Mark

I hear that it's up to you Angelinos now to decide in the November election the fate of LA City. Will the Valley spilt-away to become the 6th largest city in the US. If so, what will (should) the name be? What will happen to the current Los Angeles with its population (and tax base) being cut by a million? How do you feel about this? How will you vote?

Susan

Topping.

I don't live in LA anymore, but it seems kinda silly that San Fernando Valley is part of the city of Los Angeles. Angelenos, your thoughts?

Mina

I don't have an opinion on it yet...haven't read enough about in for both sides. However, if it happened, it would make us the third largest city after NYC and Chicago, correct?

wanna no

As an Angelina, I believe there always has been a psychological separation between LA and the Valley. As for the loss of tax revenue for the city, there will also be a loss of tax expenditures as well.
I lived in Santa Clarita when they left the city of LA and incorporated into their own city. The naysayers warned that Santa Clarity could never make it on it’s own. Various scenarios of doom and gloom were painted as a result of loosing monies from the City of Los Angeles. But low and behold, the city was born, and it prospered.

I live on the west side of LA and I say “Good Riddance” to the valley. Now the city can focus all its attention to the neighborhoods on the other “other side of the hill”.

xyz

}}}}}} bumping

kam

How does Pasadena and the San Gariel valley factor into this?? Are they still part of LA?

xxx

Pasadena is an incorporated city and won't be affected.

Pat

The only thing I've heard is that the fire protection won't be as good should they split....in So. California, this could be pretty serious with their terrible summer fires.

socal

this could potentially be bad for los angeles. they spent all that money on the la river project, which takes water from the owens valley area and brings it south...but the thing is, they didn't bring it all the way to the city of la. the resevoir was built in the valley, that is why la expanded to include this area within its city limits. not having this area under direct control of the city could turn out to be be an ugly fight if the newly formed city decides that it is entitled to that water, even tho it belongs to the city of la, which they would be leaving under their own free will. i say if they leave, they don't get any help with water and need to pay whatever the city wants to charge them if they want la's water. and without the water, they can't function as a city themselves. water politics is huge in california, most ppl just don't realize how important it is.

holly good

True--LA could not exist without the canal.

Mark

I was just looking at a website (www.valleyvote.org) and this was on there:

Vote on your favorite Name for the new City

The list of possible names for the new Valley City has narrowed down to the top five recommendations. These final five names will appear on the November 5, 2002 ballot.

Which is your favorite?


Select your favorite choice for a name of the new City:

• Camelot, California
• Mission Valley, California
• Rancho San Fernando, California
• San Fernando Valley, California
• Valley City, California


Out of that group, I think I would go with "Camelot"; has a nice ring to it and the others are all mundane.

kam

Can't believe that I'll be sending my brother and sister in law Christmas cards to "Camelot, CA". Oh yuck. Glad to hear that Pasadena is exempt.