On Jun 18, 11:32*am, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2013 14:48, e27002 wrote:





On 18 June, 03:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2013 03:49, e27002 wrote:

On 17 June, 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 04:11, e27002 wrote:

On 16 June, 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 13:39, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\06\16 01:26, Recliner wrote:

As you say, the city of LA has a strange, gerrymandered shape.

Except it isn't gerrymandering, because the shape is not controlled by
government but by public choice. On Entourage, one of the characters
tried to sweet-talk the mayor of the neighbouring city (played by the
Homer Simpson actor) to enlarge the city to include his house.

In Britain by comparison, the borders of local government are all
controlled from above, and bits of Lancashire and Yorkshire have been
reassigned to universal local chagrin.

If it's controlled by politicians from the affected districts, then it's
gerrymandering.

Adjustments of city boundaries in the USA are decided by the state
government, not by the cities themselves. State boundaries are adjusted
by the national government.

Are you sure? *I can recall localities petitioning County Judge/Chief
Executives for City Status in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. *This
varies to according the Laws of the State in Question.

City status is not the same as an adjustment of boundaries (which latter
must entail a loss or gain for someone else).

Although counties do have unincorporated areas. *If a city absorbs one
it is not a loss to another city.

But it's a loss (however defined) to the county.

The County does not, AFIK, see it as a loss, rather as a gain.

Fair enough.

But if the county gains, someone is losing the equivalent.


The new City gains control of its own affairs. The County is no
longer responsible for Policing and Fire protection. Although, I am
aware of Cities that contract these services out from the County
Sherrif's and Fire Departments. There may even be cases of services
being contracted from neighboring municipalities.