🚀 go-pugleaf

amk@bway.net (Andy Katz) wrote:
>>>
>>I don't know if NYC cops are better, from what I hear, some of them are
>>bad in their own way.
>
>True. Economic corruption has, and will probably continue to be, a
>major problem here. But NYPD interacts with people in real situations
>much better than LAPD. A big part of that--not to mention what makes
>NY different from LA in general--is their presence as pedestrians,
>using the same sidewalks, shops, benches, etc., as those who pay their
>salaries. LAPD's biggest problem is size--LA's so large, and the
>department is so small. But so too is the Valley, and given the
>Valley's enthusiastic support of Prop 13 and Pete Wilson, it's
>impossible to believe that Valley residents will be willing to
>adequately fund a department of their own.
>
Maybe if it is "their own" department, they might feel more of a 
responsibility toward it. (Then again, maybe not.)

>>>One of the most striking differences between New York and LA is that
>>>here is very much a sense of shared destiny: Good, bad or indifferent,
>>>New York's boroughs are going where they're going together. We do not
>>>hear suggestions that the Bronx, for all of its problems, be cut loose
>>>to sink or swim or explode as it will. Police, and other emergency
>>>professionals, know how to interact with real people in real
>>>situations. They are not handsome, dangerous automatons.
>
>>No, but I haven't heard of any real influx of people from, say, Long
>>Island, wanting to move there.
>
>No need. LI, like the Valley, is undergoing urbanization, probably
>well beyond the desires of its residents, but there is little they can
>do about it. The population of the world is not decreasing.
>
But the people who live in LI, or moving to it, are going there, and
not the Bronx for a *reason*.

>>Also, does the name Howard Beach mean anything to you? What about
>>Crown Heights? Ask on misc.transport.urban.transit why some of the
>>highway bridges in certain parts of New York are too low to let a
>>city bus pass under them . . .
>
>The Crown Heights' disturbances were no where near the level of either
>LA riot. CH is very segregated today with Eastern Parkway as the
>'border', but the feel of it is not unpleasant. Anger and
>misunderstandings between Blacks and Chasidim did occur, fueled by
>media. But today, both groups share public transportation, elected
>officials, tax rates, etc., and this is at least part of what permits
>them to live alongside one another.  Were Crown Heights to somehow
>succeed from New York City, then divide again along EP, then I would
>seriously worry about the future of both groups. Some unpleasantness
>is bound to happen from time to time--no one ever promised diversity
>would be free of consequences.
>
It's not like we have a riot every day out in LA, either. Most of the
time, people are at least nominally polite. 


>>>What LA needs, more than anything, is greater civic pride, a sense of
>>>shared history (and it's very much the fault of easterners who
>>>relocate to LA and environs and who claim LA has no history or no core
>>>that we lack this sense)
>
>>Again, mostly people wanting LA to be something it's not. . . 
>
>Here I don't understand... Do you mean the easterners judging LA by
>eastern standards, or those of us who feel it's time for LA to step up
>to the plate as one of the world's great metropolises?
>
I think it already is, but it needs to be judged for what it is. Not
as a "sprawled out version of New York with no subways".

Do we criticize London for not being Madrid? Or Tokyo for not being
Mexico City?

>>> and, mainly, a sense of shared destiny. How
>>>to provide that sense is beyond yours truly. Perhaps it will never
>>>occur, any such impulse lost amid the howling clamour of short sighted
>>>sectarianism. And this is LA's greatest tragedy. It can be a great
>>>city, greater than New York, or any that has come before. But its
>>>denizens, by and large, can see no futher than their own geraniums.
>>>
>>Again, I'm not quite sure you can really have that in *any* large,
>>multicultural city. There are too many diverse interests competing
>>with one another . . .
>
>So long as people pay their taxes and obey the laws and identify
>themselves as Angelinos (or New Yorkers or Chicagoans or whatever),
>they needn't live atop each other.

Most people do go about their lives in an orderly fashion. Problems
arise (mostly just noisy arguments) over public works and decisions 
that might benefit some group and infringe on another.

>. New York, Chicago, Boston and
>other major cities have all suffered racial tensions, crime, and
>generalized unrest. But their solutions have not involved rampant
>sectarianism.

Some inner city area in Boston did toy around with becoming its own
city. (I don't think it ever got much beyond the talking stage).

> New York's decrease in crime was not effected by cutting
>away those portions that made the statistics look bad and then
>recounting.
>
And ours was?

>>>Ironically, or not, Chief Parker died in 1965, the very year his
>>>policies and philosophy were proven tragically wrong. New municipal
>>>borders will not prevent those who Valleyites fear the most from
>>>someday avenging themselves upon the elite who left them behind. 
>>>
>>Guess what, "they" are already here. If you left the Valley in
>>1994, you obviously should have noticed. . . 
>
>Uh, noticed what? That people other than white anglos live in the
>Valley now? Sure did.  I wonder, in fact, why Valley successionists
>assume that the Valley itself won't become balkanized in time (well,
>it already is), and that Tarzana won't decide to break away and form a
>city of mostly Middle Eastern people,

They have a right to ask for such a thing; I doubt it would happen. 
There is a practical limit.

> and Pacoima won't decide to
>break away and form a Spanish speaking city (especially as Spanish
>language material seems to engender so much hostility in CA right now
>thanks largely to Beat His Meat Pete in Sac).
>
Wonderful. With that type of attitude, I'm surprised you're not
advocating that we give all of Southern California "back" to Mexico!

>Succession is a bad precedent, both for LA, California (how about
>NoCal breaking away and deciding to keep their water... that would
>probably render any discussion about LA or SoCal totally moot) and the
>US. As a nation and a geographic entity we can probably not be
>defeated or destroyed except from within. We are our own worst
>enemies, and always have been.
>
I see that going on now, and a lot of the "Valley Seccessionist" movement
might be less than helpful. But then again, so is the "evil white
suburbanite" stereotype, and North. Cal vs. South Cal, and New York vs.
Chicago vs. LA, and other divisive stuff.

>I agree with Michael Higby--eliminate the county structure and form a
>megacity. That might be Quixotic, given the power of the County
>Supervisors who might, just conceivably object to such a plan. But LA
>is a Quixotic place, always will be.
>
I doubt the value of such a move; the same slackers that run things now
will find their place in a "megacity" or "supercounty" or whatever 
you might want to call it.