Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kill 'em
With the exception of bicycle infrastructure, when has SM not been more regressive than LA?
|
Here are some ways SM is more progressive than LA.
SM has:
1. A pedestrian action plan... that is actually being enforced. SM is now vastly more walkable as a result
2. A solid waste diversion program and haz waste recycling program that is far more advanced
3. Superior schools, ranking at the top of CA for the academic mobility of its minorities and poor (LAUSD is one of the worst districts to be poor/minority)
4. LEED-silver equivalent standards codified into its building code. SM is a national leader in this regard.
5. Superior utilities and facilities mgmt (eg. landscaping, street paving, and sidewalks repaired on schedule/request, etc. LA is one of the worst-managed big cities in the nation, being decades, and even centuries behind schedule, requiring lawsuits in order to fix sidewalks. LA couldn't coordinate worth a dime. LA will repaint a crosswalk according to one agency's schedule, and then schedule the same street be ripped up for a utility repair by another agency a week later. SM proacts, LA reacts. SM ID's and cuts vulnerable trees. LA reimburses for damage due to tree falls)
6. Runoff catchment programs and run-off diversion for groundwater replenishment
7. A Municipal fiber optic network, offering world class connectivity to low income families for dirt cheap. Installed with much foresight in the 90s, took advantage of concurrent water pipe replacement to save money (see item#5)
8. A far more aggressive renewable energy profile
9. A more progressive urban forest master plan incorporating natives and drought tolerants. A plan that is, again, being actualized (LA hardly actualizes any of its high-flying plans)
10. A first of its kind Well-being index
11. A more open, more accountable, more accessible, and more "wired" municipal government
and so on...
It's embarrassing how far behind LA is on environmental, governance, and quality of life measures.
But yeah, I slightly exaggerated about SM being the leader in regressiveness. Objectively speaking, LA is FAR more regressive AND DYSFUNCTIONAL than SM overall. But relatively nice bike-network aside, SM's regressiveness can become a literal truth if LUVE passes this November. SM also shot down Bergamot in all of its iterations under the threat of a popular referendum, rescinded some of the most important elements of an already passed and adopted general plan called LUCE (elements which called for totally reasonable density at transit stops and major Blvds) and continues to suffer from probably the most regressive/most restrictive rent-control policy in the nation. SM is NIMBY central. LA biggest advantage over SM is in having poor (if nonexistent) standards for what can get built there. In that case, LA is a bit like Houston: more laissez faire, for better or for worse (more often for worse).
To summarize: LA's lack of standards enables greater densities and (relatively) quick development approvals vs SM. That and LA has less draconian rent-control and affordable housing requirements. Aside from these two advantages, LA is far behind SM in almost every other way a city gov't can be.
Prev
Linear Mode
