The San Fernando Valley - Getting Uglier Each Year? (Los Angeles: hotel, home)

[jerblaine]

Originally Posted by cre8

Could be a technical distinction somewhere, I suppose. Burbank is geographically in the San Fernando Valley, which is bordered by mountains, east, west, north and south. However, Burbank is an incorporated city, not part of the City of Los Angeles. Most of the SFV became part of L.A. City back in the early part of the last century to secure water rights vis-a-vis the L.A. Aqueduct, which brought water to the area from Mono Lake and the Owens Valley. At that time, the San Fernando Valley was nothing more than a collection of separate communities. Those communities that joined the City of L.A. could partake of the city's new water supply. Other communities opted to stay out of L.A. City and later became their own cities, such as Burbank, San Fernando, Glendale, etc. Were it not for the water issue, the San Fernando Valley probably would have evolved more like the San Gabriel Valley, which is comprised of smaller, incorporated cities (Pasadena, Azusa, Monrovia, and so on) rather than one big section of L.A.

As to secession, I don't think Burbank had any say in that. The question was for that part of the Valley that's incorporated with L.A. City. As stated earlier, Burbank is not part of L.A. Secession would have made the L.A. portion of the SFV its own city -- like Burbank.

Wait it was either Brentwood or Pacific Palasades.....one of those that are on the LA side of the mountains!!! I keep up with these things and I know it was one of those!! Why would they be considered the San Fernando Valley?

but i agree that the valley should secceed(sp?) because it is its own world and i think it can sustain itself!!......the vote was close.

60/40 and those 60 were mostly in LA proper lol

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by jerblaine

Yeah I was wondering after i said that if Burbank was its own city...i thought it might be...

BUT

Pacific Palasades was part of the valley in that vote!! I still wonder why that is!!

It was probably a city-wide vote, a question for the entire city whether or not to keep/let go of the Valley. No portion of the city could break away without the entire city agreeing to it. Secession is complicated. A similar issue was at stake recently with Santa Barbara County wanting to divide in two. The way I understood it in that case is that the entire county had to agree that a portion would break away, both sides then must also agree on who gets what (area, water, cities, etc.). But, the breaking away part would bear the costs of the decision were it to happen. In simple terms, anyway, that's how I understand city/county secession rules. Maybe someone else here knows more.

[jerblaine]

Originally Posted by cre8

It was probably a city-wide vote, a question for the entire city whether or not to keep/let go of the Valley. No portion of the city could break away without the entire city agreeing to it. Secession is complicated. A similar issue was at stake recently with Santa Barbara County wanting to divide in two. The way I understood it in that case is that the entire county had to agree that a portion would break away, both sides then must also agree on who gets what (area, water, cities, etc.). But, the breaking away part would bear the costs of the decision were it to happen. In simple terms, anyway, that's how I understand city/county secession rules. Maybe someone else here knows more.

youre right!! they were included because it was a citywide vote. duh...i wasnt thinking.....

yeah but still though brentwood and pacific palasades shouldnt have a say in that matter!! lmao

[CamaroGuy]

Well I've lived in the valley all my life and its definatley not the valley I grew up in.:-( Burbank is simply in a class by itself! I was born in that city so I do feel a "conection" to it.:-)

[gypsystar]

Originally Posted by cynwldkat

The valley has changed drastically in the last 15 years....and not for the better. That being said they are trying to fix some places up but I personally feel it's a little to little and a little to late. And yes, there has always been signs in Spanish , to a degree but come on guys, if you live or visit the "valley" you know as well as I do that the graffiti has gotten really bad and it is just about everywhere! It's not pretty or a form of art it's ugly. The trash has gotten out of hand. The valley certainly has changed and is changing yearly. I really don't know if the state can really ever clean it all the way up now! This is just my personal opinion. Maybe others just don't see this or they haven't lived in the valley for 35 years so they don't realize the changes as much as the old timers.

Yep, graffiti is everywhere now. I was just in Woodland Hills today and saw it all over. Of course it wasn't as bad as it is in Van Nuys and Reseda, but it is there. Sad.

[gypsystar]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

I have to agree with the comments about graffiti and trash increasing. I live in what used to be considered a good area - Sherman Oaks, just north of the freeway. There's now graffiti sprayed on our dumpsters, the walls, etc. Just down the alley, another apartment building was demolished, and nothing was built to replace it. This has become a haven for all kinds of trash - old sofas, beds, refrigerators, etc. It's embarrassing.

I know EXACTLY what you mean, Sandy, and that was part of the point of this post. I live about 5 blocks away from Sherman Oaks and I honestly can't tell where Van Nuys ends and Sherman Oaks begins - the trash and rundown buildings are that bad. Things along Ventura still look good, but if you go inland at all, it looks like crap.

[Slauson Rosecranz]

One reason for the decline is because the barrios in the Valley are trying to "compete" with barrios in L.A.

They want badass respect like East Los, or Boyle Heights, or whatever.

You also have dirtbags from L.A. coming up to the Valley to "do their thing", so to speak.
Trying to muscle their way in and start their own barrios.

The extreme south and western parts of the Valley will very likely remain stable, suburban, and affluent.

[jerblaine]

Originally Posted by Slauson Rosecranz

One reason for the decline is because the barrios in the Valley are trying to "compete" with barrios in L.A.

They want badass respect like East Los, or Boyle Heights, or whatever.

You also have dirtbags from L.A. coming up to the Valley to "do their thing", so to speak.
Trying to muscle their way in and start their own barrios.

The extreme south and western parts of the Valley will very likely remain stable, suburban, and affluent.

Good observation. I agree with that. The western and southern parts will remain affluent and the inland areas will remain as they are.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by gypsystar

I know EXACTLY what you mean, Sandy, and that was part of the point of this post. I live about 5 blocks away from Sherman Oaks and I honestly can't tell where Van Nuys ends and Sherman Oaks begins - the trash and rundown buildings are that bad. Things along Ventura still look good, but if you go inland at all, it looks like crap.

And homes are still like $500K-$600K for 1500 sqft.

[cynwldkat]

Burbank also has it's own law enforcement and they are good! Most of those problem makers know to stay away from Burbank because those cops there do not play games!! It is a pretty safe city considering it is so close to Los Angeles!!! If you want to do something illegal you don"t go to Burbank!! Even though I lived in the valley I did all my shopping in Burbank as it is much nicer and safer there.