MY NEIGHBO(U)R TORONTO
if the Toronto System is an applicable solution to a vexing issue.. should Los Angeles get on the Catbus? (know your classic anime, people!)
As the City of Los Angeles grapples with Political Reform on the heels of several high-level scandals, so much so that an Ad Hoc committee helmed by none other than the President of the City Council, Paul Kerkorian, has been road housing the vast square mileage of the City convincing Angelenos that, amongst a list of to-dos, expanding the current Council seats from 15 to 25 is a good thing.
But is it?
EXPANSIVE..EXPENSIVE..EXASPERATIVE
One of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States, as well as one of the most populous, Los Angeles currently fields a City Council numbering fifteen districts, a total that’s been left unchanged for nearly 100 years. 1925 was the expansion from 9 to 15 districts, with two expansion referendums being defeated by voters since that time. The rationale is, the size of the Council has not concurrently expanded with the population. For example, major metropolitans such as Chicago and New York own 50 and 51 City Council seats, respectively.
But with such an expansion comes a cost. The Council chamber would require a major overhaul, as would all digital and print documentation. If Council members retain the number of staffers and annual budget afforded to the current fifteen, such an expansion might nearly double the cost of doing business as a City Council. Many have argued, especially in light of the City’s current homeless crisis and affordable housing push (Measure LH), such an expense is a misdirected allocation of precious municipal funds.
In addition, carving up large districts into more manageable pieces could result in a nightmare scenario supplanting even the latest catastrophe surrounding the decennial redistricting of the Council map. While redistricting is necessary to offset an ever-mobile population, the manner in which the City went about this endeavor spawned far more problems than solved. The final map seemed to appear out of nowhere, this after the City’s Redistricting Committee had spent a massive amount of time and effort in an attempt to ensure as fair a map as possible.
As with just about every decision ever made in the history of humankind, however, not everyone is going to find joy with any final decision. There will be losers. The theory is to minimize that numbers as much as possible, rather than marginalize as was the case with Council District 8 (CD8) and the economically-valued Exposition Park region, an area historically within the 8, but maintained in CD9 amidst a flurry of anger and confusion.
Expanding the map from 15 to 25 Council District might fare no better.
THE L.A. NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL SYNTAX ERROR
Los Angeles does have its Neighborhood Council (NC) system, but a large advisory body only works if it’s efficiently and effectively utilized, of which it certainly is not. New York employees 59 Community Boards across five boroughs, assisting 51 City Council members. Washington DC carves its municipality into 8 wards, with each of the wards represented by a handful of ANC’s (Advisory Neighborhood Commissions). In both cases, the number of Council members exceed the number of “regions” — 51 Councils members against 5 boroughs in New York, and 13 Council members (including 5 at-large) against 8 wards in DC.
There are two maps illustrating L.A. City politics: The Neighborhood Council Regional Map, which lists 12 regions, and the City Council District Map, which carves out 15 districts (the Los Angeles County Map delineates only FIVE districts, for an area larger than the combined area of the states of Rhode Island AND Delaware).
But, that NC map is the reason for this article existing, for within the angular boundaries of the 99 neighborhood councils lie the key to how a certain Canadian city — known for comedy legends, multimedia acumen, and a star-crossed hockey team that hasn’t won a thing since 1967— might help solve L.A.’s political strife.
TORONTO SURVIVED ROB FORD, SO…
The Toronto System is an interesting one. It’s not a unique approach to municipal governance, but one that satisfies the elephant in the room, a truism we have yet to discuss:
More often than not, those holding power will greatly hesitate relinquishing such power.
Toronto consists of a City Council of exactly 25 members, with each member representing a ward (25 wards total), and within these wards are 158 distinct neighborhoods. Similar to New York, there are “boroughs” — Etobicoke York, North York, Toronto and East York, and Scarborough.
But in Toronto these administrative districts are not called boroughs, but instead referred to as “Community Councils”. These Community Councils are mostly advisory by design, but do possess some legislative power for local matters (similar to the Parish Council system in the U.K.). But here’s where Toronto does things a bit differently — at least in the eyes of a native Angeleno:
In Los Angeles, City Council members rarely attend Neighborhood Council meetings. But, with a Toronto-style Community Council system, City Council Members MUST serve on their representative Community Council Board.
REGIONAL COUNCILS, BECAUSE “L.A.”
First, let’s discuss one of the main difference between Toronto’s political savoir faire and that of Los Angeles: Public Comment. Citizen of Toronto speak and present to the Community Boards, rather than the City Council. Community Boards are where grievances and opinions are noticed and heard. Though the California-specific Ralph M Brown Act allows agenda items to proceed without public comment IF public comments were bestowed upon these items at the committee level and then proceed to the Council agenda unaltered, it’s unrealistic to imagine an L.A. City Council meeting without any agenda item public comment.
Let’s also change the designation of such an L.A. version to “Regional Councils”, since some Neighborhood Councils prefer to be called Community Councils. The Regional Council (RC) name also signifies a greater coverage of area. And, Angelenos prefer making things uniquely “ours”.
With Regional Councils, Angelenos can speak directly to their representatives about concerns specific to their community, instead of jostling for attention inside the John Ferraro Council Chamber amongst a sea of citizens from across the 502.7 square miles of the City. This is where the concept functions best, by compartmentalizing public comments to regional concerns. The City Council members serving on that Regional Council are a captive audience, and thus each Regional Council acts as a Town Hall of sorts, with the Council members addressing the needs of the people in a more localized setting.
A FEEDER SYSTEM
As for how the membership of these Regional Councils are comprised? That’s where the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils come into play, acting as an elected feeder system for the Regional Councils. Let’s create a scenario where the San Fernando Valley is split into two Regional Boards, North SFV and South SFV. Let’s focus on the South San Fernando Valley:
The Regional Council of South SFV would have a Board consisting of each President/Chair of the Neighborhood Councils in South SFV, which would total 16. West Hills, with clean City District boundaries (see insert) is placed in North SFV to balance the City Council members involved at three per Regional Council. When including City Council members from CD3, CD4, CD6, and CD2 to the RC (as of the publishing of this article, Bob Blumenfield, Imelda Padilla, Nithya Raman, and Paul Krekorian), the South SFV Regional Council totals 20 seats. The North SFV would include 18 Neighborhood Council Presidents/Chairs and three City Council members. Only Imelda Padilla of Council District 6 would have to serve on both Regional Councils.
With the Board incorporating both NC Leads and City Council members (quite literally) at the same table, the apprehension that the collective voice of a Neighborhood Council is not being heard by the City representatives would be, if not solved, at the very last reduced. This might also result in a more scrupulous selection of NC Presidents, some of whom recently have left much to be desired. Furthermore, since there is no appointment process with the Community Board, political skullduggery is kept to a minimum.
Each RC would meet a minimum of once per month within or near the region’s boundaries. This means somebody who lives in Sun Valley need not commute to Downtown Los Angeles in order to speak on the concerns plaguing their community. In fact, BOTH North SFV and South SFV might hold their Regional Council meetings at Van Nuys City Hall, which is centrally located within the San Fernando Valley. This saves time, transportation costs, and overall frustration on the part of the citizen seeking to be heard. The City can be divided into five or six Regional Councils based on geography, with centralized meeting halls allowing for easy access via bus, rail, or automobile. Like the Valley example above, a meeting area on the border of two Regional Councils may serve both Councils, greatly limiting costs for both citizens and the City.
THE CHEAP SEATS…LITERALLY
Speaking of costs, such a move to inserting Regional Councils between the Neighborhood Council system and the City Council might save the City tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. If better representation is the primary reason for such an expansion of the City Council, and the Regional Councils fulfill that dictum, then a multi-year proposition to overhaul the City Council, and with it all assets and contracts integrated within that current system, seems a ridiculous waste of time, money, and thought. And, since the pieces are currently in place for a dry run of such a concept, a Los Angeles Regional Council experiment might be up and running in a matter of months as opposed to years.
It maintains the precious status quo by those in power, but in the same breath holds them directly accountable by those within their district through a more familiar, local form of discourse, by way of both public commentary and functional Neighborhood Council involvement.
It’d be as simple as saying “let’s give it a try”.
