Cityhood for East Los Angeles Slideshow

Came across this promotional video for East Los Angeles cityhood. If this new city is created, I hope they’ll be smart enough to keep out Wal-Mart…just sayin’.

11 thoughts on “Cityhood for East Los Angeles Slideshow

  1. I am afraid that if it incorporates it will be another Maywood, but 5x the magnitude. Think of all the checkpoints where they can cash in — impounds/sales/kickbacks, and that is just on checkpoints.

  2. That Maywood mess is getting under control, finally.

    The targeted ad told me “stop the brown bailout”.

    I was thinking, “where’s my yellow bailout?”

  3. Maywood are going to contract their services with the county. East LA will most likely contract their services with the county to avoid a Maywood catastrophe. East LA needs cityhood when you think about it… There are several reasons why East LA deserves to be its own entity and the residents need local representation.

  4. Local representation is not always a good thing — again look at Maywood, South Gate, Cudahy, Bell, Bell Gardens, Lynwood. Each of the cities mentioned has had a councilmember involved in some sort of corruption scandal. Cudahy has a city manager without a degree in public administration, and a council member in Bell had voted to strike down education (college degree) requirements for city managers to later get appointed to that position. A raza!

    It just seems like the ones who are pushing for this cityhood have some financial incentive rather than serving the community. If East LA becomes a city, how long until it declares itself BK? There isn’t enough money from sales tax or property tax. Target, K-Mart, Pacific Theaters, and the industrial area south of this shopping center are in the City of Commerce but within the sphere of influence of East LA. East LA needs to annex these valuable tax producing areas, otherwise, it won’t make fiscally. Yes there are auto dealerships, and many shops along Whittier Blvd., but these shop owners who push for cityhood do not play 100% straight, meaning they don’t report all sales, robbing the County/East LA of some valuable tax dollars.

  5. if it becomes its own cit i think it is more likely to have a wal-mart and big box store. Because it will be more depend on tax revenue, that those stores can provide. Look at how the the proponents for cityhood supported that the Golden gate be turned into a CVS, they needed that tax revenue.

  6. I’ve always believed it’s the sheriffs who don’t want cityhood for East LA, and have been using whatever underhanded tactics they could to stop it, including having shills in the press discourage it. With all of the well documented gangs in East LA, it has to be a cash cow for them, where getting larger budgets for special gang units, things of that nature, are concerned. East LA gets it’s own police department, the LASD takes a huge hit. The LASD probably generates more revenue propping up East LA areas of need than from any other region they serve. It’s their main turf.

  7. @ Urbanista.
    Dude you are just speculating about cityhood. You claim, “It just seems like the ones who are pushing for this cityhood have some financial incentive rather than serving the community”. How could make this allegation when you never been to a volunteer meeting, etc. I think you should go to one of them and check it out for yourself and stop speculating.

    Then you go on to say, “There isn’t enough money from sales tax or property tax”. You dont know this. Check out the IFA and you’ll read for yourself the findings. The residents are waiting for the final CFA, which will determine whether it’s fiscally viable to become a city. Until then i dont think you could say that there isnt enough money from these revenue sources.

    Then you go to talk about Sphere of Influence (SOI a LAFCo term) and you have it all wrong dude. If you knew what a SOI is, you would know that East LA can’t “annex these valuable tax producing areas, otherwise, it won’t make fiscally”. YOU CAN’T ANNEX SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY INCORPORATED (CITY). On the other hand, the surrounding cities CAN annex parts of ELA if they wanted to. But in order for that to happen, a city has to file a SPHERE OF INFLUENCE with LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) in the unincorporated land first, and then it could annex it -just like Monterey Park did in the 1960s when they declared the SOI east of the Maravilla Projects and it finally annexed it in 1976.

    As for corrupt officials and possible mismanagement, i dont know who will be running the proposed city, but that is why it will be a democratic process whereby the residents will elect a local representative to serve. East LA has human capital to run the city.

    @off the streets.
    Let me make this one clear, ELARA NEVER endorsed the Golden Gate proposal. I was there at several Department of REgional Planning meetings and the final Board of Supervisor’s meeting. There was one person in the room who is A CITYHOOD SUPPORTER and did not want the CVS -so how can you say the entire organization supported it. I think they were neutral on the subject. “Look at how the the proponents for cityhood supported that the Golden gate be turned into a CVS, they needed that tax revenue”. Dont be fool with what you read. Like i said, if you would like to hear more and become engage in cityhood then you should attend volunteer meetings to become better informed.
    check out their facebook page…

    As for WalMarts and big box stores, if you knew the land-use laid out in ELA you would know that there isnt enough land to make these developments possible. Eminent domain will not be used either because its very unpopular and ive spoken to several cities and they dont use it. Besides, the residents will have an opportunity to voice out their concerns regarding development projects, etc.

    @Rob Thomas
    Im not too sure whether the Sheriff support it…Most likely the city will contract their services with the county as it is much cheaper to do so. Maywood realized that having their own police departments brought them too many lawsuits, etc. It’s better to contract these services to avoid lawsuits and overhead costs. Having said that, it’s mostly County Board Supervisor Gloria Molina who doesn’t support it. This doesn’t mean she’ll lose her job because she represents the regional First District, which has over 2 million people both LIVING IN UNINCORPORATED AND INCORPORATED settings.

    I think she believes that the residents in EAst LA need to be spoon fed since she possibly believes the human capital and the resources are not there.

  8. Even if they contract out to the sheriffs, incorporation would be one step closer to the sheriffs losing their golden goose. You’d have to believe the sheriffs would prefer to keep unincorporated land as just that. As long as it’s unincorporated, it belongs to the county. Especially a place with as much documented gang activity as East Los Angeles, which of course is an issue they can use to gain more power and a bigger budget.

    Oh, and your insinuation that Gloria Molina is ripe for corruption while the sheriffs are somehow above it and on the up and up is laughable at best.

  9. in the fiscal analysis the consultants will look at the current level of services and as it is already, residents are unhappy with the level of police services. Juvenile delinquency remains a pressing issue and there’s a need to prevent these youngsters from resorting to tagging crews or gangs.

    Incorporation wouldn’t result in the sheriff’s losing their golden goose since the proposed city would either contract with the county and maintain the current staff. The only way they’ll lose their golden goose is if ELA establishes it’s own police department. You’re right that the sheriff’s would prefer ELA to remain unincorporated.

    The sheriff’s department don’t control the budget first of all, it’s the county who administers the funds. If you attended the townhall meeting back in May, Captain Romero stated that they’re taking a hit in their budget. Therefore, they had to let go of some of their officers.

    I never insinuated that Molina is corrupt in any way. here’s the organizational map.

  10. I think a lot of people making comments are misinformed. They are quick to jump up and make wild accusations about what will happen in ELA if we become a city but they completely neglect the fact that not becoming a city has consequences. Since the last cityhood effort failed East Los had taken several huge blows. First losing the shopping area were Target is located to commerce and Second was loosing the area that contained East Los Angeles College to Monterey Park. This happened because ignorant people spread lies that becoming a city would increase taxes. They don’t love East L.A. They will continue to allow the local cities to keep on taking parts of it (which there are current plans for) until there is nothing left of East L.A. Which would irronically mean you still would live in a city and pay it’s taxes. If I had to live in a city I would preffer to live in the City of East Los Angeles!!!!

  11. @shot caller

    dude, I am merely raising concerns about the real “shot callers” who are mobilizing people. I don’t think that they are truly the “Simón Bolívar” or “Francisco I. Madero” of East LA. It’s always about WIIFM – “what’s in it for me”! There are business people who seem to be participating in the background (donating services, lending out houses, etc.) out of the public eye. Some, in the past have gotten generous County contracts for doing a very disappointing job at redeveloping East LA, but yet stay out of the public eye playing both political sides. If incorporation goes through, they are owed a lot of favors and if it doesn’t they don’t lose on the county side either.

    I was not talking about sphere of influence in the context that LAFCo defines it, but rather in which is defined in political science. I understand that
    the portion of land that I mentioned is incorporated by the City of Commerce and cannot be annexed — that is why I have a grim outlook for East LA if it were to incorporate.

    Dude, if I remember correctly, the IFA was done before the financial crisis — way before the real estate bubble burst. LA County has voluntarily given reductions in assessment of value on many properties, primarily the ones that were bought after 2004. I don’t know if you read about the state of the economy and about real estate trends, but it will take a while until “we’re out of the woods”! Do these fiscal analysis take into consideration the age of the infrastructure? (Think City of LA with its ruptures and aging infrastructure).

    I was reading the platitudes on the link that you provided above “” and I can’t make sense what they are saying. Can you please help?

    What do they mean by this: “Our economy is developing, the political landscape has changed, and our community is ready to move forward”. Can you tell me what the economic indicators are saying about East LA that might be different from the rest of the Country?

    “The extra projected revenue could be used towards providing even more services.” Does this mean that plans are to expand government and if so what portion of the money spent goes towards the services provided vs. administrative costs?

    “Recent improvements to our community, such as the East LA Civic Center, and coming projects like the Gold Line Extension and Esteban Torres High School give East Los Angeles the start we need to take the next step. ” Can’t these achievements continue while being unincorporated?

    “With Cityhood, residents will be able to identify and directly influence decisions on local priorities, such as the need for more parks, enhanced social services, and safer streets.” Influence decisions how? Una mordida perhaps 😉 The need for more parks — wait didn’t you say this: “…if you knew the land-use laid out in ELA you would know that there isn’t enough land to make these developments possible.”

    God Bless East LA!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *