You can now buy a piece of Echo Park for $100

Chango, a coffee shop in Echo Park, closed in 2018, with its owners citing high rents and competition. Nico says, as a property owner, it wants to preserve longtime tenants.
Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

At a brick bakery on Sunset Boulevard, Stephen McCarty sells technicolor rainbow cakes dyed with dragonfruit, blueberries, and turmeric. McCarty, who relocated from New York City in 2007, has developed a following for his vegan cakes. But he had to close the doors to his shop, Solar Return, in mid-March, and was only able to open for no-contact pickups around Mother’s Day—with help from his landlord.

The executives who run Nico, the property management and real estate investment corporation that owns McCarty’s building, realized early in the pandemic that, with the economy all but shutting down, tenants would be pinched trying to make rent. At the end of March, they released security deposits to tenants in their three buildings, all in Echo Park, and the second week of April, they set up $150,000 in grants for rent payments, none of which had to be paid back.

“If we didn’t have a sympathetic ear in the landlord’s office, we would basically be giving away our ingredients and our time,” says McCarty, who tapped into the fund to keep his business afloat.

Nico is giving Angelenos an opportunity to own a piece of their neighborhood. If Nico’s community-investment strategy works, long-time Echo Park residents who haven’t already been pushed out by gentrification, including renters, will have a chance to make money from property ownership—just like people with lots of money have always had the opportunity to do.

Nico is offering $10 shares to the public in its small real estate portfolio, an amount that’s unusually low for the real estate investment game. Anyone can buy in, but investors who live in and around Echo Park have different redemption rights, and every investor must purchase at least 10 shares, for a minimum investment of $100. That secures a financial stake in the company and a say in how it operates. Nico’s officers are also giving $1,000 worth of shares to the tenants in their 80 apartments.

Like Warby Parker and Patagonia, Nico is a certified B corporation, meaning it is deemed to be as committed to its social mission—to preserve rent-controlled apartments and give longtime residents more say in how their neighborhoods grow and change—as it is to turning a profit.

“We believe real estate has an outweighted influence on neighborhoods, and is too driven by capital,” says Max Levine, who cofounded Nico. “We want to help stabilize communities and manage properties in a more responsible and humane way.”

No matter how much good Nico might try to do in Echo Park, it will still be making money off renters and small-business owners in a neighborhood that has been treated by developers as a real estate gold mine, with little regard for the impact that has on the people who have been displaced.

“I thought about that a lot. This could be a way for white people to alleviate guilt about gentrifying,” says Kevin Graves, a graduate student and renter in Silver Lake who’s investing in Nico (he also moved here from New York City). He decided to buy shares after seeing an ad for Nico on social media. “If people are going to make money on the gentrification of Echo Park, let’s have it be the people who have lived here for a long time instead of being squeezed out,” he says.

Real estate companies do shape the look, feel, and dynamics of communities. They decide, to a large extent, how much to charge for rent, which businesses get to occupy their buildings, and what the buildings look like. The typical resident doesn’t get have much power over how a residential block or commercial strip is designed. Most renters don’t even know the people they cut their rent checks to. Nico, for its part, is not hidden behind a vaguely named LLC.

“The vision for these buildings? We want to be longterm stewards of great assets, and we want to build community and support our residents and contribute to the stability of their lives,” says Levine. “We want to be great property owners.”

Nico is “democratizing” real estate ownership, says Helen Leung, an urban planner who serves on Nico’s advisory board. “Real estate is the primary way to build equity,” she says. “But typical real estate investments aren’t accessible to the average person.”

She was also impressed with Nico’s commitment not to evict anyone under the California Ellis Act, which is essentially a commitment not to tear down the buildings that Nico owns, all of which are rent-controlled, or convert rental apartments into for-sale units. Levine says Nico will ensure tenants get to live in their apartments for as long as possible. Leung, who runs a community nonprofit based in Frogtown, where she grew up, says she looks forward to holding Levine and his partners to their word.

Before he relocated to Los Angeles to launch Nico with his business partner, John Chaffetz, Levine lived in New York and worked for Storage Deluxe, a self-storage developer. He is also a part owner of Mile End Delicatessen, a Jewish deli in Brooklyn.

A few years ago, he says, he began trying to figure out how to use his real estate knowledge for good. When he met Chaffetz, the pair got to talking about how when most people think about investing in their communities, they envision homeownership. “But you have to have enough money for a down payment, and that’s a high bar,” he says.

Chaffetz is a former Morgan Stanley employee who cofounded Timberlane Partners, a real estate company that purchased and flipped several old apartment buildings in Echo Park and Silver Lake over the past several years. In 2015, Bloomberg described Timberlane’s strategy: “Buy neglected apartment buildings in promising neighborhoods, renovate, raise rents, and fill them with young professionals.” Chaffetz told Bloomberg that Timberlane was “putting together a portfolio it plans to hold for decades.” But its website shows that it sold five of its six Los Angeles properties in 2018 and 2019, including one that it sold to Nico for $9 million.

Paul Ong, an economics professor and director of UCLA’s Center for Neighborhood Knowledge, says there are more democratic forms of landownership, like community land trusts, which don’t exist to make a profit. Benefit corporations like Nico might set out to do good, he says, but “in our market economy there are incentives and pressures to mold behavior around maximizing profit to the degree that your noble ideas become secondary.”

On the other hand, if you’re profit-driven alone, Nico’s holdings may ultimately be too small to make any significant returns for investors, says Eric Sussman, an adjunct accounting professor at UCLA and partner at Clear Capital LLC.

“I’ve never seen a real estate investment trust own so few properties,” he says. “If this whole approach is to allow renters to get a piece of the action or somehow invest in their own units, I think there are less expensive, more liquid, better ways to go about doing it.”

The goal, Levine says, is for Nico to start buying more rent-controlled buildings in Echo Park and surrounding neighborhoods, including Westlake, as it recruits more investors and raises more money.

“The great untold story of neighborhood change is the pressure that capital puts on communities and how those investments define success, which is in purely financial returns,” he says. But on the other hand, he says, “we don’t view capital as bad.”

Update: This story has been updated to show that Timberlane sold one of its Echo Park properties to Nico in 2019.

Comments

Great idea!

Combine the righteousness and executive salaries of a housing nonprofit with the high fees and lack of investor recourse of a mutual fund.

I gotta start me one of these!

But it’s for the good of the community! Lol

I don’t get it – say you invest $1000 into this – do you get some sort of dividend each quarter or do you just sit tight for awhile and then sell you investment? How do you know what your $1000 is worth as times goes on.

You get to feel good about renouncing white guilt and gentrification. Prob worth $1,000 for all the self-hating white liberals in LA

I keep forgetting that improving a neighborhood by fixing up dilapidated buildings and renting to strong tenants is a bad thing in LA….whoops!

"Buy neglected apartment buildings in promising neighborhoods, renovate, raise rents, and fill them with young professionals."

The hypocrisy of urbanism. The way you change a city to be more urban with livable streets is to redevelop via urban infill and fill it with higher income earners which then attracts the businesses that you need for livable streets. Without doing this, you are left with what Echo Park and downtown used to be like…and let me tell you, there wasn’t a vegan cake store in old Echo Park.

This idea sounds nice in theory, but I’m a little skeptical it would be a good investment for anyone given the background of those involved (and the high likelihood of property values reversing course in this economy.)

If it’s a question of white guilt, I’d rather just donate directly to organizations and cultural institutions that are already established and helping people of color.

If it’s about investment, seems better to create an ecosystem where neighborhood improvement and wealth generation is shared by the community overall (instead of mostly outsiders.) "Gentlefication" if you will. However that would require relaxing zoning, cutting red tape, etc. (which the left seems to have an aversion to.)

Anyone know why we don’t have more co-ops (housing and businesses) in LA? That seems like a more tried-and-true model for lowercase "s" socialism.

I’m actually curious… what is the difference between this and a co-op? Not sure I fully understand?

My knee-jerk reaction is that this would be a bad investment for most low-income renters in the building, who in most cases should prioritize liquidity if they have extra money to invest.

It also feels a bit disingenuous to roll this out now, at the end of the boom phase of a real estate cycle, particularly after its creators made a bunch of money gentrifying and flipping properties on the way up. Seems a bit like a micro version of what happened in 2006-2007 when a lot of people of relatively modest means bought houses with poorly underwritten mortgages just in time to get slaughtered by the ensuing real estate crash.

This is almost criminal really lol . It’s worse then the lottery for poor people because at least with the lottery you have the potential for a huge return. Taking liquid cash from the people that can actually use that money the most and all they get in return is some fairy tail ownership in something that will likely end up losing money in the end due to maintenance cost and lack of revenue for reinvestment. I wonder who gets all the money from the maintenance on this whole operation ? Sounds like good intentions that will turn into a scam once put into motion.

only line that made any sense to me :

"I’ve never seen a real estate investment trust own so few properties," he says. "If this whole approach is to allow renters to get a piece of the action or somehow invest in their own units, I think there are less expensive, more liquid, better ways to go about doing it."

Common! This is hiding behind a PC cause for profit. And even worse, soliciting funding from an income class with low disposable income to invest.

Buying rent controlled buildings with very low turnover. How does this benefit investors who don’t live in such buildings?

NICO will see immediate results. Interest free funding for acquisitions and management fees funding their salaries.

If the end goal of NICO is to acquire a mass portfolio to eventually sell off to the highest bidder in a great market cycle, then that potentially makes sense to invest. But that’s not the mission being solicited to investors.

Ironically, the way for NICO investors to profit is for the continuation of the cause they are fighting against.

Sounds so fishy.

Did no one go to the NICO website? You get quarterly dividends. Its not just investing in ownership for the sake of ownership.

With 2 rent controlled buildings in portfolio, the acquisition of potentially more rent controlled buildings, management fees, all other below the line company costs as well. = Good luck with those quarterly dividends.

The people they are soliciting are not the investor pool who have disposable income to sit on for a long time. The only people I see benefitting from investing are the tenants in the rent controlled buildings. Or if some Eastside Hipster wants to impress a date by walking by a building in Echo Park and say "I’m a part owner in that building" (wink wink I invested 100 bucks)

NICO can do the same mission (save rent control buildings, control gentrification, whatever) without soliciting funds from pool of people with little disposable income. It’s called bank loans, high net worth private investors who care for NICO’s cause, or put their own money in.

I may have missed something in article but how much is NICO core group personally investing in these buildings? Will they take their quarterly management fees and reinvest back into the company?
In real estate investing is it always a red flag when a person is soliciting OPM "other peoples money" and taking a "fee" regardless of the outcome of the project. And this one is also using a PC cause as the core mission.

Los Angeles tax payers funded 1.2B on HHH for a "good cause" to get the homeless off the streets.
3 years later. 1 building, worse situation. Where did all the money go? HMMMMM!

View All Comments
Back to top ↑