u/115MRD

This stuff honestly infuriates me as much as any policy or scandal. Someone works for years, (for free!) to save a beloved LA landmark only for a politician who did nothing to swoop in and claim credit.

I'd love the many Bass Bots on here to explain to me why this is ok.

Edit: Its genuinely hilarious that every time Bass is mentioned in this sub the same 10 accounts (all less than a year old) come in and start defending her. We all know you're astroturfing!

The city’s homeless population increased by 3.4 percent from last year, according to the most recent point-in-time count.

Least racist Braves fan

Greatest city in the world

https://abc7.com/amp/post/former-la-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-sentenced-probation-5000-fine-fake-bomb-threat-city-hall/17961420/

The same warehouse ignited in August 2024, but dozens of firefighters were able to extinguish the flames in 48 minutes and prevent it from consuming the building, according to the Fire Department. The warehouse was built in 2018.

I see this misinformation spread around constantly (both on Reddit and in the mainstream press) and so I'm finally going to try and correct the record. Los Angeles does not have a "weak mayor" system and in fact the Mayor of LA is extremely powerful. And no, the City Council does not have "more power" than the Mayor of LA.

Ok, then smart guy so what is a "weak mayor" then?

A weak mayor system, also called a "council-manager system" is a municipal government structure where the elected mayor is a largely ceremonial and is not directly elected. Typically city councilmembers each take turns as "mayor" usually rotating once a year. The council appoints a city manager which functions much like a mayor, running most of the executive functions of a city. You see this in plenty of cities in Southern California including Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and most suburban cities in LA County.

What does LA do differently then, huh?

LA has a strong mayor system, also known as mayor-council system. The mayor is independently elected and makes almost all key appointments to run the city's bureaucracy (like how the President appoints cabinet members). The Mayor can veto legislation passed by the city council and proposes a budget every year (again, like a President of Governor).

In Los Angeles, the mayor also has substantial influence over other non-city departments like the LA Metro, the Metropolitan Water Agency (which controls almost all of Southern California's water), and the Air Quality Management district (almost totally unknown but extremely powerful).

One unique LA mayoral power is the control the mayor has over a municipal utility. Very few big cities control their own water and power. The mayor of LA not only appoints the General Manager of the LADWP, but all the city commissioners which control the department. It's a unique, and huge power that only LA really has.

Ok then so why does everyone say LA has a weak mayor?

Because when most people think "big city mayor" they think NYC and Chicago. Those cities have, by far, the most powerful mayors in America. New York City, in particular, is really in a class of its own. It's the only city in the country where multiple counties are under the control of a city. Transplants who have historically come from NYC come to LA and think we have a weak mayor. By comparison we do, but not compared to almost any other big city. Cities like Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix for example have extremely "weak" mayors who are directly elected but have largely ceremonial roles.

One place where LA's mayor has substantially less power than other big city mayors: schools. California has school districts totally separate from municipal government. In Chicago and NYC they are mostly run by the city.

But the LA City Council is super powerful right?

It is but that seems likely to change. For decades, LA has had the largest city council districts by population of any city in America. With only 15 members, a city councilmember in LA is substantially more powerful than your average big city councilmember. But it looks very likely that LA voters will be asked to shrink the size of districts and expand the council, making it look more like NYC or Chicago with districts that only take up a few neighborhoods, not entire swaths of the city.

The Mayor of LA has also, traditionally, deferred to the city council on things like development, which is led to multiple corruption scandals (not to mention a massive housing crisis). But this too seems to be changing. The state is increasingly taking the power away from cities in general to delay/stop housing, and mayoral candidate Nithya Raman seems intent with breaking up the longstanding "gentleman's agreement" that where a mayor defers to the local councilmember when it comes to developmnt.

But when people say things like "the city council has more power than the mayor," that's substantively not true and never has been. How do we know this? Because dozens of city councilmembers have all run for mayor over the decades. No sitting mayor has ever run city council.

tl;dr LA's mayor isn't as powerful as NYC's but it's pretty powerful and more powerful than people tend to realize.

Mods took down my previous post. This morning a mentally ill man was tagging the entire inside of an A line train with a permanent marker. He was drawing random numbers and letters on every available surface.

I tried to report it, but the Metro Transit App has been broken for months. Seriously asking folks what are we supposed to do in these situations?