Are there bad parts of WeHo? (Los Angeles, Burbank: 2013, apartment, house)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Having lived in Venice, and having been to Culver City a lot, I saw no evidence Culver City had better public services, less crime (Culver City has ghetto areas too), or in any stretch of the imagination was better.

Then you must have not been looking, or you must never have set foot in Culver City. I've lived in Culver City, unlike you. I've also lived in Venice. I was born in and lived the overwhelming majority of my life in Los Angeles, mostly the west side, and almost all of it in California. Meanwhile, you, by your own admission, have never spent more than a year of your life in Los Angeles.

Culver City has considerably less crime than Venice, and much better public services. The infrastructure is considerably better, the cops actually respond when you call them, and there is more of a sense of order. The streets are cleaner than Venice, or even Brentwood. Compare the homeless situation in Culver City to that of Venice, they could not be more different. Culver City is considerably more friendly to business than Los Angeles. (Try having a small business in Culver City versus having one in L.A. and you'll find out the differences quite quickly.) Every time I had to call up CC government, they were very helpful and responsive. One cannot say the same thing about L.A. Culver City is extremely tough on the homeless, unlike L.A. city where they are a protected class.

Culver City's so called "ghetto" sections have pretty low crime.

There's a big difference between Santa Monica and the surrounding parts of L.A. city territory, in orderliness, in cleanliness, in the quality of city services, in dealing with the city, you name it. I can't think of a single independent city or unincorporated territory that is worse than the neighboring parts of L.A. city. They're all better.

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by majoun

Then you must have not been looking, or you must never have set foot in Culver City. I've lived in Culver City, unlike you. I've also lived in Venice. I was born in and lived the overwhelming majority of my life in Los Angeles, mostly the west side, and almost all of it in California. Meanwhile, you, by your own admission, have never spent more than a year of your life in Los Angeles.

Culver City has considerably less crime than Venice, and much better public services. The infrastructure is considerably better, the cops actually respond when you call them, and there is more of a sense of order. The streets are cleaner than Venice, or even Brentwood. Compare the homeless situation in Culver City to that of Venice, they could not be more different. Culver City is considerably more friendly to business than Los Angeles. (Try having a small business in Culver City versus having one in L.A. and you'll find out the differences quite quickly.) Every time I had to call up CC government, they were very helpful and responsive. One cannot say the same thing about L.A. Culver City is extremely tough on the homeless, unlike L.A. city where they are a protected class.

Culver City's so called "ghetto" sections have pretty low crime.

There's a big difference between Santa Monica and the surrounding parts of L.A. city territory, in orderliness, in cleanliness, in the quality of city services, in dealing with the city, you name it. I can't think of a single independent city or unincorporated territory that is worse than the neighboring parts of L.A. city. They're all better.

Probably the first time in 3 years I agree with you. NY Writer has only lived in LA briefly and doesn't really know what s/he's talking about. I've worked, lived, played, etc in basically every neighborhood of the westside for about 30 years, and the independent cities are always better off.

The "ghetto" of Culver City is really tame, there is no real ghetto there

[majoun]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

Probably the first time in 3 years I agree with you. NY Writer has only lived in LA briefly and doesn't really know what s/he's talking about. I've worked, lived, played, etc in basically every neighborhood of the westside for about 30 years, and the independent cities are always better off.

The "ghetto" of Culver City is really tame, there is no real ghetto there

True.

The independent cities of the Valley are always better off than the neighboring areas of the Valley within L.A. city, too.

[NyWriterdude]

No, the reason why I don't flip out about on these allegedly bad parts of Los Angeles is because I've lived in the Bronx, Bedstuy, Brooklyn (Biggie was Born there). The worst parts of Venice and West Los Angeles,and of other places on the Westside are comparatively tame to me.

Places that actually have issues with drive bys like parts of Inglewood or Compton, of course are really bad and I'd want nothing to do with.

But it doesn't mean that I, a 6'2" bearded man, is going to act like a 4'5" ft frightened old woman and scream just because there are homeless people or poor people spotted in area.

Every state has good and bad areas, mind you, and those of us from other large cities have certainly seen and been through good and bad areas back in the cities that we are from. Keep in mind that different people have different levels of comfort.

[NyWriterdude]

The thing is, the true reason why some people here want to claim that certain parts of LA are so terrible as opposed to places that aren't LA proper, is because certain parts of LA proper (and certain parts of WEHO) have too many people they don't like. As in people of color, immigrants, gays, POOR, etc. They'd rather live in an enclave where they can pretend certain people don't even exist. It really has nothing to do with safety or an area being good or bad. Its prejudice, same and simple, only they don't have the balls to come out and say it.

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

The thing is, the true reason why some people here want to claim that certain parts of LA are so terrible as opposed to places that aren't LA proper, is because certain parts of LA proper (and certain parts of WEHO) have too many people they don't like. As in people of color, immigrants, gays, POOR, etc. They'd rather live in an enclave where they can pretend certain people don't even exist. It really has nothing to do with safety or an area being good or bad. Its prejudice, same and simple, only they don't have the balls to come out and say it.

You're not really making sense with your last two posts. We're not talking about race, immigration, sexuality, class. The independent cities near LA can and often are very diverse in every way you can imagine. Since they are independent cities and not dragged down by the bureaucracy of LA, they tend to thrive better.

If you're referring to the discussion about east WeHo/Hollywood, it's nothing about race. Ladera Heights is heavily black and no one's claiming it's a bad area. Actually, a lot of the "sketchy" neighborhoods in Hollywood have a lot of young white transplants. And a lot of the dangerous transients are white - remember the lady stabbed to death at Hollywood and Highland recently?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

...the true reason why some people here want to claim that certain parts of LA are so terrible... is because certain parts of LA proper have too many people they don't like. As in people of color, immigrants, gays, POOR, etc. Its prejudice, same and simple, only they don't have the balls to come out and say it.

You must be extrapolating from your experiences in New York.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

You must be extrapolating from your experiences in New York.

No, I have been to LA too, and I have been in other places as well.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

You're not really making sense with your last two posts. We're not talking about race, immigration, sexuality, class. The independent cities near LA can and often are very diverse in every way you can imagine. Since they are independent cities and not dragged down by the bureaucracy of LA, they tend to thrive better.

If you're referring to the discussion about east WeHo/Hollywood, it's nothing about race. Ladera Heights is heavily black and no one's claiming it's a bad area. Actually, a lot of the "sketchy" neighborhoods in Hollywood have a lot of young white transplants. And a lot of the dangerous transients are white - remember the lady stabbed to death at Hollywood and Highland recently?

Except I don't think the diverse areas the ones you'd claim are the most safe. I think the wealthiest, whites suburbs are what you're claiming as "safe" and anything less than that, especially if its a part of the city of LA, is "unsafe".

When you can just come out and say you don't like people of color, immigrants, and poor people. Since that's exactly what people often mean by good and bad areas.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by majoun

Then you must have not been looking, or you must never have set foot in Culver City. I've lived in Culver City, unlike you. I've also lived in Venice. I was born in and lived the overwhelming majority of my life in Los Angeles, mostly the west side, and almost all of it in California. Meanwhile, you, by your own admission, have never spent more than a year of your life in Los Angeles.

Culver City has considerably less crime than Venice, and much better public services. The infrastructure is considerably better, the cops actually respond when you call them, and there is more of a sense of order. The streets are cleaner than Venice, or even Brentwood. Compare the homeless situation in Culver City to that of Venice, they could not be more different. Culver City is considerably more friendly to business than Los Angeles. (Try having a small business in Culver City versus having one in L.A. and you'll find out the differences quite quickly.) Every time I had to call up CC government, they were very helpful and responsive. One cannot say the same thing about L.A. Culver City is extremely tough on the homeless, unlike L.A. city where they are a protected class.

Culver City's so called "ghetto" sections have pretty low crime.

There's a big difference between Santa Monica and the surrounding parts of L.A. city territory, in orderliness, in cleanliness, in the quality of city services, in dealing with the city, you name it. I can't think of a single independent city or unincorporated territory that is worse than the neighboring parts of L.A. city. They're all better.

Well, I don't own a small business, so I could not give a damn about business regulations in LA versus its suburbs. Perhaps you should speak from the perspective of a small business owner. I never called the cops anywhere in LA county. For that matter, I'm not regularly in the business of calling cops wherever I live.

Having set food in Culver City plenty of times, I noticed no difference in cleanliness between Venice and Culver City. I honestly preferred Venice, it had a lot of nice bars that I go to. But the thing is, just because I personally preferred Venice, I would never declare my preference the standard and declare Venice to be wonderfully better than Culver City. I know why I like Venice. I'm a bar person, I party, I am NOT AFRAID of HOMELESS people when I've LIVED in the BRONX, etc.

You sound like you're spouting right wing ideology, and you have the mindset of right winger who wants to feel safe in the suburbs, and what, avoid LA city tax? Is that what you mean by business friendly, btw?