What Can You Believe In The LA Times? The Headline - Or The Story?

As is too often the case - the headline of a story in the Los Angeles Times - likely not written by the writer of the story - contradicts what the writer says in the story.

L.A. City Council expected to OK 'inclusionary zoning' today

The mandate would require builders to include units for the poor, thus making Los Angeles eligible for hundreds of millions of dollars in state housing bond funds.

By Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

10:26 AM PDT, August 13, 2008

New condominium projects in neighborhoods such as Brentwood, Studio City and other affluent parts of Los Angeles could be required to include units for very poor people if the City Council approves a new housing plan as expected today.

The commitment to a so-called inclusionary zoning law, which has been a contentious topic in Los Angeles for years, is part of a comprehensive housing plan that the city must adopt to be eligible for hundreds of millions of dollars in state housing bond funds.

The plan calls for the City Council to introduce a proposed law by the end of the year that would mandate developers build units for poor people.

While the first headline says that inclusionary zoning is being approved today - it is not even being voted upon. All that is being voted upon are some very general policies that will lead to some kind of bill regarding inclusionary zoning likely being introduced later this year.

The second headline says that this alleged mandate 'would' require builders to include units for the poor - but the article - correctly - says this 'could' be required. The article also further states:

Others warned the action would set the stage for a fight over the next few months as developers, advocates for the poor and other interested parties hash out the details.

A law will be introduced and it may or may not pass and even if it passes, it may be radically different than what is being currently proposed. No one currently knows. But there are two things everyone - other than the editors of the LA Times - can agree upon. First, there is no law mandating inclusionary zoning being voted upon today. Second, exclusionary zoning is not being 'approved' today.