CITY PLANNING -
The multimillion-dollar grant, state housing incentives, and unanswered questions about Planning’s priorities raise concerns about whether funding—not the public interest—is driving Los Angeles’ zoning agenda.
Why is the Los Angeles Department of City Planning pushing the Missing Middle Ordinance (MMO) forward on such an ambitious schedule? Communities across the city have asked, “Why the rush?” The department emphasizes that the initiative will expand housing opportunities. But are grant funding, state housing incentives, and administrative deadlines influencing what Planning proposes and how quickly it moves?
The financial connections are real. A $2.36 million grant is tied to MMO-related work. There is no proof that money is driving Planning’s decisions, but the department has not adequately explained how these financial opportunities relate to the ordinance. Residents should not have to play detective to understand what is happening inside their own government.
Follow the $2.36 Million
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) lists a $2,360,133 grant for a project titled “ADU Home Ownership Ordinance/Accelerating Low-Rise Missing Middle Housing Resource.” City Planning identifies December 2026 as the deadline for its funded Missing Middle LA initiative.
That is substantial public funding attached to work directly related to the department’s housing agenda. What did Los Angeles agree to deliver? Are specific deliverables tied to the current MMO package, and could the city meet its grant obligations without advancing every element of the proposed ordinance?
A funding commitment can create institutional pressure to complete a project, but it does not establish that every provision is necessary. Planning should clarify whether the current package and accelerated schedule are required by its grant obligations or whether the city has discretion to pursue a different approach.
The issue is not whether Los Angeles should accept public money. It is whether pursuing that money influences what the city proposes, how quickly it moves, and how much scrutiny residents receive. These are reasonable questions about public accountability, not allegations of wrongdoing.
Prohousing Incentives: Is Funding Influencing Planning’s Priorities?
The grant is only part of the financial picture. California’s Prohousing Designation program gives designated jurisdictions advantages in certain state funding competitions, including access to additional incentive funding. Los Angeles received its designation in 2023, and Planning’s current draft application assigns the city 77 points, substantially more than the approximately 40 points reportedly needed to meet the state’s threshold.
Why is the city pursuing such a high score? Which policies account for the additional points, and are discretionary local policy changes being pursued partly to improve access to funding?
A higher score does not automatically mean more money, nor does it prove that funding is driving city decisions. But when a state designation and a high score can improve access to funding, the city should explain what it hopes to gain and whether the policies contributing to that score are independently justified. Residents also deserve to know whether those policies overlap with provisions in the MMO.
The Timing Is Hard to Ignore
Planning released its request for public comments on the draft Prohousing Designation application just hours before the October 16 deadline for comments on the MMO. The state requires public participation in Prohousing applications, which explains why Planning is soliciting comments through November 16, 2026. But would the department have disclosed the application to the public without that requirement? And now that it has, why hasn’t Planning clearly explained the application’s connection to the MMO? Who knows? Planning certainly did not make that connection clear when it unveiled the MMO proposal in early September, ahead of the October 1 public hearing.
Planning’s target for submitting the Prohousing application is December 2026, leaving residents little opportunity to consider the relationship between these initiatives before the MMO comment period closed. By releasing these related initiatives separately without clearly explaining their financial and policy connections, Planning leaves residents scrambling to understand the bigger picture while deadlines pass and its proposals advance. Whether intentional or not, the effect is to limit meaningful public scrutiny. Perhaps Planning assumes residents won’t connect the dots until it is too late to change course. But the public is not as oblivious as Planning seems to assume it is.
Residents deserve to know whether this process is about sound planning or meeting the department’s own funding and policy objectives. When decisions could shape Los Angeles neighborhoods for decades, public participation must mean more than commenting on a direction the department may already be determined to pursue.
Is Funding Driving Planning’s Accelerated Schedule?
The MMO contains multiple housing and zoning proposals. Residents have questioned its scope, potential consequences, the accelerated schedule, and the time available to evaluate it. The question is whether Planning’s financial and administrative commitments are helping drive the process.
A December 2026 grant deadline may create a legitimate reason to complete funded work promptly. Prohousing incentives may encourage the city to pursue particular policies. Planning may also believe its proposals are independently justified. All three things can be true.
But the public has not been given enough information to determine how these considerations intersect. Is the schedule based on the time needed to produce sound policy, or is Planning also responding to grant deliverables and state assessment goals? Could the city meet its funding obligations without advancing the entire MMO package?
Planning Director Vince Bertoni should explain the relationship between the SCAG grant and the MMO ordinance, identify the policies contributing to the Prohousing score, and disclose whether funding commitments or internal milestones influenced the schedule. He should also explain how public comments will be considered before the application is finalized. The mayor and City Council should demand the same answers rather than allowing Planning’s timetable to become its own justification for moving forward.
If they fail to demand answers, residents will have little reason to believe anyone in City Hall is willing to challenge Planning’s direction. Officials may congratulate themselves on meeting their goals while neighborhoods are left to live with the consequences.
Who Is Planning Really Serving?
Los Angeles should pursue grants and compete for state funding. But winning money is not a public-policy outcome, and qualifying for state programs does not prove that every policy adopted to advance those goals serves Los Angeles. The MMO may contain worthwhile ideas, but proposals that need further analysis or revision should not escape scrutiny because of a funding deadline or administrative commitment.
This is another example of Planning operating in the shadows: advancing sweeping policy changes without adequately connecting the dots for the public, then expecting residents to respond within deadlines the department controls. The burden is on Planning to explain its decisions—not on residents to prove that financial incentives have distorted the process before they can ask questions.
The concern is not that a secret deal has been proven. It is that institutional momentum, funding targets, and deadlines may be shaping the outcome before the public has had a fair opportunity to influence it. If so, transparency becomes a promise on paper while the real decisions take shape elsewhere.
If money is one of the major motivations behind this ordinance and its accelerated schedule, the question is unavoidable: Is almost $2.5 million worth pushing forward a proposal that many residents believe is fundamentally bad planning? Has the pursuit of funding become more important than getting the planning right?
Los Angeles deserves a Planning Department that serves the public interest—not one that may appear more focused on securing grant money and state incentives than on getting the planning right or protecting the communities it is supposed to serve.
So, let’s return to the question residents asked when Planning unveiled the MMO package on an accelerated schedule: What is the rush? After examining the money, the incentives, and the deadlines, the question takes on a more troubling meaning. Is the MMO really about good planning—or is it about the money? I think many residents are beginning to suspect they know the answer.
(Tom Glick is a former Los Angeles City Planning Department Planner with over three decades of municipal expertise. Since 2017, they have served as a Board Member for the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, continuing their commitment to local land-use policy and community advocacy.)
