San Pedro annexation by Los Angeles - biggest mistake in San Pedro history? (Long Beach: sales, houses)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by missionhome

- Los Angeles had more established departments, especially in the police force. Many residents of San Pedro saw L.A. laws regarding/against saloons, gambling, prostitution, ect... beneficial and wanted those laws to become a part of San Pedro.

And that was another difference between San Pedro and Venice. Venetians saw those laws as oppressive and moralistic government interference in the lives of citizens, and really didn't want James E. Davis' LAPD (which vigorously enforced Prohibition laws) as the police force.

[califantastic]

San Pedro didn't have to give LA its crown jewel (the port) in order to outlaw saloons, gambling, and prostitution. San Pedro could have outlawed those things itself.

I think the most likely scenario is that LA took San Pedro by force and used water as bait to lure in its prey.

[califantastic]

As recently as a couple years ago the city of LA tried to take the El Toro military base in Orange County by force (through a long term land lease) so it could set up, own, and operate LAX south. I guess LA just takes what it wants and feels that the regular rules don't apply to them.

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by califantastic

As recently as a couple years ago the city of LA tried to take the El Toro military base in Orange County by force (through a long term land lease) so it could set up, own, and operate LAX south. I guess LA just takes what it wants and feels that the regular rules don't apply to them.

I doubt the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would have approved an annexation of the El Toro base by Los Angeles as first and foremost the base is not contiguous to the City of Los Angeles, i.e. not in Los Angeles' sphere of influence, and therefore could not efficiently provide any services to that location (which is one of the factors for determining the viability of annexation). Regarding the long-term land lease, that's well within the rights of any city to pursue so that's not really anything to be 'opposed' to and its certainly not illegal.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by califantastic

San Pedro didn't have to give LA its crown jewel (the port) in order to outlaw saloons, gambling, and prostitution. San Pedro could have outlawed those things itself.

I think the most likely scenario is that LA took San Pedro by force and used water as bait to lure in its prey.

I wonder just how developed the port was in 1909. I have a Thomas Guide from 1945 and the port has grown quite a bit even from then to now. I doubt San Pedro would have had the capital to develop it on it's own without LA's financial muscle. If LA hadn't gotten San Pedro, they could have wound up with Long Beach.

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I wonder just how developed the port was in 1909. I have a Thomas Guide from 1945 and the port has grown quite a bit even from then to now. I doubt San Pedro would have had the capital to develop it on it's own without LA's financial muscle. If LA hadn't gotten San Pedro, they could have wound up with Long Beach.

Los Angeles' annexation of San Pedro (and the associated harbor area) is a classic urban planning case study and one of the key drivers that led to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). I am strongly inclined to say that if any attempt to annex San Pedro were to happen to today, it would not be approved. San Pedro could have incorporated and with the harbor within its jurisdiction could have been a wealthy city.

The development of Los Angeles and Southern California, in general, is fascinating.

[califantastic]

I wonder why LA ended up with San Pedro rather than Long Beach. I guess because Long Beach was larger and more established than San Pedro. Sounds like San Pedro and Wilmington were smaller and easier to push around than Long Beach.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by califantastic

I wonder why LA ended up with San Pedro rather than Long Beach. I guess because Long Beach was larger and more established than San Pedro. Sounds like San Pedro and Wilmington were smaller and easier to push around than Long Beach.

Long Beach was already an incorporated city.

[califantastic]

City of LA did not want to annex El Toro but with a 99 year land lease they could certainly control it. It is wrong for LA to go around taking control of other cities or large parts thereof for its own financial gain. Especially if the property in question is as far away as central/south Orange County.

Originally Posted by MIKEETC

I doubt the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would have approved an annexation of the El Toro base by Los Angeles as first and foremost the base is not contiguous to the City of Los Angeles, i.e. not in Los Angeles' sphere of influence, and therefore could not efficiently provide any services to that location (which is one of the factors for determining the viability of annexation). Regarding the long-term land lease, that's well within the rights of any city to pursue so that's not really anything to be 'opposed' to and its certainly not illegal.

[califantastic]

So all of the cities LA ever annexed were unincorporated? One incorporated city cannot annex another incorporated city?

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Long Beach was already an incorporated city.