anyone worried about Los Angeles or California's financial future? (Vista: city hall, neighborhood)

[Riccardo Tisci]

I would look elsewhere.

Los Angeles is becoming poorer and it's tax base (educated professionals) are fleeing.

LA County Even Poorer Than We Thought: 27 Percent in Poverty - Facts & Figures - Curbed LA

[ElysianEagle]

Originally Posted by majoun

The places you mentioned are all outside the city of L.A. proper.

correct, but "LA" for most people really means LA county and not just the city of los angeles. much of what LA is known for is outside of the city proper.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by ElysianEagle

correct, but "LA" for most people really means LA county and not just the city of los angeles. much of what LA is known for is outside of the city proper.

LA County is actually in decent financial shape, unlike LA city.

[Marv101]

The state has lost 3,500,000+ residents over the past 20 years according to Joel Kotkin, and will also be facing a devastating shortage of children within the next 20-30 years due to those folks fleeing the state.

The city itself has stated many times that they would try to become a more business friendly city; several years ago they launched a 12-2 program, in which anybody wishing to start a new business would only have two city departments to apply to for approval instead of a dozen, which is beyond asinine.

Suffice it to say that turf wars erupted for no remotely intelligent reason, which killed that proposal.

Toss int he worst roads in the nation, terrible schools the weakest dog-barking ordinance in existence which is so pro dog owner as to be ridiculous (inot to mention a 9-month lag time from the time the complaint is filed until the city comes out to investigate, and on it goes.

Suburbs such as Glendale & calabasas are bursting at the seams with new businesses, as are many other nearby communities.

And then there's the developing scandal at the LADWP...

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by Marv101

The state has lost 3,500,000+ residents over the past 20 years according to Joel Kotkin, and will also be facing a devastating shortage of children within the next 20-30 years due to those folks fleeing the state.

The city itself has stated many times that they would try to become a more business friendly city; several years ago they launched a 12-2 program, in which anybody wishing to start a new business would only have two city departments to apply to for approval instead of a dozen, which is beyond asinine.

Suffice it to say that turf wars erupted for no remotely intelligent reason, which killed that proposal.

Toss int he worst roads in the nation, terrible schools the weakest dog-barking ordinance in existence which is so pro dog owner as to be ridiculous (inot to mention a 9-month lag time from the time the complaint is filed until the city comes out to investigate, and on it goes.

Suburbs such as Glendale & calabasas are bursting at the seams with new businesses, as are many other nearby communities.

And then there's the developing scandal at the LADWP...

You have to read Kotkin carefully. He has an anti-California bias.

He may be correct about 3.5 million people leaving California since 1990. But California GREW by over 9 million since 1990:

U.S. Population by State, 1790 to 2012 | Infoplease.com

More people moved in then left. The and the ones here ARE having enough children to replenish the population.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by majoun

Another reason not to live in the city of L.A.

As I have said on other threads, there is no advantage to living in the city of Los Angeles, which has already virtually ceased to provide public services, but insists on sucking more and more money out of anyone foolish enough to live there and/or have a business there. There are good reasons why businesses prefer not to locate in L.A. The independent cities and unincorporated areas have better quality of life, lower crime, (usually) better services, and fewer problems in general than comparable and nearby areas of L.A. City.

Bankruptcy is a realistic possibility, and, if it happens, property will be worthless. Anyone who buys property within the city of L.A. is a sucker, especially at current prices.

You don't have to flee the region - there are many nice places which are not part of L.A. city. I'd urge that you avoid living in L.A. city, though.

I agree with you ,except for one exception to this. If you can live in the city of L.A and live in an area like Brentwood , it seems like they somehow get the city to clean that place up...or it could just be residents spending their own money to keep things up. Of course you pretty much need to be rich to live there especially if you want to own a house.

I think it's a shame that the city has seized to provide basic services - tree trimming,etc.

This isn't the sign of a city with a good financial present or future..

[majoun]

Originally Posted by jm1982

I agree with you ,except for one exception to this. If you can live in the city of L.A and live in an area like Brentwood , it seems like they somehow get the city to clean that place up...or it could just be residents spending their own money to keep things up. Of course you pretty much need to be rich to live there especially if you want to own a house.

I think it's a shame that the city has seized to provide basic services - tree trimming,etc.

This isn't the sign of a city with a good financial present or future..

Brentwood has the same crappy services as other places within the city of L.A. Its potholes are as bad as anywhere, its streets are tore up, and one's dependent on LAPD and DWP. And, while not a city agency, it is zoned to horrible LAUSD schools.

There's definitely a difference between Brentwood and Santa Monica even if they look similar, have similar rents/housing costs, and are occupied by similar demographics. That's why I could only understand living in Brentwood if it was cheap.

Brentwood residents often pay for their own tree trimming and sidewalks.

[The Illusive Man]

LA will bounce back. Things aren't great now, but I see the city improving and bouncing back slowly. There is so much new construction and development going on. Not to mention all of the plans. That simply doesn't happen if a city is dying.

The city has too many positives. It'll be fine.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by majoun

Brentwood has the same crappy services as other places within the city of L.A. Its potholes are as bad as anywhere, its streets are tore up, and one's dependent on LAPD and DWP. And, while not a city agency, it is zoned to horrible LAUSD schools.

There's definitely a difference between Brentwood and Santa Monica even if they look similar, have similar rents/housing costs, and are occupied by similar demographics. That's why I could only understand living in Brentwood if it was cheap.

Brentwood residents often pay for their own tree trimming and sidewalks.

Also why you see so many homes with the "Armed Response" security and those private security companies. They probably aren't counting on LAPD showing up too quickly..

Also agree on the schools, I doubt many have their kids in public school.

You do have to admit though that Brentwood looks a lot nicer than say Pacoima and Panorama City or a place like that...although it's still in city of L.A..

[majoun]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Also why you see so many homes with the "Armed Response" security and those private security companies. They probably aren't counting on LAPD showing up too quickly..

Also agree on the schools, I doubt many have their kids in public school.

You do have to admit though that Brentwood looks a lot nicer than say Pacoima and Panorama City or a place like that...although it's still in city of L.A..

I know they don't have their kids in those schools (unlike when I went to those schools).

Brentwood certainly looks nicer than Panorama City or Pacoima (although there are actually parts of Arleta that look nice and well kept) but if I had that much money I wouldn't live there.