Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC
Interesting that you don't have any response to the contradictory statements ("Riverside is an urbanized area, but not a city", "Of course the municipality of Riverside is a city") that YOU, in fact, made.
|
I didn't respond because it was, in my opinion, an obvious and dumb comment.
Let's recall the context of this discussion. Large cities with weak skylines. It was noted that San Jose, with its population exceeding 1 million people, has a lame skyline for its size. Crawford replied that SJ is not the
real city in the Bay Area, and that its skyline reflects the fact that its size is a product of SF/Bay Area growth than SJ being a bonafide, stand alone city. Riverside was thrown out as an example of this same situation in Southern California. No one was arguing that Riverside is an unincorporated area managed by the county.
So to be explicit, yes, Riverside is an incorporated municipality and is a city. It has a city government and taxing ability. There are literally hundreds of cities in Southern California. This doesn't take away from the fact that these cities are all part of the sprawling LA region. Yes, the IE and Orange County and Ventura County all have their own quirks and some differentiation in their local cultures. But all revolve around the big city of the region- Los Angeles. It's where they get their news, watch sports, catch international flights, etc. The IE is an urbanized area with some older historical nodes mixed in with the sprawl. Riverside, however, is not a core city in the way it's being discussed here.
Does that clear things up?