Saving Developers from Themselves—Hunting Land vs. Poaching Land

by Tony Chavira

We take things like air and water for granted. They're both technically free resources that only require filtration and access, which both occur naturally amidst biodiversity. Land is something else that seems somewhat abundant: there always land, owned or unowned. The Southland is millions and millions of acres of land ripe for development, and there are always people willing to put their hard-earned (or ill-gotten) gains toward building a space.

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of developers in the United States today are small. They do one or two projects at a time and move on, and a lot are more than willing to work with the government or non-profits to pull together extra money for larger projects. But ask anyone who's tried from scratch and they'll tell you the same thing: it's hard to find land to develop. You either have land or you have money and means to develop, and very infrequently both.

But there are things that you can do as a developer once you grab hold of a potential investment. First (and probably the most extreme) is just to annex land. It often happens that you want to put together a development on land that you've bought, but suddenly you realize it doesn't fall under any jurisdiction and you probably need such modern amenities as electricity, gas, and running water. Developers can apply to have their land annexed into city limits and (if approved) they'll get the benefits of stuff we all take for granted, like streets, police, and firefighters.

Another option is zoning, which the city does so that people know how land can be used. Most land in America is naturally zoned for agricultural (since we were primarily a nation of farmers), but you can get zoning for just about anything nowadays, including commercial use, residential, manufacturing, etc. You can even apply for variance, which happens when you can't change the zoning for "agriculture," but the land itself is an impenetrable sheet of stone that goes down for hundreds and hundreds of feet. People who work for the city aren't going to be mean-spirited and make you grow corn on the space anyway, so variance is applied.

Lastly, there's platting (pronounced "plotting") which is basically subdividing the land to get more use out of it. If I had one full acre, I could potentially plat the land into four developments. Might sound kind of mean, but imagine buying an acre with a 700 square foot house and not being able to make the house any bigger to rent out other rooms. My neighbor with their 700 square foot house on half the land space would be able to sell his land at the same price, which totally sucks for me!

Herein lies a classic tragedy of the commons, and possibly the scariest of all possible examples. Land is ultimately a finite resource; there's only so much that can be bought and used. So developers have no choice but to scrap for any land they can find, anyway that they can find and use it. Overdevelop and the space is rows and rows of condensed apartments, with the property value plummeting and the need to knock down and rebuild spaces urgent. Underdevelop and economic growth is deterred entirely, leaving some areas (like some spaces in the San Fernando Valley) without basic amenities like sewer drainage or other public services.

So what's the solution? I personally believe that the way to prevent this is government intervention, which is why the zoning and variance processes are so important. Equally important are the development of a site plan (or details about your entire plan to develop your property), and having very clear regulations regarding attaining building permits. Both are funneled through massively long government oversight processes (and for good reason).

My bosses, Mr. Jonathan Webb and the Architects at RACAIA (including my dad) might hate to read this, but yes: several months of changes and oversight to building plans are very necessary. The government is, in fact, saving people from themselves.