The uniquely vulnerable nature of Los Angeles governance (Long Beach, Glendale: crime, neighborhoods)

[skyway31]

* "Vulnerable", in this case, may really mean "ripe" depending on one's political aspirations.

Los Angeles is fairly unique among major cities in how its borders are drawn. They are all over the place, due to so many areas opting out to form their own city governments. A majority of major tourist attractions and wealthy neighborhoods are not, in fact, part of the city of Los Angeles. Rodeo Drive/Beverly Hills; the Santa Monica pier and city; the Rose Bowl/Pasadena; Manhattan, Hermosa and Redondo Beaches; Palos Verdes peninsula; Long Beach; Culver City; the area SoFi stadium is located (not a nice area, but SoFi is a major site in the area); West Hollywood; Glendale; Burbank. ALL are very well-known, heavily visited and highly regarded areas intimately linked with Los Angeles and NONE of them are within the city of Los Angeles. No residents of those cities (legally) vote for L.A. mayor or city council. Truth is, one will have a difficult time thinking of any really nice areas that are actually within the L.A. city limits. There are some such neighborhoods. But, they are vastly outnumbered by "marginal" areas.

Most/all other major cities are not as segmented and disjointed in how the city boundaries are drawn. While there are plenty of nicer suburbs in other metro areas which are outside of the city limits, it tends to be much easier to identify really nice areas that are within the city limits. Much of Manhattan (NYC); Nob Hill, Pac Heights, the Marina, North Beach etc (SF); The Loop (Chicago) are a few examples of supremely nice areas with lots of very successful, wealthy residents, that are within the city limits of the major city. There really aren't comparable areas within Los Angeles city limits.

This is all significant, IMO, because it has implications for local elections. People who are wealthy, perhaps business/finance oriented, very rarely live within the city limits of Los Angeles and thus do not vote in those elections. Overwhelmingly, perhaps to a unique degree, the Los Angeles electorate is decidedly working class or poorer (relative to the local cost of living). The massive wealth present in the Los Angeles metro area is almost entirely left to vote in elections other than those directly impacting the city. I think this may favor one of (if not the) first predominately socialist/marxist/communist city councils in the country. There are, currently, I believe, three Marxists on the city council. With ballot harvesting legal, activists dominating the political landscape and "canvassing" neighborhoods, and a dearth of really successful people eligible to vote in the first place, I think L.A. may be about ready to fall to Marxists. Whether that's good or bad is a separate discussion.

[Thekdog]

This isn't just happening in LA though. Democrats have certainly gone further left in general

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

This isn't just happening in LA though. Democrats have certainly gone further left in general

Sure, but other cities aren’t as vulnerable as LA for the reasons laid out. There are still lots of wealthy Silicon Valley folks living inside of SF city limits who aren’t going to support fifth column attempts to dismantle capitalism, abolish the police, legalize encampments in public spaces etc.

*Portand is a city I don’t know much about. It seems that city is leftist extremist.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by skyway31

Sure, but other cities aren’t as vulnerable as LA for the reasons laid out. There are still lots of wealthy Silicon Valley folks living inside of SF city limits who aren’t going to support fifth column attempts to dismantle capitalism, abolish the police, legalize encampments in public spaces etc.

*Portand is a city I don’t know much about. It seems that city is leftist extremist.

It's quite possible. One thing I've noticed though is it tends to happen in very woke white city like Portland or Seattle or SF. LA's diversity works against it maybe

[NJ Brazen_3133]

Originally Posted by skyway31

* "Vulnerable", in this case, may really mean "ripe" depending on one's political aspirations.

Los Angeles is fairly unique among major cities in how its borders are drawn. They are all over the place, due to so many areas opting out to form their own city governments. A majority of major tourist attractions and wealthy neighborhoods are not, in fact, part of the city of Los Angeles. Rodeo Drive/Beverly Hills; the Santa Monica pier and city; the Rose Bowl/Pasadena; Manhattan, Hermosa and Redondo Beaches; Palos Verdes peninsula; Long Beach; Culver City; the area SoFi stadium is located (not a nice area, but SoFi is a major site in the area); West Hollywood; Glendale; Burbank. ALL are very well-known, heavily visited and highly regarded areas intimately linked with Los Angeles and NONE of them are within the city of Los Angeles. No residents of those cities (legally) vote for L.A. mayor or city council. Truth is, one will have a difficult time thinking of any really nice areas that are actually within the L.A. city limits. There are some such neighborhoods. But, they are vastly outnumbered by "marginal" areas.

Most/all other major cities are not as segmented and disjointed in how the city boundaries are drawn. While there are plenty of nicer suburbs in other metro areas which are outside of the city limits, it tends to be much easier to identify really nice areas that are within the city limits. Much of Manhattan (NYC); Nob Hill, Pac Heights, the Marina, North Beach etc (SF); The Loop (Chicago) are a few examples of supremely nice areas with lots of very successful, wealthy residents, that are within the city limits of the major city. There really aren't comparable areas within Los Angeles city limits.

This is all significant, IMO, because it has implications for local elections. People who are wealthy, perhaps business/finance oriented, very rarely live within the city limits of Los Angeles and thus do not vote in those elections. Overwhelmingly, perhaps to a unique degree, the Los Angeles electorate is decidedly working class or poorer (relative to the local cost of living). The massive wealth present in the Los Angeles metro area is almost entirely left to vote in elections other than those directly impacting the city. I think this may favor one of (if not the) first predominately socialist/marxist/communist city councils in the country. There are, currently, I believe, three Marxists on the city council. With ballot harvesting legal, activists dominating the political landscape and "canvassing" neighborhoods, and a dearth of really successful people eligible to vote in the first place, I think L.A. may be about ready to fall to Marxists. Whether that's good or bad is a separate discussion.

Isnt Mid Wilshire/Fairfax, Harvard Westlake and the foothills/mountains of San Fernando Valley rather affluent? Plus Silver Lakes, West Hollywood, Brentwood, Bel Air.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

Isnt Mid Wilshire/Fairfax, Harvard Westlake and the foothills/mountains of San Fernando Valley rather affluent? Plus Silver Lakes, West Hollywood, Brentwood, Bel Air.

Mid-Wilshire and Fairfax are decent, but plenty of sketchiness in that area. Almost all of the valley is either more marginal, or its own city (Calabasas.) Woodland Hills would be a rare exception. Silver Lake is not what I’d call super nice or wealthy; it’s more hipster and gentrified. WeHo is it’s own city (with a growing crime problem). Brentwood and Bel Air are nice, but the population of those areas is small relative to the rest of the city.

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

Isnt Mid Wilshire/Fairfax, Harvard Westlake and the foothills/mountains of San Fernando Valley rather affluent? Plus Silver Lakes, West Hollywood, Brentwood, Bel Air.

And Handcock park.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

Originally Posted by skyway31

Mid-Wilshire and Fairfax are decent, but plenty of sketchiness in that area. Almost all of the valley is either more marginal, or its own city (Calabasas.) Woodland Hills would be a rare exception. Silver Lake is not what I’d call super nice or wealthy; it’s more hipster and gentrified. WeHo is it’s own city (with a growing crime problem). Brentwood and Bel Air are nice, but the population of those areas is small relative to the rest of the city.

In the SFV there is Sherman Oaks, Tarzana, Encino, Chatsworth, Granada Hills.

Silver Lakes is wealthy enough. That is what gentrification is. I am thinking, just decent enough is what the TS is alluding to. Those people have much to lose but everything to gain by not voting crazy policies.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

In the SFV there is Sherman Oaks, Tarzana, Encino, Chatsworth, Granada Hills.

Silver Lakes is wealthy enough. That is what gentrification is. I am thinking, just decent enough is what the TS is alluding to. Those people have much to lose but everything to gain by not voting crazy policies.

Those are not elite areas. They are where the dwindling middle class of L.A. lives.

[Thekdog]

The elite areas are where the really crazy people are. Look at what happened to sf