Congress of NCs Recommends Expanding City Council

Redistricting in the City of LA

On Sept. 19, Chris Carson of the League of Women Voters gave a presentation on the need for a change in redistricting in the City of Los Angeles, and Kelsey Schwartz from Fair Rep LA gave a presentation on why the city council should expand beyond 15 members. These presentations were held at the Congress of Neighborhood Councils, a special Zoom event that brought together different neighborhood councils from all over the city.

“We’ve just been through a whirlwind of redistricting at the state, the county, the local level, and LA USD, all happening at the same time because of the pandemic and the delay in the census data,” Carson said. “It was not supposed to be that way, but there was a lot of confusion.”

Carson said that the pandemic moved all of the redistricting meetings online, making more people pay attention to them.

Carson said that the people on the City of LA’s redistricting commission are appointed by elected officials, and serve at the pleasure of those officials. There is no requirement for diversity, or ban on previous or future public office holders, office holders’ staff, or lobbyists.

“The commission is just that, advisory, the maps are not final,” Carson said. “The commission advises the [city] council, about … the maps we think are wonderful. The council can accept it, they can tinker around with it, or they can just tear it up and do a whole new set of maps.”

Carson proposed an independent city-redistricting commission, selected by an independent body. It would represent the diversity of the city, and ban any officeholders or their key staff. In addition, all maps would be final and could not be changed by the city council.

Carson said that the state has already successfully implemented this system, with the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, as well as the City of Long Beach and the counties of Los Angeles and San Diego.

“In both cases, the commissions did not protect incumbents,” Carson said. “They drew maps which more fairly represented their counties.”

Carson said that the best way to implement this would be to use a state bill called the Fair Maps Act as a template, and tweak it to fit the city.

Kelsey Schwartz, in her presentation on expanding the city council, said the previous time the city council expanded, it was in 1925, when it expanded to 15 members.

“Since 1915, LA city has grown and changed substantially in its territory, population and diversity,” Schwartz said.

She pointed out that the city has about 4 million residents, meaning that each council member represents about 260,000 people.

“Residents have to compete with a quarter of a million people for their council member’s attention,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz argued that the city council needs to expand so that council members can better respond to and more adequately represent their constituents.

“Having smaller districts will also lower the barrier to entry for candidates to run and win city council offices,” Schwartz said. “This will allow for more diversity within the electoral process and less entrenchment of incumbent power.”

Los Angeles has the highest ratio of city council members to residents in the nation. New York City has a larger population, but a significantly larger city council, with 51 members. Each New York city council member represents about 172,000 people.

“Another big issue with having a 15-seat council representing over 100 different and diverse neighborhoods, is that the redistricting process itself is a near impossible job to adequately split up the city,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz pointed out that the 2021 redistricting commission recommended that the city redistrict to at least 22 districts, and use an independent redistricting commission in the future. She said that redistricting with only 15 districts deprioritizes low-income communities, and communities of color.

“Ethnic and racial minority communities can gain political power through expansion,” Schwartz said. “Council members have historically been majority white, male, and wealthy, which is not reflective of the average Angeleno, and especially not reflective of specific council districts.”

Save the Trees
CeSPNC is trying to save the trees — or at least one of them.

The council voted 9-2 on Sept. 20 to ask that an Indian laurel fig tree be saved for demolition, or at least replaced with more than the standard two trees. Board members Matthew Garland and James Preston Allen, who is publisher of this paper, voted against the motion. The tree is right next to the San Pedro Regional Branch Library, and according to a notice from the Urban Forestry Division of the Bureau of Street Services, it has received a request to have it be removed. The reason for the request is listed as part of the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Program.

“It is rather big and overgrown,” said newly elected Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council President Matthew Quiocho. “And it’s kind of overtaking the library. So, I can understand why they would want to trim it, I’m not so convinced of them chopping it down completely.”

Quiocho pointed out that the council’s letter doesn’t simply ask for the tree to not be removed, as he does not think the division will listen if it’s a safety issue. Instead, it says that it opposes the tree being removed unless it is replaced by more than two trees, at the four corners of the intersection. In addition, the council’s letter asks that the bureau provide a report on maintenance done to the tree within the last 10 years, and whether anything will be done about the second Indian laurel fig tree on that street, which is only a few feet away.

Since passing the motion, the council has not heard any more from the bureau, Quiocho said on Oct. 4.

“I don’t think it’s quite been 30 days yet,” Quiocho said. “So I’m not expecting them to have gotten back to us quite this quickly.”

Quiocho is not sure if the two proposed replacement trees will be planted in the same intersection.

“I assume they’ll be in the same area,” Quiocho said. “But no, if I remember correctly from the notice they sent out, it did not specify where the two trees will be planted.”

Board member Gina Lumbruno pointed out that there are other trees like this one.

“You just have to drive around, there are so many trees in our city that are just not taken care of,” Lumbruno said.

Board member Matthew Garland, who voted against the letter, voiced his reasons for disapproval.

“I love trees, but that tree is out of control,” Garland said. “And it needs to be replaced with something they can manage. That has nothing to do with the fact that it’s their fault for not maintaining it, that’s true, but the sidewalk’s destroyed, people need the sidewalk.”