ReportWire

Tag: development

  • Opinion: Will ‘all that glitters’ turn L.A.’s last solidly Black city white?

    Opinion: Will ‘all that glitters’ turn L.A.’s last solidly Black city white?

    [ad_1]

    Living in Inglewood these days is living in tension about change. Like many other places in and around L.A., its core is being transformed by development that’s become a spectacle, something I have been watching unfold with a mix of apprehension and disbelief.

    SoFi Stadium is not just a stadium, it’s become shorthand for everything else in the built world of Hollywood Park: condos, retail and the soon-to-be-completed Intuit Dome, the new home of the Clippers, which rises at the corner of Prairie Avenue and Century Boulevard like a giant, space-age basketball.

    All that glitters presses up against the neighborhoods in the last solidly Black city in the county, and while the outside world touts SoFi, etc., as progress, in Inglewood it feels very much like the reconfiguring is being done without the local population in mind.

    But not entirely.

    Gentrification in Inglewood has always worn a face of Black uplift, which is part of what causes the tension. Admittedly, that face can be gratifying. During Black History Month, SoFi featured a world-class Black art and historical-artifact exhibit, courtesy of the renowned collectors and philanthropists Bernard and Shirley Kinsey. This is an updated, enhanced version of the Kinsey exhibit that debuted in February 2023.

    Next door to SoFi, in the walkway of a new retail development that includes a luxury movie theater, there are works by the celebrated Black sculptor Alison Saar. Last year that walkway was the site of a lively weekend festival for Black-owned businesses. On the side of a building is a striking mural of a Black woman floating in water by local artist Calida Rawles. And on other walls, ads depict Black residents enjoying the amenities of a chic, prosperous new city that attracts people of all colors from all over L.A., from all over the world, as the banners along Prairie declaring “A Global Stage” suggest.

    It’s a heady vision of the future, one I would love to believe in. Every time I hurry through that walkway on my way to a movie, I marvel at museum-quality art here in the neighborhood, out in the open. It’s an upgrade I can’t argue with.

    And yet the bigger picture is not all pretty. Part of the SoFi development deal with Inglewood was a commitment to commissioning public art in and around the stadium. It’s actually required of big developments like this. The city was supposed to oversee the process, but it more or less ceded that power to the developer, just as it ceded other kinds of oversight when it fast-tracked the stadium back in 2015.

    City Hall has all along been willing to trade away almost anything for development, especially sports venues. Why? Because for way too long the city languished as what I call the South-Central of South Bay — struggling to attract even modest national chain stores because its Black and brown demographics automatically made it an undesirable market. The recession of the early 1990s compounded the problem, along with the chronic inability or unwillingness of elected officials to plan for serious change.

    SoFi was thus sold to and by City Hall as our great change agent, the thing that would finally take Inglewood from moribund to modern.

    The stadium’s engendering change all right, but the cost feels too high, destabilizing. Art is wonderful and welcome, but what Black people really need to secure their futures are affordable housing and decent schools. SoFi and all the rest secure neither. To the degree that the stadium and associated development have taken up public land in this large small city, it is actually making more affordable housing less attainable.

    It’s not all bad, of course. Notable Black business and creative spaces have been popping up in the new Inglewood, including galleries, restaurants and coffee hangs. Hilltop Café, for instance, on La Brea Avenue is co-owned by local-girl-made-good Issa Rae.

    These are the kinds of small but significant businesses that Inglewood has always had, but just not in a critical mass. Together they express the true character and promise of the city, make it a destination — in real estate marketing speak, make it “desirable.”

    Hopefully, the new desirability won’t be synonymous, as it so often is, with “white.”

    Rick Garzon, whose downtown gallery Residency recently moved to the Hollywood Park retail district close to SoFi, told me he’s confident that Inglewood will beat back the usual displacement narrative of gentrification and create a new one of real Black progress. It has the goods, he says, starting with a solid base of homeowners committed to the city who aren’t going anywhere. Development may be pressing down on us, but we won’t crumble, he says. We are changing the game.

    I would love to believe that too. I would love the corporate campaign painting Inglewood as Black and prospering on its own terms — an equal partner in this breakneck development — to be true.

    But history is against it. So is math — the economics of gentrification, intricately tied to have/have-not realities, including the racial wealth gap, virtually guarantee that new homeowners won’t be Black. The same is true of renters, who are actually the majority of Inglewood residents. The median price of a home in some Inglewood neighborhoods is nudging up to $900,000 now. That’s downright modest in L.A.’s overheated market but out of reach for the Black working-to-middle class that is the city’s foundation.

    Inglewood is a mosaic, but also one community with common needs. That fact is what makes us truly unique, a work of art — in progress. The physical art — and the art to come — accurately conveys Black power and depth. We just have to live up to the image.

    Erin Aubry Kaplan is a contributing writer to Opinion and a columnist at Truthdig.

    [ad_2]

    Erin Aubry Kaplan

    Source link

  • Chinatown coalition touts study that warns new 76ers arena could drive away neighborhoods’ businesses

    Chinatown coalition touts study that warns new 76ers arena could drive away neighborhoods’ businesses

    [ad_1]

    Opponents of the 76ers’ proposed arena in Center City released an analysis Thursday claiming to show the project could cost the city a billion dollars in tax revenue over the next several decades by destabilizing businesses in nearby neighborhoods.

    The analysis, shared by Chinatown organizers, aims to refute brighter economic projections touted by the team in its quest to gain city approval for the project on East Market Street. The 76ers called the new study “fatally flawed” and questioned the methods used by its author, who fears the city’s commissioned impact studies on the arena — which have yet to be released — will fail to capture any potential downsides of the team’s plan.

    “The idea behind this project was to try to look beyond the direct impact of the arena and try to model what might happen to the existing businesses and employees in the area,” said Arthur Acolin, the University of Washington researcher who conducted the analysis.

    The study looks at potential impacts on businesses in the 19107 ZIP code, which covers the commercial core of Chinatown, Washington Square West and Midtown Village within a mile of the proposed arena site at the Fashion District mall. The businesses in this footprint generate an estimated $296 million in city and state tax revenue each year, according to Acolin’s analysis.

    Acolin presents three hypothetical scenarios — low, median and high impact — with calculations of potential business closures and tax revenue losses during the five-year period of the arena’s construction and the first 30 years of operation.

    The economic rationale for the study is that disruptions during the construction phase will harm area businesses — some of which operate on slim margins — by discouraging people from shopping in the area, according to Acolin. And when the arena is completed, crowds for Sixers games and other events will most often spend their money on concessions and at new businesses built to complement the arena. Over time, this could threaten the survival of existing businesses to varying degrees, past research on other development projects shows. 

    Acolin completed his graduate studies in urban planning at the University of Pennsylvania and said he has remained invested in Philadelphia’s economic future. He’s been a community representative in the city’s ongoing review of the 76ers’ arena plan and previously has attended planning meetings for the Save Chinatown Coalition, but said he was not paid for his research.

    In his worst-case scenario, Acolin projects there could be a loss of more than 500 businesses and 15,000 jobs in the 19107 ZIP code. That could result in as much as $1.04 billion in lost city and state tax revenue, a figure that would offset much of the $1.472 billion in tax revenue the 76ers have claimed the arena will generate in its first 30 years for the city and state.

    “The new businesses entering bring new customers, but also drain some of the customers from the area,” Acolin said. “It’s really a substitution effect that in the Sixers’ numbers is not taken into account at all. They’re just looking at what their investment will be contributing in terms of economic activity, but not what they are taking away from the community.”

    The 76ers called Acolin’s conclusions “haphazard,” suggesting it has “half-baked theories,” errors and omissions.

    “The underlying research and citations do not actually reach the stated conclusions,” said Mark Nicastre, a spokesperson for the 76ers on the arena. “There is no explanation of how the researcher arrived at his data, assumptions, or conclusions. If it exists, we encourage the author to submit it to the city for independent analysis as we have done.”

    In the 76ers’ campaign to build their arena and residential tower, the team has committed to privately financing the $1.55 billion project. State subsidies haven’t been ruled out, but the 76ers’ proposal is otherwise an unusual example of a sports venue that ostensibly would not be dependent on significant public money — apart from a negotiated tax payment, called a PILOT agreement, that the 76ers would get on the land they lease from the city.

    The project’s financing is among the reasons the Sixers are so optimistic about their tax revenue projections related to the arena, which they say will create 1,000 permanent jobs and crucially fill the impending void of created by the Fashion District mall’s decline.

    Acolin and the Chinatown organizers contend that the 76ers and the city have not examined any of the potential negative impacts of an arena on small and mid-size businesses in the area. They say there has been too little transparency around the methods behind the impact studies done by the 76ers’ consultants and by the firms chosen to lead the city’s arena impact studies, which are paid for by the team and overseen by the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corp.

    “It is hard to tell given the lack of details, but from what I have seen, they do not claim to model changes in surrounding activity as part of their tax estimates,” Acolin said. “If they do, they should make it clear and break down how much is coming from (the arena’s) economic activity and how much is coming from what they anticipate to be the impact on existing businesses.” 

    PIDC did not respond Thursday to a request for information about when the city’s impact studies will be released and whether they will have data that answer questions similar to Acolin’s research. A spokesperson for City Councilmember Mark Squilla, whose 1st District covers the arena site, said Thursday that community members participated in shaping the goals of the impact studies and that Squilla’s office defers PIDC about their specifics. 

    Chinatown organizers said they expressed concerns to Squilla and others last year, but were never assured that their requests would been taken into account.

    “Despite multiple requests to fill that gap (made to PIDC, city planning, and Squilla) the scope of work has not been modified to include an analysis of potential lost revenue, to our knowledge,” Save Chinatown Coalition spokesperson Melissa McCleery said.

    As the wait continues for the city to release its studies, the 76ers warn that the precarious future of the Fashion District makes the arena’s approval a pressing issue for local leaders. The team believes it holds the best path forward for the languishing East Market Street corridor and has presented a rare opportunity for the city to leverage private investment in a bold, multifaceted project. In emails Thursday, team officials questioned why building the arena would be considered more harmful than letting the mall die with no plan to replace it, or opting for a different project that theoretically could affect other businesses in ways similar to those described in Acolin’s analysis.

    “This should be read for what it is — another attempt by those who oppose the project to obfuscate the truth by pumping out misinformation,” Nicastre said.

    Given the lack of direct highway access near the proposed arena site and the lofty expectation that fans will embrace public transportation, Acolin argues that the viability of the arena “seems highly speculative.” He feels the city would be better served if the 76ers built a new arena at the Sports Complex in South Philadelphia, where the project could better support and connect to neighboring projects in the Navy Yard and the development of the Bellwether District. He acknowledged that the challenges on East Market Street are significant, especially in the context of broader economic conditions constraining new development, but he urged careful deliberation about whether an arena is the right answer. 

    “One of the big issues is the pressure to act now and find a solution for that location now while the development cycle is really not favorable to any large-scale development,” Acolin said. “The arena can seem like an immediate fix, but then there is the potential that it does not support the existing businesses and residents.”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Tanenbaum

    Source link

  • TPG Sells Playa del Rey Multifamily Project to Kajima USA After Foreclosure

    TPG Sells Playa del Rey Multifamily Project to Kajima USA After Foreclosure

    [ad_1]

    TPG Real Estate Capital has unloaded a 2.3-acre multifamily development site in Playa del Rey, just a few months after foreclosing on the property.

    Kajima USA, the U.S. arm of Tokyo-based construction firm, bought the site and 176-unit complex at 6733 South Sepulveda Boulevard for $56 million, according to property records filed with L.A. County in December.

    The sale price comes to about $320,000 per unit, although it’s unclear how much work remains to get the project ready for occupancy.

    TPG foreclosed on the property in October through a $29.9 million partial credit bid, meaning TPG could acquire the assets by relieving part of the debt, without paying actual cash. 

    The sale to Kajima still came at a loss for TPG. 

    The Texas-based investment firm had handed out a $97 million loan to Sandstone Properties in 2022, records show. 

    Sandstone then defaulted last year, owing nearly $80 million under the loan and failed to make monthly debt payments in December 2021 and January and February of 2022, according to notices of default filed with the county. 

    Sandstone had planned to build 176 units on the site, called Silicon Beach Live. Reports said the project’s shell was completed last April, though default notices state that the developer failed to meet certain completion deadlines for the project. 

    It’s unclear whether Kajima will complete the process of finishing the site. The firm, which did not respond to a request for comment, has been planning residential projects across the U.S. for the last eight years, including condo developments in Florida and industrial sites in Texas.

    As part of the sale to Kajima, TPG was on the hook for $3.3 million in transfer taxes, given the property is located in the city of L.A. and subject to a 5.5 percent tax. 

    [ad_2]

    Isabella Farr

    Source link

  • Arya Plans 15-Story Hotel Next To LA Clippers’ Intuit Dome in Inglewood

    Arya Plans 15-Story Hotel Next To LA Clippers’ Intuit Dome in Inglewood

    [ad_1]

    Arya Group, known for building super mansions across Los Angeles, is placing a major hospitality bet on the L.A. Clippers.

    The West L.A.-based development firm, led by Ardie Tavangarian, has filed plans to build a 15-story, 174-room hotel at 3820 West 102nd Street, next to a future Clippers arena, Urbanize Los Angeles reported. It would bulldoze an 18,000-square-foot industrial building.

    The 200-foot Arya Hotel, among the tallest proposed buildings in Inglewood, would stand next to the Clippers’ Intuit Dome, and near Hollywood Park and SoFi Stadium, home of the L.A. Rams and Chargers NFL teams.

    Pending approvals, Arya could break ground in April and complete the hotel by June 2026.

    Plans call for a 310,000-square-foot hotel with 174 rooms, 3,300 square feet of offices, 6,500 square feet of restaurant space, 1,300 square feet of lounges, a 4,000-square-foot private club and a 4,000-square-foot spa.

    The hotel would include 33,000 square feet of outdoor terraces, including a roof deck and  swimming pool. A basement and above-ground parking garage would serve 269 cars.

    The white hotel, designed by Orange-based AO, features an undulating stack of landscaped balconies between floor-to-ceiling windows, according to a rendering. The backside appears to wield a large mural or digital display.

    The hotel is billed as a “boutique hotel and wellness center in a sports and entertainment destination,” according to AO’s website, which says the hotel will have rooms for 300 keys and a 10,000-square-foot ballroom.

    The project is among several hotel developments in the works around Intuit Dome and SoFi Stadium, according to Urbanize. 

    They include a 300-room hotel planned within the Hollywood Park site, a 13-story inn proposed at 4200 West Century Boulevard and a Fairfield Inn slated to break ground this year at 3640 Century Boulevard.

    Tavangarian, a native of Iran, has developed dozens of ultra high-end projects, including mansions, public works developments and resorts. They include a Bel-Air mansion that sold in 2019 for $75 million and a Pacific Palisades mansion that sold two years later for $83 million.

    — Dana Bartholomew

    Read more

    [ad_2]

    TRD Staff

    Source link

  • City of LA Looks to Spur Development of Larger apartments

    City of LA Looks to Spur Development of Larger apartments

    [ad_1]

    Developers in Los Angeles may get bonuses for building three- and -four-bedroom apartments.

    Los Angeles City Council President Paul Krekorian has filed a motion to create a new density bonus incentive to promote the construction of large family units in new apartment buildings, Urbanize Los Angeles reported.

    The motion calls for the Planning Department to create a density bonus program to exempt the square footage of third, fourth and fifth bedrooms, as well as third and fourth bathrooms, from floor area calculations of large family apartments.

    The program would also allow developers to add an additional story of height beyond current zoning restrictions, and take advantage of bonuses for developments of mostly large family units.

    And it would require a 99-year covenant ensuring that the apartments would maintain the same unit mix and be set aside for households earning no more than 120 percent of the area median income.

    The problem, Krekorian says, is a lack of larger apartments, which makes it difficult for larger families to find appropriate and affordable rental housing. Some 17 percent of the city’s renter households live in overcrowded flats.

    He says encouraging the development of larger apartments would help the city adapt to changes brought about by a broad shift to remote work during the pandemic. 

    At the same time, larger residential units can more easily accommodate multi-generational households.

    “Fully a third of the households in the City of Los Angeles are comprised of four or more people, yet only 14 percent of the renter-occupied housing stock encompasses three- or four-bedroom units,” his motion reads. 

    “Newly constructed rental units tend to be much smaller, and a majority are studios or one-bedroom units,” the motion added. 

    The motion also clarifies that the large family unit bonus would be in addition to existing incentives through the density bonus and Transit Oriented Communities guidelines.

    The motion comes when the city of L.A. is under pressure to add 255,000 new homes by 2029. 

    As part of that effort, city planning officials are rolling out a citywide adaptive reuse ordinance, expanding upon a program which allowed for the conversion of dozens of older Downtown office buildings into homes.

    L.A. County, a pioneer of single-family housing sprawl, has more overpacked homes than anywhere in the U.S.

    For three decades, the county has led the nation in overcrowding, with 11 percent of homes now having more than one occupant per room, the Los Angeles Times reported in an expose in October 2022. More than 370,000 families in L.A. County live in overcrowded conditions.

    — Dana Bartholomew

    Read more

    [ad_2]

    TRD Staff

    Source link

  • Developer Ilan Kenig Sues Rabbi Pinto for “Hostile Takeover”

    Developer Ilan Kenig Sues Rabbi Pinto for “Hostile Takeover”

    [ad_1]

    Last year, Ilan Kenig needed a $100 million credit line. His multifamily development company, FMB Development, was bleeding cash and needed money to get multiple projects off the ground.

    Kenig looked to an unlikely partner: Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, once an adviser to high-profile New York real estate players, then a convict, and now Morocco’s chief rabbinical judge.

    Over the course of four years, Pinto brought in three partners — Isaac Croitoru, Yossi Zaga and Moises Gilinski — who took partial stakes in the company. Croitoru pumped more than $100 million into FMB, to help buy out previous lenders and investors. 

    When Kenig needed more cash for construction, the four investors promised it would come.

    “Don’t worry the money is available, no worries, money is coming very soon,” Rabbi Pinto allegedly told Kenig, according to filings with L.A. Superior Court. 

    But the $100 million never came.

    This month, Kenig sued Pinto, Zaga, Croitoru and Gilinski. He claimed that the four men swindled him into handing over control of his company, spent millions of company dollars and made empty promises of future cash.

    Kenig also alleges that Pinto funneled about $2.1 million from FMB entities to his nonprofit, Mosdot Shuva, and more without receipts. 

    Fateful meeting in Marrakech

    Ilan Kenig built FMB the way many form real estate companies: with a mix of equity partners, traditional debt and more expensive mezzanine loans.

    Kenig started the company in 2014 and spent five years buying more than 60 properties across the Los Angeles area, from Pacific Palisades to Koreatown. He slated some for multifamily, others for spec home development. 

    Construction seems to have started on only a handful of projects, including a 28-unit apartment complex in North Hollywood, where the structure is complete but the units have not been listed. When Kenig needed the nine-figure credit line, he found his answer in an unlikely place: Morocco.

    In 2019, while visiting Marrakech, Kenig met Rabbi Pinto, the country’s newly appointed chief rabbi. 

    Pinto was a celebrity of sorts. By the late 2000s, the rabbi was a “spiritual adviser” to the stars, including Lebron James, and to many of New York’s prominent real estate brokers and developers.

    “He’s going to hook you up with a lot of people,” an Israeli broker told The Real Deal in 2008.

    But by 2012, Pinto was the subject of a money-laundering probe in Israel. Federal investigators in the U.S. also had their sights on the rabbi and were speaking to investors about claims that money was disappearing from real estate developments tied to Pinto.

    In 2014, Pinto was indicted in Israel, where he had allegedly tried to bribe a police officer for information on the money laundering investigation. He served a year in prison. Two years after his release, in 2019, he was appointed as Morocco’s top rabbi.

    Kenig said in his lawsuit that he was “deeply influenced” by Pinto and became a follower, feeling “honored to be part of Rabbi Pinto’s inner circle.”

    “The Blessed Group”

    Two members of that coveted circle were Zaga, a long-time associate of Pinto’s, and known for dabbling in real estate. 

    The other was Gilinski, allegedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to cryptocurrency investments and a food manufacturing and export business in Colombia.

    In January 2020, Kenig said he joined the three men for Shabbat dinner at Pinto’s house in Marrakech. There, Pinto shared his proposal: Zaga and Gilinski would help fund FMB’s expansion and buy out current investors.

    While reciting the traditional blessing over bread, Pinto broke the bread into three parts — to Gilinski, Zaga and Kenig — to symbolize dividing up FMB. Kenig formally transferred the interests in FMB accordingly, “following Pinto’s directives,” Kenig said in his complaint.

    “This significant interest was given without requiring any capital investment from them and was provided by Ilan in FMB solely based on the instructions of Rabbi Pinto,” he added.

    The three even started a group chat — “The Blessed Group.”

    “My company” 

    After the restructuring, Pinto allegedly became more involved in FMB’s day-to-day operation, visiting projects, offering advice and suggesting valuations on projects. Pinto, Gilinski and Zaga had also decided to halt all property sales.

    Pinto started calling FMB “my company,” Kenig alleged in his suit, leading Kenig to believe that Pinto was behind Zaga’s one-third interest in FMB. Kenig also said that Pinto asked the company to pay for personal expenses in L.A. including private jet travel, a house rental in Beverly Hills and family vacation activities.

    Pinto enlisted another investor, Croitoru, to pump money into FMB properties. From 2019 to 2023, Croitoru poured $109 million into FMB to buy out investors and replace mezzanine financing.

    But Kenig said that FMB’s development never actually benefited from that. Instead, the money was allegedly diverted elsewhere.

    “Every time Gilinski or Croitoru made a wire to the FMB Entities,” Kenig claimed, Pinto’s assistant or Zaga “would immediately demand a corresponding payment be made” from FMB to Mosdot Shuva, the nonprofit.

    Pinto’s nonprofit has been scrutinized over the years. In 2011, its representatives were unable to provide details to the Forward on the management and finances of its Manhattan branch, and the rabbi reportedly claimed no knowledge of its budget. A separate report uncovered expenditures of hundreds of thousands of dollars on luxury Hamptons rentals, jewelry, first-class flights and men’s suits.

    In New York, the organization’s synagogue building at 122 East 58th Street has gone through a series of foreclosure attempts before being refinanced. In 2010, the rabbi’s $6.5 million townhouse (also owned by the nonprofit) faced foreclosure at one point. Another Pinto project, a synagogue in the condominium at 240 Riverside Boulevard, also fell through.

    Despite the trail of mishaps, Pinto built himself a reputation as an adviser to business people and specifically to real estate players, so Kenig trusted him.

    In his suit, Kenig alleges that in 2021, Pinto approached him for help preventing foreclosure at his Manhattan building; Kenig agreed to sign as a personal guarantor for a refinancing loan of approximately $24 million from Parke Bank.

    But pressure on Kenig’s development projects was mounting, and he needed the $100 million credit line to prevent defaults. The four defendants continually told Kenig not to worry, that Croitoru would provide the line of credit. In exchange, Kenig agreed to hand over a 25 percent equity stake in FMB.

    “Everything is good, the money is available, everything will be fine, and the money should be received by the company in a matter of days,” Pinto allegedly told Kenig in an October meeting in New York. The rabbi advised the FMB principal that he should keep all his properties and assure lenders that funding was en route.

    But the next month, at a meeting in New York, the defendants’ lawyers sent Kenig a restructuring agreement “designed to take away” Kenig’s interests and decision-making. At that point, Kenig concluded he was dealing with a “corrupted coalition.”

    Read more

    “Burned to ashes”

    In his suit, Kenig alleges a “hostile takeover” — a scheme to push his business into a cash crunch and take over his interests in FMB entities. Pinto, he alleges, intended “to use FMB funds for payment of the Mosdot Building” and for his “personal gain.”

    Kenig claims that he is stuck with $240 million in loans with personal guarantees. He has filed for bankruptcy on at least six FMB multifamily projects in L.A., according to court filings.

    Kenig is also facing a number of lawsuits from joint venture partners and lenders, claiming FMB failed to complete projects on time, defaulted on tax obligations and loans. 

    “Almost all” of FMB’s properties are in default,” he said in his complaint.

    Kenig, in his suit, blames the four men for leaving him with “a bad reputation, bad relationships with lenders, investors and suppliers that will prohibit him from doing any business whatsoever.”

    In his words, they have burned a “multi-million dollar empire to ashes.” 

    Pinto and Gilinski have not responded to request for comment. Zaga and Croitoru could not be reached. Kenig has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Isabella Farr

    Source link

  • Opinion: Why is L.A. still letting single-family homeowners block solutions to the housing crisis?

    Opinion: Why is L.A. still letting single-family homeowners block solutions to the housing crisis?

    [ad_1]

    Last month YIMBY Law, a nonprofit, pro-housing advocacy group, sued the City of Los Angeles on behalf of a private developer seeking to construct a 360-unit apartment building in Canoga Park. These apartments would be only for renters who meet the federal definition of low to moderate incomes in L.A. The project was submitted under Mayor Karen Bass’ Executive Directive 1, meant to dramatically speed up the approval and permitting process for 100% affordable housing projects. But recently the city revoked the eligibility of the Canoga Park building for this program following complaints from single-family homeowners.

    This about-face is part of a trend. Last year, the mayor’s office amended ED1 to shield single-family zones from streamlined development — after eight such applications, including the Canoga Park proposal, were already submitted. Those proposals were then denied eligibility for ED1. Some of the projects have filed appeals; one denial has been overturned, but the City Council rejected an appeal for the Canoga project.

    Without ED1, these projects face a discretionary approval process that may involve lengthy environmental review and other delays likely to prevent them from happening. This turn of events may cost the city more than 1,100 affordable apartments.

    Bass announced ED1 as moving “City Hall away from its traditional approach that is focused on process and replacing it with a new approach focused on solutions, results and speed.” The mayor’s stated intention received a remarkable boost via the state law AB 2334, passed in 2022, allowing developer incentives for 100% affordable projects including substantial increases in height limits and allowable density (the number of housing units on a given-sized parcel of land) in “very low vehicle travel areas,” where limited residential development has kept down traffic. The idea is that these areas can more easily accommodate any extra traffic stemming from increased housing density.

    The potential cost savings from ED1 and AB 2334 encouraged private developers to produce long-term, income-restricted units — crucially, without relying on public financing. If the more than 1,100 apartments now held up from ED1 streamlining were built through the standard publicly subsidized pathway, at a typical cost of around $600,000 per unit, they could require up to $660,000,000 in public funding. Privately funded alternatives are a boon to local, regional and state governments that have sought for years to spur the production of so-called “missing middle” housing that is affordable to working-class and middle-income households.

    Yet now this progress is in question, just as the power of these complementary city and state reforms has begun to emerge. The lawsuit concerning the Canoga Park building may result in one or more of the halted projects being built eventually, and the state has suggested that the city erred in revoking their ED1 eligibility. But even if these projects get approved, since ED1 now excludes the single-family neighborhoods that make up approximately three-quarters of residential land in L.A., they would mark an end rather than a beginning to similar development.

    Some residents of these neighborhoods say that’s only fair. According to Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, for homeowners affected by new apartments, “their property value is going to get cut in half, they’re going to have a big shadow over their place.”

    As it happens, I can speak personally to these concerns. I am the owner and resident of a unit in a small rowhouse condo development on the Westside located directly across the street from an ongoing project converting a single-family home into a multi-unit apartment building.

    My neighbors and my family are losing a good deal of sunlight throughout the day from the new building. Our street has been a cacophonous, messy construction site for so long it’s hard to remember what it was like before.

    But I know that this is what solving the housing crisis looks like: A single parcel that previously housed one family is being transformed into apartments for perhaps 15 to 25 people, with units reserved for low-income households. Like those in the contested ED1 projects, these affordable units won’t require public funding.

    There is simply no way to solve our housing crisis without throwing shade in some single-family residential areas. We might have to increase traffic in some neighborhoods, too, though providing more housing in jobs-rich West L.A. could ultimately reduce traffic by allowing people to live closer to where they work. As for property values, multiple studies have shown that low-income housing does not substantially reduce them, including in high-cost neighborhoods, and often increases them.

    Some constituencies will always oppose development. Local policymakers who are serious about solving our dual crises of housing affordability and homelessness have to take a hard look at how much political capital they are willing to spend to create effective policies in the face of such objections.

    If we can’t build fully affordable projects that don’t drain government coffers even on the edges of land zoned for single-family residences, then Angelenos should prepare for a permanent housing crisis.

    But if this sounds like the wrong direction for the city, Bass and the City Council should fully commit to protecting and expanding innovative policy such as the original ED1, without categorical exclusions for single-family neighborhoods, and AB 2334. Mechanisms that convince private developers to produce long-term affordable housing offer what is as close to a free lunch on this crisis as L.A. is ever likely to get.

    Jason Ward is an economist at Rand Corp. and the co-director of the Rand Center on Housing and Homelessness.

    [ad_2]

    Jason Ward

    Source link

  • Former LA City Councilman José Huizar Gets 13 Years in Prison Over Developer Bribes

    Former LA City Councilman José Huizar Gets 13 Years in Prison Over Developer Bribes

    [ad_1]

    José Huizar, who represented Los Angeles’ 14th District in the City Council for over 19 years, has been sentenced to 13 years in prison for accepting bribes from real estate developers. 

    It’s a moment of reckoning for the former L.A. councilman, who pleaded guilty a year ago to federal counts of racketeering and tax evasion, and marks the end to one of the most high-profile, wide-ranging corruption cases in modern L.A. city history. 

    Huizar appeared in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in L.A. on Jan. 26 for a scheduled hearing, where the judge ordered Huizar face the maximum sentence. Huizar’s attorneys had been willing to settle for nine years, according to the Los Angeles Daily News.

    Huizar led a pay-to-play enterprise, in which he exploited his government position to seek out at least $1.5 million in bribes, which includes cash, hotel stays, gambling chips, luxury trips, prostitutes and favorable loans.

    “If anyone dared rebuff his call to pay bribes, he punished them and their city projects, threatening developers with indefinitely delayed projects and financial peril,” the U.S. government wrote in a sentencing memorandum. 

    A number of developers were implicated in the corruption scandal, though two — Dae Yong Lee and Downtown L.A.-based Shen Zhen New World — have been formally charged and found guilty. 

    Dae Yong Lee, also known as David Lee, and one of his limited liability companies, 940 Hill, were found guilty of handing out $500,000 in cash bribes to Huizar and George Esparza, one of Huizar’s former assistants. In exchange, the two helped resolve an appeal of Lee’s development project in Downtown L.A. 

    Shen Zhen New World, run by Wei Huang, was found guilty in November 2022 of paying more than $1 million — in the form of casino gambling chips and luxury trip expenses — to Huizar. Huizar helped push the city to approve Shen Zhen New World’s plans to build a 77-story skyscraper. 

    Lee was sentenced to six years in federal prison last May. The U.S. government considers Huang a fugitive and believes he is still in China. 

    In 2021, Carmel Partners agreed to pay a $1 million fine in connection with Huizar’s scandal and admitted it contributed $75,000 to his political action committee to score approval for a tower project in Downtown L.A. 

    This is a developing story, please check back for updates.

    Andrew Asch contributed reporting. 

    [ad_2]

    Isabella Farr, Daria Solovieva

    Source link

  • U.S. Bank looks to other industries to spark AI innovation | Bank Automation News

    U.S. Bank looks to other industries to spark AI innovation | Bank Automation News

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Bank technology leaders attend the Consumer Electronics Show every year to spark innovation ideas for the bank’s research and development team; this year the focus was on all things AI.  “What we’re here for is to see what everybody else is doing with [AI],” Chief Innovation Officer Don Relyea told Bank Automation News at […]

    [ad_2]

    Whitney McDonald

    Source link

  • Opinion: This Supreme Court case from California could ease housing shortages everywhere

    Opinion: This Supreme Court case from California could ease housing shortages everywhere

    [ad_1]

    On Jan. 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Californian George Sheetz, who applied for a permit to put a manufactured house on his land in El Dorado County and got hit with a $23,420 traffic mitigation fee. Objecting to the lack of any connection between the dollar amount and his family’s actual impact on traffic in the area, Sheetz paid the fee but turned to the legal system. Sheetz vs. County of El Dorado, California, addresses just a small piece of the state’s housing crisis. Nonetheless, it will matter for millions of people unable to find affordable homes here and in many other states.

    When “impact fees” are unmoored from the increased costs a city or county will incur because of a new house or development, the fees can do more than present someone with an unfair bill — they can also reduce housing construction. In a country where a shortage of homes has led to sky-high prices, this matters more than you might think.

    Developers should pay their fair share, of course. If construction fees fail to cover the costs of the increased public services required by new development, elected officials and voters turn to other means to cover or avoid those costs. They may impose growth restrictions or other exclusionary zoning policies to block the building of new homes rather than accept projects that lead to higher taxes or degraded services.

    We see pervasive evidence of this happening when localities adopt rules such as single-family zoning, minimum lot-size requirements and aesthetic requirements that ensure that only expensive housing, which generates higher property taxes, can be built.

    Properly set impact fees offer a way for development to pay its way, and they reduce political pressure against necessary growth. Local studies have found that appropriately set fees are associated with increased construction in suburban areas.

    But when fees are set at arbitrarily high levels, they disincentivize new home building and add to the country’s housing affordability challenges, causing strain for renters and new home buyers.

    In 2013, the Supreme Court held that all permit fees must have an essential connection to the actual impact of a development on city or county services, and a roughly proportional price tag. This sensibly reduces the risk that fees will choke off development.

    In some states, such as Florida, jurisprudence goes even further, requiring that fees fund only infrastructure that serves the specific developments they were levied on. Not coincidentally, Florida has seen its population grow more than twice as fast as the country as a whole, reflecting its openness to new homes and relatively fair prices compared with much of the rest of the country.

    But in other states, including California, Maryland, Washington and Arizona, courts have carved out an exception to the Supreme Court’s proportionality principle, allowing higher fees if they are set by legislation. Sheetz’s case will test whether that exception is constitutional.

    Part of the rationale for the carve-out is that voters have a remedy against excessive assessments at the ballot box. In theory, they can vote out the lawmakers who are responsible.

    However, any claim that voters can and will actually do this is dubious. Housing developers are a small share of any electorate. Future home buyers or renters — those who need municipalities to incentivize, not discourage, home building — may not even vote or live in the jurisdiction when the fees are determined. On the other hand, the people who do vote are likely to be those who already own homes nearby, and they tend to resist growth: Their property increases in value if high fees keep the housing supply low.

    The housing affordability crisis is real. Californians in particular should understand the simple calculus of supply and demand that is exacerbating homelessness and causing seven cities (or metro areas) in the state to rank among the 10 most expensive in the nation, according to U.S. News and World Report. When and where state courts allow local politicians to cater to their wealthiest constituents, charge exorbitant impact fees and otherwise keep out new homes, the situation won’t improve.

    The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the El Dorado County fees in the first half of 2024. The legal case that all impact fees, no matter who sets them, should be subject to the same conditions is strong. And during a nationwide housing crisis, the economic case against state and local practices that worsen housing affordability and impede needed housing production is even stronger.

    Charles Gardner is an attorney and research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Emily Hamilton is a director of Mercatus’ Urbanity Project.

    [ad_2]

    Charles Gardner and Emily Hamilton

    Source link

  • UC Berkeley makes dead-of-night push to wall off storied People's Park

    UC Berkeley makes dead-of-night push to wall off storied People's Park

    [ad_1]

    A massive contingent of law enforcement officers converged on People’s Park in the wee hours of Thursday morning, intent on clearing the way for crews to wall off the storied green space near the UC Berkeley campus in preparation for construction of a much-contested housing complex for students.

    The university launched the extraordinary operation — designed to double-stack metal cargo containers around the entire park perimeter — around 12 a.m.

    On their arrival, police surrounded the park. Inside, they were met by several dozen protesters, chanting “Long live People’s Park” along with shouts of “Fight back!” Some were holed up in a makeshift treehouse and on the roof of a single-story building in the park.

    By starting the exercise under the cover of darkness and during students’ winter break, university leaders hoped to minimize a conflict with activists adamant the park should remain open space, a living tribute to free speech and student activism. The university planned to install the cargo containers over several days, banking on the massive metal structures to provide a more formidable barrier than the fences protesters have easily breached in the past.

    The university acknowledged that construction of the housing, ensnared in a legal dispute, cannot begin unless the state Supreme Court agrees that the Berkeley campus has completed an adequate environmental review of the project. The proposed development would create a dormitory with space for 1,100 students in a college town with a dire shortage of affordable housing. In addition, it would include permanent supportive housing for 125 people living homeless. About 60% of the site would remain green space, with commemorative exhibits about the park’s history.

    “Given that the existing legal issues will inevitably be resolved, we decided to take this necessary step now in order to minimize the possibility of disorder and disruption for the public and our students when we are eventually cleared to resume construction,” Chancellor Carol Christ said in a prepared statement.

    The university said it intended to keep streets around the park, and at least one block to the north and east, closed for three or four days.

    “Unfortunately, our planning and actions must take into account that some of the project’s opponents have previously resorted to violence and vandalism,” Christ said, adding that this was “despite strong support for the project on the part of students, community members, advocates for unhoused people, the elected leadership of the City of Berkeley, as well as the legislature and governor of the state of California.”

    Activists intent on preserving the park were tipped off several days in advance that the university would try to cordon off the site while students were on break. They called the incursion by law enforcement and work crews an “attack” that would destroy a legacy to people-powered activism.

    Nicholas Alexander was among the activists standing watch over People’s Park on Wednesday evening, prepared to protest efforts to wall off the site.

    (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

    Nicholas Alexander was among a small group standing watch over the park Wednesday evening around sunset. Alexander, once unhoused, praised the park as a place that needy people have been able to go for decades to find assistance. He said he was part of the group that helped tear down a university-erected fence in 2022. “This park has always helped the counterculture and the disenfranchised,” he said, “and it’d be a shame if it was taken from us now, because where else will we go?”

    Another member of the group watching the park, Sylvia Tree, said she had graduated from Berkeley in 2021. She described the conflict as “a struggle based on the land.”

    “It’s about a place where people who don’t own any land can have a little piece of it, a piece that you can grow things on, that you can have sunshine on, that you can meet your friends on,” said Tree, 25. “There’s nobody who controls it. There’s nobody who’s selling you something.”

    Such passionate advocacy has become a perennial rite at the small patch of green just south of the campus and a few paces east of Telegraph Avenue.

    It began more than half a century ago, in 1969, when the UC system’s founding campus announced its plan for development on what was then an empty lot. Hundreds of students and community activists had another idea, dragging sod, trees and flowers to the lot and proclaiming it People’s Park. The university responded by erecting a fence.

    The student newspaper, the Daily Californian, urged students to “take back the park.” More than 6,000 people marched down Telegraph, where they were confronted by law enforcement. In the clash that followed, one man died and scores were injured.

    In the decades since, the university has made repeated efforts to reclaim the property, once attempting to construct a parking lot on the edge of the park. A new generation of demonstrators arrived, with shovels and picks, to uproot the asphalt and restore plant life.

    In the early 1990s, a young machete-wielding activist infuriated by the university’s construction of volleyball courts at the park was shot and killed by police after she broke into the campus residence of then-Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien. Police said they found a note in the teenager’s bag. It read: “We are willing to die for this piece of land. Are you?”

    The push for the university to develop the property gained new life after Christ became chancellor in 2017 amid a student housing crisis. With Berkeley providing housing to a lower percentage of its students than any other UC campus, Christ promised to double the number of beds within a decade. She made it clear that she considered People’s Park — long a “third rail” that campus leaders avoided — a good location for housing.

    Activists gather on a rooftop in People's Park.

    The tensions over UC Berkeley’s efforts to develop People’s Park have spawned more than half a century of activism and debate.

    (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

    Opponents of the housing development contend that UC Berkeley has not done enough to study alternative sites. Their cause got a boost in December, when a unit of the National Trust for Historic Preservation wrote a letter calling for “exploring all possible opportunities” for preservation of the park.

    The university counters that its plan does acknowledge the historic nature of the park while also trying to resolve problems that have plagued the site and nearby streets in recent years, including homeless encampments, open drug use, petty theft and violence. UC Police Chief Yogananda Pittman characterized this week’s action as necessary to provide members of the community with “the safety and security they need and deserve.”

    The university released results of a survey in 2021 that showed students favor the project by 56% to 31%. More recently, in an effort to address complaints that the proposed development would displace unhoused people living in the park, the university hired a full-time social worker and said most park denizens had been relocated to a Quality Inn and offered support services.

    But the project suffered a setback early last year when a state appellate court ruled that UC had not properly complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, a decades-old law known as CEQA, which requires state and local governments to consider the environmental impacts of certain construction and housing projects. The court found the university had not properly addressed the issue of noise — specifically the noise generated by students who might drink and hold “unruly parties,” as some neighbors asserted in documents submitted to the court.

    The court also ruled that the campus had not properly justified its decision not to consider alternative locations for the housing development. UC attorneys have said that because the project’s aim is to repurpose the park, no alternative would suffice.

    The university appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court and also turned to the Legislature. Lawmakers passed a law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, designed to make it easier for universities to build housing and overcome lawsuits from residents who raise noise concerns as a potential problem.

    All parties in the dispute await a decision by the high court, and the new law presumably will factor into its deliberations.

    The last concerted effort by UC to take control of the park for construction came in August 2022. Just hours after an Alameda County judge issued a tentative ruling that the university could begin clearing the park, construction machinery moved into place. But the 2 a.m. operation soon drew protesters who confronted construction crews, toppling a newly erected chain-link fence and streaming into the park, where they were tackled by California Highway Patrol officers.

    By day’s end, the university ended the standoff by suspending its effort to take control of the park.

    Berkeley City Councilmember Kate Harrison issued a public letter this week calling on police involved in any new go-round with protesters to “follow the City of Berkeley’s rules concerning use of ‘less-lethal’ weapons and tactics,” which include a ban on the use of pepper spray and tear gas. Harrison added: “These rules, established to protect human life and people’s first amendment rights, are core to our City’s value.”

    Staff photographer Jason Armond contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Hannah Wiley, Jessica Garrison, James Rainey

    Source link

  • Roche's Inavolisib Breast Cancer Drug Shows Promise in Late-Stage Study

    Roche's Inavolisib Breast Cancer Drug Shows Promise in Late-Stage Study

    [ad_1]

    By Mauro Orru

    Roche Holding said its investigational treatment, inavolisib, showed promise in a late-stage study to treat patients with breast cancer.

    The Swiss pharmaceutical company said Tuesday that the phase 3 study met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival, showing that inavolisib, in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant, delivered a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement compared to palbociclib and fulvestrant alone.

    While Roche acknowledged that overall survival data were immature at this stage, it said it had observed a clear positive trend. The inavolisib combination was well tolerated.

    The group said inavolisib is an investigational, oral targeted treatment with potential to provide durable disease control.

    Write to Mauro Orru at mauro.orru@wsj.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Foreign passport holders leaving Gaza for first time since war began

    Foreign passport holders leaving Gaza for first time since war began

    [ad_1]

    Dozens of foreign passport holders could be seen entering the Rafah crossing from Gaza to Egypt on Wednesday. It appeared to be the first time foreign passport holders have been allowed to leave the besieged territory since the start of the Israel-Hamas war more than three weeks ago.

    Early Wednesday, providers Paltel and Jawwal reported a “complete disruption” of communications and internet services in Gaza, the second major cut in five days. Humanitarian aid agencies have warned that such blackouts severely disrupt their…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Californians with past-due water bills can get help with payments. Here’s how

    Californians with past-due water bills can get help with payments. Here’s how

    [ad_1]

    Low-income Los Angeles County residents who are behind on their utility payments have a chance at keeping the water on, with a federally funded program that has been extended through March.

    The Low Income Household Water Assistance Program, administered by the California Department of Community Services and Development, was established by Congress in December 2020 as a one-time support to help low-income Californians pay past-due or current bills for water, sewer or both services.

    Through the program, eligible applicants can receive up to $15,000 in assistance.

    The program kicked off in 2021 with an estimated $5 million funding, said Frank Talamantes, home energy assistance program supervisor for the Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment.

    For the last two years, Talamantes said only $2 million has been used to assist Californians.

    The program was set to end this fall, but it will now remain available through March or until the funding runs out.

    “When you want to dip into your savings [to pay your bill], why not apply for the program to help you with your water,” he said.

    Here’s what residents need to know about eligibility requirements and how to apply.

    Who is eligible for assistance?

    The program is available to both low-income renters and homeowners — even though most renters are not responsible for their water and sewer bills.

    Homeowners are eligible for the program if their total household gross income is at or below 60% of the state median income.

    For example, if a resident lives in a three-person household with a monthly income of slightly more than $4,300, the applicant is eligible. The California Department of Community Services and Development’s online website has a household income eligibility guide that residents can reference.

    An applicant is also eligible if a household member is a current recipient of CalFresh, CalWORKs, or the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

    Renters who are in charge of paying for their water and sewer bills can qualify for the program if they are past due on their rent. To get the benefit, the renter would need to complete an agreement with their landlord as part of the application.

    How to apply

    Interested applicants can check online to determine whether their water and sewer provider is enrolled in the Low Income Household Water Assistance Program. Providers such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Los Angeles County Public Waterworks Districts are enrolled.

    According to the state Community Services and Development website, some utility providers cannot accept program assistance payments on current bills. Residents should check with the enrolled service provider on what the program can assist with.

    For help on the application or to get more information, community organizations — including the Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment, Maravilla Foundation and Long Beach Community Action Partnership — can assist residents.

    To apply you’ll need:

    • Current water and/or wastewater bill.
    • Proof of income for all household members. (That includes proof of participation in CalFresh or CalWORKs.)
    • California I.D.

    Talamantes said that if a homeowner or renter is in the country illegally, he or she can still be eligible for the program as long as one household member is at least 18 and a U.S. citizen; that person can apply for assistance.

    [ad_2]

    Karen Garcia

    Source link

  • Babies in space? Scientists grow mice embryos 400 miles above Earth

    Babies in space? Scientists grow mice embryos 400 miles above Earth

    [ad_1]

    In a world first, embryos have been sent to space so that scientists can study how zero-gravity affects a growing fetus.

    The mouse embryos were sent to the International Space Station to be raised by astronauts, with the scientists discovering that the embryos were able to successfully develop, according to a paper in the journal iScience.

    This has huge implications for the future of human space travel and how reproduction and gestation are affected by zero-g, and marks “the world’s first experiment that cultured early-stage mammalian embryos under complete microgravity of ISS,” the authors of the paper said in a statement.

    The development of mouse embryos to blastocysts under microgravity on the ISS. Scientists have found that these embryos developed nearly as successfully as those on Earth.
    Teruhiko Wakayama/University of Yamanashi/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108177

    The researchers, from University of Yamanashi’s Advanced Biotechnology Centre and the Japan Aerospace Space Agency (JAXA), sent the frozen mouse embryos to the ISS—orbiting at a distance of around 400 miles above the surface—via a rocket in August 2021. Astronauts aboard the ISS then thawed the embryos, which were initially at the two-cell stage and grew them for four days, around a quarter of the 20-day gestation period for a mouse, at both artificial 1-g and zero-g.

    They found that they developed normally into blastocysts, which are embryos that have differentiated into two cell types: the inner cell mass (ICM) or embryoblast, and an outer layer of trophoblast cells. The researchers then compared the development of the embryos with those cultured on Earth, finding that while those grown in space had a slightly lower survival rate, but were still successful at developing.

    “The embryos cultured under microgravity conditions developed into blastocysts with normal cell numbers, ICM, trophectoderm, and gene expression profiles similar to those cultured under artificial-1 g control on the International Space Station and ground-1 g control, which clearly demonstrated that gravity had no significant effect on the blastocyst formation and initial differentiation of mammalian embryos,” the authors wrote in the paper.

    It has long been wondered if the microgravity of space will impact the gestation of a fetus, which is a pressing question if humans are to further step toward the stars.

    “There is a possibility of pregnancy during a future trip to Mars because it will take more than 6 months to travel there,” lead author Teruhiko Wakayama of the University of Yamanashi in Japan, told New Scientist. “We are conducting research to ensure we will be able to safely have children if that time comes.”

    This study did not explore how the embryos developed post-blastocyst stage, however, which may come with a whole new swath of issues.

    embryo journey
    Graphical abstract of the paper showing the embryos’ journey.
    Teruhiko Wakayama/University of Yamanashi/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108177

    Wakayama previously found in 2009 that microgravity affected a fertilized egg’s ability to implant in the uterus but did not affect the fertilization itself. Additionally, other experiments with pregnant rodents in space found that lack of gravity affected vestibular development during gestation—affecting the offspring’s balance and equilibrium—as well as impacts on fetal musculoskeletal development.

    The authors say that much more research is required into how zero-g and space environments can impact the growth of fetuses.

    embryos
    Images from the paper. (D) Thawing by astronaut under microgravity. (E–G) Blastocysts collected from the ETC cultured on ground control (E), artificial-1G on the ISS (F), and microgravity on the ISS (G).
    Teruhiko Wakayama/University of Yamanashi/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108177

    “Based on these reports and our results, perhaps mammalian space reproduction is possible, although it may be somewhat affected. Unfortunately, the number of blastocysts obtained from the ISS experiment was not abundant; and we have not been able to confirm the impact on offspring because we have not produced offspring from embryos developed in space,” the authors wrote in the paper.

    “The study of mammalian reproduction in space is essential to start the space age, making it necessary to study and clarify the effect of space environment before the ISS is no longer operational.”

    Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about embryonic development? Let us know via science@newsweek.com.