Why not incorporate Los Angeles' little cities ?

[Thundergod]

Why is WeHo a own city? It is so small.
And it were consequential that East L.A. were a part of the city of Los Angeles

[112597Jorge]

It would be great if LA incorporated Vernon, mayflower, east Los Angeles, west Hollywood, and those other miniature cities. Wasn't Vernon saved from being annexed by LA?

[-Corey-]

Originally Posted by Thundergod

Why is WeHo a own city? It is so small.
And it were consequential that East L.A. were a part of the city of Los Angeles

East Los Angeles is trying to consolidate as a city... As a CDP, I don't think they would want to become part of Los Angeles.

[pesto]

WeHo and the other smaller cities have no inclination to become part of LA. Neither does East LA (not a city), Vernon or any other city I have ever heard of. Unfortunately, no matter how bad or expensive the local administration, it will provide better services at a lower cost than LA could. I don't exaggerate when I say that you notice the difference in improved street quality, maintenance, etc., when you go out of LA and into Compton.

The real issue is people wanting to leave LA. Hollywood tried as did the SFV. But, basically, the rest of the city wouldn't let them.

What would make more sense is for smaller cities in the SGV or toward the OC to form cities of, say, 3-500k. This would presumably result in less-overhead and sufficient size to obtain services more cheaply.

[112597Jorge]

Originally Posted by pesto

What would make more sense is for smaller cities in the SGV or toward the OC to form cities of, say, 3-500k. This would presumably result in less-overhead and sufficient size to obtain services more cheaply.

That's a great idea, even better than the annexation to LA, the San Gabriel valley, southbay, Pomona valley, OC, and probably some south central and gateway cities should combine to make larger cities of 500,000 and up like you stated.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by croyboy

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

Um, but they don't have the money to resist either.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by Thundergod

Why is WeHo a own city? It is so small.
And it were consequential that East L.A. were a part of the city of Los Angeles

Culture?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Kenni

Culture?

Thundergod: (I assume Kenni knows all this.)

The debate on incorporating East LA (which is an unincorporated areas of LA County) brings up Hispanic pride, history, local control, etc. But the real issue is that there would be more costs inherent in starting a new city and the county services are adequate in most people's minds.

This is not that unusual; many areas in California are unincorporated and rely on county services. ELA is larger than any such area that I know of.

As far as I know, no organized effort to make it part of LA exists.

[croyboy]

Originally Posted by Kenni

Um, but they don't have the money to resist either.

even if true for some cities, that's pointless because NOONE is BUYING

[klamedia]

Why would LA want to incorporate some small nearly bankrupt city? We have a very large nearly bankrupt city to contend with.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Why would LA want to incorporate some small nearly bankrupt city? We have a very large nearly bankrupt city to contend with.

But that situation isn't permanent (an economic down turn or recession), such integration is a long term solution to a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy ($$).

Originally Posted by pesto

Thundergod: (I assume Kenni knows all this.)

The debate on incorporating East LA (which is an unincorporated areas of LA County) brings up Hispanic pride, history, local control, etc. But the real issue is that there would be more costs inherent in starting a new city and the county services are adequate in most people's minds.

This is not that unusual; many areas in California are unincorporated and rely on county services. ELA is larger than any such area that I know of.

As far as I know, no organized effort to make it part of LA exists.

Very historical. Way back crossing the LA River meant crossing over a divide, away from the "civilized city", the shops, market and huge department stores where "white" Los Angeles went to shop (Downtown), and Latinos couldn't afford. Back then East Los Angeles was predominantly Mexican American or Mexican, now the demographics has change some what, they are still the majority but there is now a large Central American community there. So loyalties differ.

As East LA grew and became some what self sufficient with time since those days, Downtown slipped into a decline, no more great department stores and restaurants that people over the river used to gaze at. So there wasn't an attraction any longer to belong to "the city".

I think it can be a win/win situation if the offer by the City of Los Angeles is packaged very attractively.

I'd annex:

East LA
City of San Fernando
Universal City
Vernon
Maywood
Huntington park
Baldwin Hills
Walnut Park
Bell
Bell Gardens
Cudahy
Commerce
Culver City
Inglewood
Gardena
Compton
Carson
(far fetched, but these two also) Beverly Hills and West Hollywood.



Downey, Norwalk, Paramount and Bellflower should be one whole city.
Long Beach, Signal Hill and Lakewood should be one entity.

[pesto]

The "Maywood/Bell" collection of special purpose (low-tax, industrially friendly) cities would make sense to incorporate into each other. But incorporating them into LA would cause taxes to rise and force the industries to move to the IE (or China).

Downey and greater LB make sense, but there would be some local resistance.

BH and WeHo are hilarious. You wouldn't get 2 votes to join LA. Property values literally go up 30 percent when you cross the street to get into these cities.

[Kenny]

that's why I said far fetched. But, LA already has distinct "plus" areas such a Bel Aire, Brentwood etc. where you see the difference when you drive into them, even tho in the same city.

City tax codes would have to be adjusted to package these deals.

[Rogue Linguist]

This is strange to me, coming from Seattle. There are no enclaves or exclaves of any sort. The city boundaries are very regular, and there's almost no playing "hopscotch" over other cities.

I guess this has largely to do with Los Angeles's decentralised nature, and with the history, geography, and politics of that region.

[pesto]

Definitely an interesting story.

But it's not like LA isn't physically large enough. It's not obvious what advantages there would be in sweeping up loads of small cities across SE county or the SGV. In fact, breaking LA into 3 or 4 cities of 1M each would likely bring better provision of services.

[croyboy]

only we would have a sucky status.. "welcome to L.A.!! the tenth largest city in the U.S.A.!!"

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Rogue Linguist

This is strange to me, coming from Seattle. There are no enclaves or exclaves of any sort. The city boundaries are very regular, and there's almost no playing "hopscotch" over other cities.

I guess this has largely to do with Los Angeles's decentralised nature, and with the history, geography, and politics of that region.

Depends on what you mean by decentralized? Economically? Spatially? Population? Or do you mean multi-nodal?