersfield, Visalia, Irvine, Fontana, Elk Grove and Palmdale.

The statistics are based on residential construction in cities with populations of 100,000 or more from July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006, said Greg Harper, a Census Bureau demographer.

Lancaster city officials said affordable homes and a business-friendly environment have fueled the rapid growth.

"When you look at us overall, we pretty much have it going on," said Mayor Henry Hearns, who also is a pastor at a church east of Palmdale. "The word has gotten out. People who want to move out to California think that this is a good place to raise a family."

Lancaster has numerous sports fields. And it is well placed for recreation, with the beach, mountains, ski resorts and desert all within a two-hour drive.

City officials are holding town hall meetings and inviting residents to give their input on the area's future.

Among the goals are to continue reducing crime and to attract more high-paying jobs, so that tens of thousands of residents will not have to commute from the Antelope Valley to jobs elsewhere in Los Angeles County.

"If we can keep those people here and off the highways, their quality of life will be better," Malicott said.

Though several of the fastest-growing cities were in Southern California, a few were in the Central Valley and one was in the northern part of the state.

Elk Grove, a community near Sacramento that ranked first last year, was 24th.

"The lower the better," Mayor James Cooper joked.

The city has a population of more than 129,000, up more than 3% over the previous year. Cooper said it has been difficult keeping up with new residents moving into the city. In a unique effort, the streets, parks and schools of one new community are being built before the homes.

"Developers didn't like it, but the public did," Cooper said.

He said the area is very popular with families. More than 15,000 children participate in youth sports, he said. In fact, he said, residents have complained that there are too few city parks with sports fields.

The rapid growth in Bakersfield, with a population of more than 308,000, also has created challenges, City Manager Alan Tandy said. About 3,600 homes were constructed last year, he said, straining the city's roads and schools.

Tandy said the city received a large federal grant earmarked for transportation projects two years ago and was developing a loop freeway system around the city to alleviate congestion. The schools and the city had to charge the residents additional fees to help cover costs.

Nevertheless, Tandy said, the city welcomes newcomers and has opened a sports arena and an outdoor amphitheater, as well as approving new restaurants, to make the area more livable.

"There has been a lingering reputation that we have had since the 1950s," he said. "It's no longer accurate…. We have actually become a very desirable community."

--

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Fastest-growing U.S. cities

Seven California cities ranked among the fastest-growing in the U.S., according to the latest census numbers.

Population estimates for cities with more than 100,000 people.
Population Percent increase
Rank City 7/1/06 since 7/1/05
1 North Las Vegas, Nev. 197,567 11.9%
2 McKinney, Texas 107,530 11.1
3 Port St. Lucie, Fla. 143,868 9.9
4 Cape Coral, Fla. 151,389 8.1
5 Gilbert, Ariz. 191,517 7.8
6 Grand Prairie, Texas 153,812 6.6
7 Peoria, Ariz. 142,024 5.8
8 Cary, N.C. 112,414 5.1
9 Denton, Texas 109,561 5.1
10 Lancaster 140,804 5.0
11 Fort Worth 653,320 4.8
12 Joliet, Ill. 142,702 4.8
13 Miami 404,048 4.5
14 Bakersfield 308,392 4.3
15 Raleigh, N.C. 356,321 3.9
16 Chandler, Ariz. 240,595 3.8
17 Baton Rouge, La. 229,553 3.8
18 Henderson, Nev. 240,614 3.7
19 Visalia, Calif. 113,487 3.7
20 Irvine 193,956 3.5
21 Fontana 170,099 3.4
22 Orlando, Fla. 220,186 3.3
23 Laredo, Texas 215,484 3.1
24 Elk Grove, Calif. 129,184 3.1
25 Palmdale 138,790 3.1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

[saiholmes]

Listing of $125 Million
Could Set U.S. Record

By Ben Casselman
From The Wall Street Journal Online

A Los Angeles mansion modeled on Versailles and other French palaces has just gone on the market for $125 million, tying it for second place among available U.S. properties.

Suzanne Saperstein, the recently divorced wife of Texas millionaire David I. Saperstein, owns the 45,000-square-foot estate, known as Fleur de Lys. Records indicate the couple bought the roughly five-acre lot near Beverly Hills in the 1990s and spent five years building the home. It has Italian marble walls, French limestone floors, gold-embossed leather wall coverings and gold-leaf crowned moldings, according to the property listing. Rooms include a ballroom with ceiling frescoes, a library with a first-edition book collection, two kitchens and a screening room with seating for 50. A pool house has a full kitchen, a massage room and a gym. Also on the property: a three-bedroom manager's house, staff quarters for 10, a nine-car garage and a 3/4-mile jogging track.

Suzanne Saperstein is asking $125 million for her 45,000-square-foot Los Angeles estate. The asking price ties it for second place among currently listed U.S. properties.

Ms. Saperstein, 46 years old, recently finalized her divorce from Mr. Saperstein, who founded Metro Networks, the nation's largest provider of traffic reports until its sale to Westwood One in 1999 for $900 million in stock.

The listing's price tag is lower than Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan's ranch in Aspen, Colo., listed for $135 million, but matches Donald Trump's $125 million listing for a Palm Beach mansion. The price easily exceeds California's previous record for a listing price, $75 million, currently held by two Los Angeles-area properties. A deal for Ms. Saperstein's home could break the record for a U.S. single-family house, believed to be financier Ronald Perelman's 2005 sale of his Palm Beach estate for about $70 million.

Joyce Rey, head of Coldwell Banker's Previews division, and Robert Kass of Windermere Real Estate have the listing.

[saiholmes]

ON THE MARKET: THE BEVERLY HOUSE, FORMER MANSION OF NEWSPAPER TYCOON WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST AND ACT
$165,000,000
Beverly Hills listing most expensive in nation
By Annette Haddad, Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2007

The rich are getting richer, and their properties are getting pricier.

The 1920s-era Beverly Hills mansion of William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies was put on the market Monday for $165 million, making it the nation's most expensive residential listing.

The pink stucco, H-shaped estate, dubbed Beverly House by the late newspaper magnate, is spread across 6.5 acres north of Sunset Boulevard. It has just about everything a billionaire could want — including three swimming pools, 29 bedrooms, a state-of-the-art movie theater and even a disco.

The compound boasts six separate residences — four houses, an apartment and a cottage for the security staff.

"This is the kind of home that comes on the market once in a generation," said Jeff Hyland, a Beverly Hills real estate broker and author of "The Estates of Beverly Hills."

The seller, attorney-investor Leonard M. Ross, bought the property in 1976 and is now seeking "a lifestyle change," said his real estate broker, Stephen Shapiro.

The asking price surpasses the $155 million being sought by developers of an estate in Montana's Big Sky country, and the $135-million price of an Aspen, Colo., compound being sold by Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia.

In the last two years, six U.S. residences have come on the market with nine-digit price tags, according to Rick Goodwin, publisher of Ultimate Homes magazine, an annual compendium of the world's hottest properties.

Yet, so far, no U.S. home sale has broken the $100-million mark. (None of the six noted by Goodwin has sold.) The record remains the $94 million paid by former telecom mogul Gary Winnick for a Bel-Air estate in 2001.

"It's only a matter of time" before the record falls, Goodwin predicted.

With its breathtaking asking price, the latest Beverly Hills listing adds more luster to the region's Platinum Triangle, the neighborhoods of Beverly Hills, Bel-Air and Holmby Hills, where the pace of multimillion-dollar sales has outshone the rest of Southern California's slumping housing market.

From January to May, the number of homes in the Platinum Triangle that sold for at least $10 million more than doubled compared with the year-earlier period. In contrast, Los Angeles County overall saw a 19% decline in sales for the same period.

New homeowners in the Platinum Triangle include actor Tom Cruise and his actress wife, Katie Holmes, Amazon.com Chief Executive Jeff Bezos and soccer star David Beckham and his wife, Spice Girl Victoria Beckham.

Experts say the high-end trend reflects the growing ranks of the wealthy, who so far have been immune from the troubles besetting the lower rungs of the housing market.

"There are many more people with much more money, and they are all chasing the elusive 'great estate' that is hard to find," said Shapiro, co-owner of Westside Estate Agency. "And they are especially hard to find in an area like this that's completely built out."

Built in 1927 for banker Milton Getz, the estate was designed by Gordon Kaufmann. Kaufmann was also the architect of the nearby Greystone mansion, considered by many to be the finest home in Beverly Hills.

Hearst bought the Getz property in 1947, paying about $120,000. He promptly moved in his paramour, Davies, as well as life-size paintings of the actress and statues from the gardens of his landmark Hearst Castle in San Simeon.

The power couple were renowned for their frequent parties attended by the toast of Hollywood, politicians and media bigwigs.

But Hearst's time at the compound was short-lived. He died there in 1951 at the age of 88.

Davies married movie extra Horace Brown 10 weeks after Hearst's death and continued to play host to the glitterati.

John F. Kennedy and his bride, Jacqueline, spent part of their honeymoon at the estate in 1953, and later returned when the mansion was used as the West Coast headquarters for Kennedy's presidential campaign.

Davies died in 1961 and Brown subdivided and sold the property in 1966.

Ross, the current owner, bought it in 1976 and restored the structures, gardens, fountains and bought back some of the subdivided acreage.

The estate was used in the film "The Godfather," including for a scene in which a movie producer awakens to find a severed horse's head in his bed.

The house was on the market 20 years ago with an asking price of $25 million, one of the highest listings of the time, but was taken off the market without being sold.

Until Monday, the highest-priced local listing was the $125 million sought for the Beverly Hills estate known as Fleur de Lys, which came on the market in April and is located a mile from the former Hearst mansion.

"It's nice to see L.A. get into the high-end luxury game this way," Goodwin said. "L.A. has not only just become the game but is the leading player."

Still, Goodwin said he was holding off any celebration until there was a "sold" sign in sight. It's not unusual for multimillion-dollar properties to take years to find the right buyer.

"It's all fun and interesting, but the real excitement will be the day when something sells for $100 million or more," he said.

--

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Homes with prices through the roof

--

The priciest home listings in the United States:

$165 million: Beverly House, the Beverly Hills estate built in 1927 and once owned by newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst



$155 million: 32,000-square-foot lodge dubbed the Pinnacle under construction on 160 acres in Big Sky, Mont.

$135 million: Aspen, Colo., vacation home of Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former ambassador to the U.S.

$125 million: Palatial estate known as Fleur de Lys in Holmby Hills

$125 million: Six-acre oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Fla., owned by Donald Trump

$100 million: 210-acre Nevada property with its own

private trout-filled lake and views of Lake Tahoe

[saiholmes]

60 million Californians by mid-century
Riverside will become the second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic group, study says.
By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara Lin, Times Staff Writers
July 10, 2007

Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday.

California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development.

But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined.

Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market.

"It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state."

Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state.

If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today.

And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C.

Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties.

L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century.

Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates.

But many residents face agonizingly long commutes to work in other areas. And Monday, the state's growth projections raised some concerns in the Inland Empire.

Registered nurse Fifi Bo moved from Los Angeles to Corona nine years ago so she could buy a house and avoid urban congestion. But she'd consider moving even farther east now that Riverside County is grappling with its own crowding problems.

"But where am I going? People used to move to Victorville, but [housing prices in] Victorville already got high," the 36-year-old said as she fretted about traffic and smog and public services stretched thin. "We don't know where to go. Maybe Arizona."

John Husing, an economist who studies the Inland Empire, is betting that even in land-rich Riverside County, more vertical development is on the horizon. Part of the reason: a multi-species habitat conservation plan that went into effect in 2005, preserving 550,000 acres of green space that otherwise would have vanished.

"The difficult thing will be for anybody who likes where they live in Riverside County because it's rural," Husing said. "In 2050, you might still find rural out by Blythe, but other than that, forget rural."

Husing predicts that growth will be most dramatic beyond the city of Riverside as the patches of empty space around communities such as Palm Springs, Perris and Hemet begin to fill in with housing tracts. The Coachella Valley, for example, will become fully developed and seem like less of a distinct area outside of Riverside, he said. "It'll be desert urban, but it'll be urban. Think of Phoenix," he said.

Expect a lot of the new development in Riverside County to go up along the 215 Freeway between Perris and Murrieta, according to Riverside County Planning Director Ron Goldman. Thousands of homes have popped up in that area in the last decade, and Goldman said applications for that area indicate condominiums are next. The department is so busy that he's hiring 10 people who'll start in the next month.

"We have over 5,000 active development applications in processing right now," he said.

No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads.

[saiholmes]

County's property tax rolls hit $1-trillion mark
By Susannah Rosenblatt, Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2007

Steady single-family home sales last year amid the Los Angeles area's limited mid-priced housing supply helped push the county's property tax assessment rolls over the $1-trillion mark for the first time, officials said in a report to be released today.

The county's 2006 assessed value grew by 9.3%, or $88 billion, over the previous year, despite widespread anxiety over a real estate slowdown.

The increase — above the county's average annual growth of about 7% in the last three decades — "kind of reinforces that property values in Los Angeles County are really not going down, and are at least stable at this point in time," Assessor Rick Auerbach said.

The bulging county coffers mean more money for city, county and school programs, Auerbach said.

However, a sluggish overall real estate market dampened growth of the county's assessed value, compared with the previous year's increase of 11%, Auerbach said.

"It's the year-to-year [changes] in the long term you always have to keep your eye on," said David E. Janssen, the county's chief executive.

Swelling property tax revenue enables the county to be more competitive in hiring nurses, sheriff's deputies and other hard-to-fill posts, add jail beds and expand anti-gang efforts, Janssen said.

"It does fund modest increases in a number of high-priority areas," he said. He expects the downward trend in property tax assessment growth to continue, projecting a 5% increase next year.

Auerbach noted that, under 1978's Proposition 13, a home in California is reassessed only when purchased by a new owner or new construction on the property takes place. Last year, each property that changed hands in the county led to an average increase of $356,000 in assessed value, more than in 2005.

"The economy is really good in Los Angeles County, especially when you compare it to other parts of California," Auerbach said. "This year we're just not feeling that same slowdown."

However, 2006 information "still reflects the last of the boom in real estate," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. "It also reflects a red hot" commercial real estate market, he said, even as home sales have come to a "crashing halt" compared with the boom of several years ago.

The cooling of the housing market at the end of last year will probably mean the 2007 property tax rolls "won't look nearly as robust," Kyser said. He cautioned local governments not to rely too much on property tax revenue to fund public programs as real estate growth slows further.

Kyser expects that the lackluster housing market will persist through the start of 2009.

As usual, the city of Los Angeles — by far the largest in the county — had the fattest tax rolls; Long Beach, Torrance, Santa Clarita and Glendale rounded out the top five. Dramatic development in the high desert led to huge jumps in assessments for Lancaster, Palmdale and Santa Clarita.

The county's assessment rolls include 2.3 million parcels and about 300,000 pieces of business equipment, boats and airplanes. The county receives about a third of property tax revenue, cities get a quarter, school districts take 20%, and community redevelopment areas and special districts combined receive 20%.

In spite of the housing market's downturn, the county's economic future looks promising, Auerbach said. In terms of property tax assessments, he said, "We still believe there will be a substantial increase next year."

--

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Breaking a trillion

The assessed value of property in Los Angeles County increased by more than $88 billion last year, though the rate of growth was down slightly from the year before.

Los Angeles County assessed value

(In billions)

2000: $577.4
2007: $1,005.9

--

Highest valued cities

(In billions)

1. Los Angeles: $383.8
2. Long Beach: $42.0
3. Torrance: $22.2
4. Santa Clarita: $21.5
5. Glendale: $21.4
6. Santa Monica: $21.2
7. Pasadena: $18.9
8. Beverly Hills: $18.2
9. Burbank: $16.9
10. Carson: $12.7

--

Cities with greatest percent change (2006)

1. Lancaster: 21.1%
2. Paramount: 17.2%
3. Palmdale: 15.7%
4. Santa Clarita: 13.6%
5. Compton: 13.6%
6. Calabasas: 13.1%
7. Westlake Village: 12.8%
8. Hermosa Beach: 11.9%
9. Hawaiian Gardens: 11.6%
10. Hawthorne: 11.5%