San Pedro annexation by Los Angeles - biggest mistake in San Pedro history?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by nmnita

that was a 100 years ago, I can remember when the same question came up about other areas surrounding L.A. Often it had to do with water and or city provided services, but regardless of why, it happened and what makes you think the city would be better off if not part of Los Angeles? That is strictly speculation.

NIta

There were at least two Westside cases in which the area in question decided to join L.A. rather than be swallowed up by a neighboring city: Palms decided to be annexed by L.A. rather than Culver City, and Pacific Palisades decided to be annexed by L.A. rather than Santa Monica.

Both would be better off today if not part of L.A. (The old unincorporated Palms was bigger than the current neighborhood and went as far north as the southern boundary of Beverly Hills. It could have theoretically been annexed by Beverly Hills although AFAIK Beverly Hills never tried to annex surrounding unincorporated territory whereas Harry Culver DID seek to annex surrounding unincorporated territory into his city.)

[califantastic]

Wow that is very interesting that Pacific Palisades was once independent and it chose to become part of LA rather than part of Santa Monica. That was definitely a horrible decision by Pacific Palisades.

LA is just too big and ungovernable. Most of the people that I know in the LA area would much rather live in an adjacent city (e.g. Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Culver City) than in LA itself. This is especially true for people that have children.

For most of the cities that decided to join LA it was probably the worst decision they ever made.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by califantastic

LA is just too big and ungovernable. Most of the people that I know in the LA area would much rather live in an adjacent city (e.g. Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Culver City) than in LA itself. This is especially true for people that have children.

For most of the cities that decided to join LA it was probably the worst decision they ever made.

i wonder if LA will ever revisit the possibility of splitting the city into boroughs, NYC-style - with the caveat that each of the boroughs would have a greater degree of autonomy than the NYC boroughs currently enjoy. it's hard to say for sure, but my gut feeling is that it would result in a much more manageable and efficient city over the long haul.

step 2, as majoun has mentioned on numerous occasions, would be to break up the LAUSD (perhaps along borough lines?). unfortunately, everyone i've heard opine on this matter thinks it'll never happen.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by pbergen

i wonder if LA will ever revisit the possibility of splitting the city into boroughs, NYC-style - with the caveat that each of the boroughs would have a greater degree of autonomy than the NYC boroughs currently enjoy. it's hard to say for sure, but my gut feeling is that it would result in a much more manageable and efficient city over the long haul.

step 2, as majoun has mentioned on numerous occasions, would be to break up the LAUSD (perhaps along borough lines?). unfortunately, everyone i've heard opine on this matter thinks it'll never happen.

But didn't New York's boroughs exist as separate cities before merging into New York City? I don't see LA ever dividing itself into smaller units and giving them any real power because that would reduce the power of those already in power. After all, what politician wants to give themselves less power?

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

But didn't New York's boroughs exist as separate cities before merging into New York City? I don't see LA ever dividing itself into smaller units and giving them any real power because that would reduce the power of those already in power. After all, what politician wants to give themselves less power?

besides the original nyc (manhattan), only brooklyn was its own city. the rest were outlying counties that were composed of various towns and villages - each of which ended up becoming neighborhoods within the newly-formed boroughs of the larger, consolidated city. examples include the neighborhood of flushing, queens (formerly the town of flushing within queens county), the neighborhood of flatbush, brooklyn (formerly the town of flatbush within kings county, which in turn would end up having coterminous boundaries with the new borough of brooklyn), etc.

but as for splitting up LA city...you may very well be right. politicians are always looking to protect their power and turf.

still, it would be really interesting to see if LA city ever reconsiders, considering how many administrative, educational, and policing difficulties it's endured due to the fact that it's such a far-flung city. i mean, the fact that it was discussed somewhat seriously earlier this decade suggests that it's not totally out of the question down the line.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by pbergen

i wonder if LA will ever revisit the possibility of splitting the city into boroughs, NYC-style - with the caveat that each of the boroughs would have a greater degree of autonomy than the NYC boroughs currently enjoy. it's hard to say for sure, but my gut feeling is that it would result in a much more manageable and efficient city over the long haul.

step 2, as majoun has mentioned on numerous occasions, would be to break up the LAUSD (perhaps along borough lines?). unfortunately, everyone i've heard opine on this matter thinks it'll never happen.

LAUSD is a state agency not a city or county agency and it would take the California Legislature to abolish it, or an initiative.

In fact, there should be a provision in the new constitution limiting the size of school districts which would effectively force the LAUSD to split up.

[zxatl]

Concerning the comment that one city can not annex another city that is correct in California. But not Nebraska and some other states. ( Check out Omaha Vs Elkin) But in the case of California, the smaller city can surrender it's charter, and then be annexed by the larger city.

[zxatl]

There is also consolidation annexation by voter referendum. City A's city council votes to put the question to a vote after being asked by concerned citizens to consolidate. City A ask its residents if they want to join City B. City B ask its residents the same. If everyone agrees a date is set and it goes into effect/

[zxatl]

To comment on the Nebraska fiasco. The city of Elkin was absorbed by Omaha because in Nebraska large cities of more than 10,000 residents have a different ranking. Elkin tried to grown through annexation but Omaha was watching. As the date grew closer to Elkin hitting the 10.000 mark. Omaha made its move. It went to the supreme court but Elkin lost. They got some crapy laws in that state. Little towns don't stand a chance, if they are on the big cities radar.