Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
I don't know why this is a pissing contest,
|
It's not a pissing contest. It's an observation.
Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that support for green issues is far more pervasive throughout the 9 county Bay Area, which, unlike SoCal, the entirety of which is blue, has been blue for decades, and whose ratification for sprawl-containing urban boundaries has existed for decades, in-line with this decades-long history of being blue. Can you say the same for the LA-SD region, a region that today, still includes many large stretches of republican jurisdictions?
As I've stated earlier, LA County alone would have trouble supporting a referendum on growth boundaries (a green issue), given its much of its periphery is moderate to conservative. There is no LA or SD version of Napa and Sonoma County - both rural AND liberal. Relatively speaking, LA's blue base is largely an urban, inner-city phenomenon with some Westside elitism sprinkled in (see "working class")
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
Regarding Tejon Ranch, according to Wikipedia, the Tejon Ranch Company is one of the largest private landowners in California. The company now owns over 270,000 acres in the southern San Joaquin Valley, Tehachapi Mountains, and Antelope Valley, the largest contiguous piece of private property in the state. Call it capitalism, but I can see why the Tejon Ranch Company wants to develop some of its property, because it wants more money. I guess the argument is they want to create a new town called Centennial (who came up with that name?) that would somehow be self-sustaining, in that people who live there could also work there. I don't buy it, personally. I guess the Tejon Ranch Company made some concessions by agreeing to some preservation of open space, blah blah blah, but it's in a fire zone and it's basically in the middle of nowhere. I personally think that more housing should be built in already-established population centers, but hey, Tejon Ranch, they have the money I guess. If you think that they can buy politicians, I don't doubt that either.
|
So basically, you are tacitly agreeing with (or at least re-stating) my observation that LA has no major grassroots movement of any consequence whose chief aim is to contain sprawl; the major basis of my comment above, and the major basis of my contention that green initiatives in SoCal exist in servitude to the convenience of their benefactors. My years of living in Santa Monica serve to bolster my feeling of this "fake green" phenomenon.