Good old Tony Villar - working hard for Los Angeles (San Francisco: crime rates, credit)

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

I grew up in Bellflower and Lakewood and live on the border which has more in common with Long Beach than south OC. I've plenty of experience with LA and LA politics(Measure R is a damned ripoff to SE LA county, for instance), and still pay plenty of taxes in LAC.

Enough with my credentials. Villaraigosa has no morals/values(sex scandals, getting drug dealing sons of big time campaign contributors out of prison, etc), he's in front of the camera more than Arnold(hard to do), he loves to poke his nose in business that he doesn't need to(national politics, laws in Arizona, international politics, etc), he spends far too much taxpayer money on frequent national and international travel and not enough time on city manners(which is minimal according to LA Weekly), and of course he was rated the worst Angeleno ever on a poll run by the LA Times this year. LA doesn't need any bad press in its current shape, but an endless stream of it is generated by Tony

We will see how Villaraigosa is noted in history by how much the light rail\ subway is constructed during his term. Ultimately that is the best standard to hold a mayor to [what does he brings to the city?]. But private life issues are so passe in our world of today that I always laugh whenever a Republican tries to insert their moral facade on anyone but themselves.

[bhcompy]

so how much light rail is your measurement for success? What about how many schools fail? How deep in the hole the city goes? How he has double the staffers of his predecessors and none of them are included in the proposed job cuts? How a rail to nowhere gets built a millions a mile while job centers on the westside and the South Bay(except a new bus line, wow!) remain untouched? How the LA controlled Harbor Gateway remains one of the worst areas in the South Bay? How the SFV keeps trying to break off from the city because of the terrible fiscal, economic, and social policies?

If all you measure a mayor on is public transport, you're head is in the sand.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

so how much light rail is your measurement for success? What about how many schools fail? How deep in the hole the city goes? How he has double the staffers of his predecessors and none of them are included in the proposed job cuts? How a rail to nowhere gets built a millions a mile while job centers on the westside and the South Bay(except a new bus line, wow!) remain untouched? How the LA controlled Harbor Gateway remains one of the worst areas in the South Bay? How the SFV keeps trying to break off from the city because of the terrible fiscal, economic, and social policies?

If all you measure a mayor on is public transport, you're head is in the sand.

Gee, you mean all that happened since Villaraigosa was elected in 2005? My my! One question: can you name one elected Republican from the South Bay? For example, if I lived in an area that votes 75% Republican I would begin to wonder why I am so out of sync. Must be frustrating for you to live in LA county.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

so how much light rail is your measurement for success? What about how many schools fail?

He wasn't able to get control of LAUSD.

LAUSD is completely separate from the city of Los Angeles. It is technically a state agency. An L.A. mayor does not have power over schools the way mayors in other states do. In fact the mayoral office in most California cities is quite weak. Newsom's the only California big city mayor who has power comparable to mayors in most of the US, due to the unified City/County structure of SF.

If the courts didn't block him from the city taking control of schools, things may not have been much better but they certainly couldn't be any worse.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Gee, you mean all that happened since Villaraigosa was elected in 2005? My my! One question: can you name one elected Republican from the South Bay? For example, if I lived in an area that votes 75% Republican I would begin to wonder why I am so out of sync. Must be frustrating for you to live in LA county.

The mayor of Manhattan Beach. And he's a Log Cabin Republican....

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by majoun

The mayor of Manhattan Beach. And he's a Log Cabin Republican....

Thanks majoun [you are a walking encyclopedia Why is the mayor of Los Angeles given less power than many other large city mayors? Must have been a big distrust of mayors at one time. I think the city council has considerable power as do the county supervisors. Yesterday a near riot occurred during a city council meeting when they OK'd a rent increase. Renter groups rush the council desk & the police had their hands full! Never a quiet day in California governments! But I wouldn't have it any other way [since I am an excitement junkie].

[majoun]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Thanks majoun [you are a walking encyclopedia Why is the mayor of Los Angeles given less power than many other large city mayors? Must have been a big distrust of mayors at one time.

Because those who drew up the old charter hated eastern and midwestern cities, wanted to diminish accountability to make it harder to blame anyone when bad stuff happened, didn't want anyone possibly posing a threat to their own power, and found it easier to hold power with city council members acting as mini-mayors.

Strong-council, weak-mayor systems are common in California, mainly because in California counties hold more power than cities. SF is the exception somewhat because of the combined city-county status. And even Newsom doesn't have as much power as Bloomberg or Daley have.

I think the city council has considerable power as do the county supervisors.

You are 100% correct. The County Supervisors' districts contain more people than Congressional districts and each supervisor represents a larger constituency than many US Senators do. They are amongst the most powerful officials in California.

[californio sur]

majoun Because those who drew up the old charter hated eastern and midwestern cities, wanted to diminish accountability to make it harder to blame anyone when bad stuff happened, didn't want anyone possibly posing a threat to their own power, and found it easier to hold power with city council members acting as mini-mayors.

Sounds like Republicans had a big hand in the structuring of Los Angeles but eventually lost it all. The perfect Democrat coalition: huge Latino numbers\ small but vocal Black community\ wealthy liberals-writers-entertainers\ Asians\ pro-union.

Strong-council, weak-mayor systems are common in California, mainly because in California counties hold more power than cities. SF is the exception somewhat because of the combined city-county status. And even Newsom doesn't have as much power as Bloomberg or Daley have.

I know nothing on the topic but always assumed the East Coast mayors had considerable influence [esp Chicago\ Boston\ NYC\ Philly, etc]. City councils in California seem to be the power brokers with an addition layer of county government. At least one of the county supervisors is Republican as well as the sheriff even if they won't admit it. So Republicans still have a presence in LA out-numbered as they are.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Sounds like Republicans had a big hand in the structuring of Los Angeles but eventually lost it all.

Actually, some of them were Democrats. Remember how the Democratic Party was at that time in the places some of those men had come from.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by majoun

Actually, some of them were Democrats. Remember how the Democratic Party was at that time in the places some of those men had come from.

There are some odd events like Upton Sinclair [noted novelist] who ran for governor of California as a socialist while living in Los Angeles in 1920's. The "Hollywood Blacklist" of communist sympathizers in the 1950's. Tom Bradley was the 1st black mayor of a major U.S. for 20 yrs.