Why not incorporate Los Angeles' little cities ?

[Thundergod]

Why don't incorporate Los Angeles little Citys like Vernon or others? In times of crises is that a point where all communitys save the money and the borders of Los Angeles would looks better.
I think, if someone looks on a map, there are hundreds of little Citys and somewhere in the middle or north is Los Angeles.

If Los Angeles incorporate a few citys in the periphery, it could be easily to save money.

[croyboy]

los angeles doesn't even have the money to buy cities right now

[Simfan34]

Originally Posted by Thundergod

Why don't incorporate Los Angeles little Citys like Vernon or others? In times of crises is that a point where all communitys save the money and the borders of Los Angeles would looks better.
I think, if someone looks on a map, there are hundreds of little Citys and somewhere in the middle or north is Los Angeles.

If Los Angeles incorporate a few citys in the periphery, it could be easily to save money.

I had wondered about that too, it's so odd. Perhaps it should become the city and county of Los Angeles.

[TonyW79SFV]

Isn't that what happened a century ago when William Mulholland built the Los Angeles Aqueduct? A lot if smaller cities back then were annexed into the City of Los Angeles to tap into the DWP's new water source. Not all towns gave in, like San Fernando, which had their own aquifer to keep them supplied.

[Thundergod]

I understand. In Germany, my home country, is it different. If a community unable to pay there bills, then can vote the politics to incorporate with another city to save money ...

[croyboy]

that would also apply here. but los angeles city doesn't have enough money to incorporate most nearby cities. would be nice though

[Kenny]

I believe I said that months ago, that I didn't like the "munchkinland" cities surrounding LA.
LA should annex Bell, Vernon and a few others. Too much waste spending on city councils, mini departments etc in these "munchkin" cities.
Too much regional bureaucracy to get the larger projects done.

City of Los Angeles in Red

[milquetoast]

I think the County is already running Bell.

[klamedia]

I guess I don't understand this thread in the least. Why would LA want to incorporate any of those smaller cities into the City of LA? What would be the benefit to the city? If anything LA needs to unload parts of the Valley.

[TheKorean]

Whats the point? With the public transit connecting many parts of LA county, they are already one de facto city anyway.

[pesto]

The cities most logical to incorporate are those surrounded by LA (SM, BH, WeHo, etc.). But that's not going to happen.

Some of the micros on the eastside (Bell, etc.) could also be efficiently incorporated, but better would be to contract out and share services or even better merge into 100-300k cities that would have fewer administrative and managerial positions per resident but not be so large as to become bureaucratic and remote from the local scene. LB, Glendale, Pasadena and such seem to be a reasonable size.

The OC tends to have more cities in the 100k range so maybe that's OK too.

[Kenny]

Those will never happen, I'm thinking more of those east of downtown. Such waste of resources in salaries for mayors and city councils. They can be incorporated to existing LA districts and the funds used for local proyects.


Nooo, I don't agree in breaking up LA. It would become just another miniature southern californian city. It's size allows it to push it's weight around in many issues. And for it, it is what it is; an Alpha world city of culture, finance and art.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by TheKorean

Whats the point? With the public transit connecting many parts of LA county, they are already one de facto city anyway.

That's still not a reason to consolidate the county into one city.

"kenn" what's a proyect? Is that spanglish?

[AlexTheMartian]

well whatever should happen, please don't un-incorporate these cities you are all talking about. I live in unincorporated LA County, wedged between 2 cities in SGV, and I miss many of the services actual city residents gets. County also does not provide much for community beatification and preservation so not having a city municipal code causes a community to deteriorate in my opinion.

I never understand the point of having gaps of unincorporated LA County between and within cities. I think I know why they ended up as such, but why haven't cities annex these areas?

However with all this said, I also think these small cities have wasteful spending like you all said. I think LA City needs to grow

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by klamedia

That's still not a reason to consolidate the county into one city.

"kenn" what's a proyect? Is that spanglish?

Yesm.

[klamedia]

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by AlexTheMartian

well whatever should happen, please don't un-incorporate these cities you are all talking about. I live in unincorporated LA County, wedged between 2 cities in SGV, and I miss many of the services actual city residents gets. County also does not provide much for community beatification and preservation so not having a city municipal code causes a community to deteriorate in my opinion.

I never understand the point of having gaps of unincorporated LA County between and within cities. I think I know why they ended up as such, but why haven't cities annex these areas?

However with all this said, I also think these small cities have wasteful spending like you all said. I think LA City needs to grow

Sorry that you miss some of the basic city services but what would be the benefit for LA to incorporate unincorporated areas of the county or troubled cities like Bell? LA pretty much grew only when it needed something like water or a port. I don't see why LA would load itself down with cities and areas with very little real revenue. I'm hoping that a few places secede like Porter's Ranch, Northridge and Granada Hills. Take Reseda, Tarzana and Westlake while you're at it.

[AlexTheMartian]

With that type of thinking you will end up with a city that kicks out all areas south of downtown and only keeping a even-more-thin line all the way from downtown to the Harbor, as well as kicking out almost all of SFV. That way you exclude all the poor and lower middle class people.

Also with that kind of thinking, if LA was to expand, they will only take all the beach cities from Malibu all the way to San Pedro, and that way they can get rid of that line down to the harbor that goes through "poor" areas.

You can not just kick out the areas that aren't rich. Nobody would allow that to happen.

[klamedia]

Not at all. If the San Fernando Valley seceded Los Angeles would still have enough poor people to go around.

[pesto]

I would hope that wealth woudn't become an issue, but it probably would. But the idea is to get micro cities to join medium sized cities and consolidate administration and services. Picking up county areas is secondary, but probably a good idea in many cases.

Wasn't long ago that WeHo was county and East LA has been talking "city" for decades.