🚀 go-pugleaf

MHigby@Primenet.com (Michael Higby) writes:
>Someone out there (and I am not sure who, but will find out) has a plan for a 
>borough system for LA like in New York. Each borough runs its own affairs, 
>but its all one city. This way, you get the benefits of both being a big 
>city, and having decentralized government. This seems to make more sense.

Just what exactly are the "benefits" of being a "big" city? As opposed
to being a smaller city in a large metropolitan area? Would those
benefits apply equally to Beverly Hills, Burbank, Compton, etc? Would
you advocate a manifest destiny for Los Angeles which would eventually
incorporate all the smaller cities in the county? Or the whole region?

Note that NYC's government structure has not permitted Staten Island,
for example, to have a different police department or different welfare
laws than Manhattan. It hasn't prevented a previous near bankruptcy and
seemingly interminable financial problems. I doubt many Californians
would look favorably on NYC as a model for government.

You could make an analogy between LA County as the central government
and the cities as the boroughs. Not quite the same since cities have a
little more atonomy. But few of us would regard county government as an
improvement.

As a former Valley resident (17 years), I understand the problems. It's
a long drive or a toll call to City Hall. The Van Nuys civic center is
only a partial substitute. The only real drawback to Valley secession
is that it doesn't go far enough. A Valley city of 1.5m people is only
a little better than LA itself with 3.5m. Maybe the postal cities would
be better divisions. We could return to cities of North Hollywood, Van
Nuys, Reseda, Owensmouth, etc., etc.
--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA	"Politics is the business of getting
dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359	 power and privilege without
dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu		 possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke