Letters to the Editor: A new L.A. council district map that makes sense? Yes please! (Los Angeles Times)
Los Angeles Times
Published: Friday, December 7, 2012 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, December 7, 2012 at 4:30 a.m.
I believe that the proposed map of the L.A. City Council districts is a step forward. I would like to see other changes to the boundaries as well.
I have four suggestions in this letter.
1. I don’t understand why the boundaries were drawn so sloppily. I think the boundaries were drawn carefully and it’s just that the L.A. Times and City Council don’t have time to draw the boundaries as carefully as they should. The boundaries should be drawn so that all of the neighborhoods with high concentrations of voters are in one district, as was done in Chicago, and not split up in to small districts with only a few neighborhoods in each.
2. I don’t understand why the boundaries were drawn so narrowly. I understand that boundaries should be as wide as possible, but I don’t understand why the L.A. Times and City Council don’t make the most popular neighborhoods in town (i.e., Beverly Hills, Westwood, Pacific Palisades, the Bel-Air and Highland Park-Watts estates, the Culver City hills, etc.) the same size as the suburbs.
These are the kind of districts that might work in L.A. It’s not the kind of districts that might work in L.A. in the future. I think that the new districts, as drawn, will be better for all parts of the city, but I think they won’t be better for the long term. In the future, I believe districts should be more flexible than this one. I mean districts should be able to allow for small communities in certain districts and huge communities in other districts.
3. I don’t understand why L.A. City Council and the L.A. Times don’t realize that they need to go over some of the old city code.
I think that the new districts should include certain city neighborhoods (e.g., Highland Park-Watts, Beverly Hills). I also think that the new districts should have a mix of new and old neighborhoods and