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. It's a major problem in the US House, where the politicians
on both sides have conspired together with political redistricting to make
most seats safe. That makes the real elections the primaries, not the
general election, and leads to the election of ever more extreme
politicians (who get and stay in by appealing to activists, not the
electorate as a whole).

In the case of LA, it seems likely that the major extensions, and those
slender access paths to them) to take in the airport and San Pedro were
done in order to give the city control over the airport and the port (at
San Pedro).

On 16/06/2013 01:26, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2013 11:36, Recliner wrote:

wrote:
Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:

[ ... ]

You have difficulty avoiding responding to my posts without a snide
remarks. Mention this to your therapist. He may be able to help.
London has been my past home for a sum total of eight years.
Variously, I lived in Surbiton, Motspur Park, Maida Vale, The West End
(Hanson Street), New Malden, and Shepherds Bush. The term "the city"
always referred to, and only referred to, the square mile (actually
1.6 square miles) of the City of London. This was true even when the
term was utilized within the City of Westminster! So, by your
imputation none of my neighbors, or colleagues, were sensible people.

Neither Edgware, nor Morden are in "the city" any more than Lancaster
and Long Beach are in the City of Los Angeles. Both Lancaster and
Long Beach are certainly in the County of Los Angeles.
Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.

Wow, you lived in six well-separated London areas in just eight years
-- presumably you were on the run from the cops, debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands? No wonder you needed therapy when you finally
escaped to the US, although from your previous posts, I get the
impression that you've kept up your peripatetic existence in the
States as well. I'm afraid I've never met a therapist, so I'll have
trouble discussing your case with one -- is it compulsory to use them
in the US, along with gun ownership? In this country, few people feel
the need for either. Perhaps that's why you left.

I've visited the US around 70 times since 1979 but, fortunately, very
few of my itineraries included LA. I have to confess that I regarded
Long Beach as part of LA when I dined under the Spruce Goose there. I
now realise my grave error in not mastering the political geography of
the city before visiting it. Even worse, I made the critical mistake
of thinking that Disneyland and LAX were in LA when I was there. Was I
also wrong in thinking that Hollywood was in LA?

If you're interested in the answers, they a

(a) Long Beach is in LA county but isn't part of the city of Los Angeles
(it's a city in its own right);

(b) Disneyland is in Anaheim, about thirty miles from the nearest part of
the city of LA; Anaheim is in Orange County;

(c) LAX is indeed within the city of Los Angeles, though this appears to
have been achieved by contrivance; the shape of the municipality is odd, to say the least:

http://tinyurl.com/mwmua75

Just look at that narrow finger of territory heading south (parallel with
I-110) to take in San Pedro, but not Long Beach, which is adjacent to it.

(d) Hollywood and Belair lie within the city of LA, but adjacent areas
are outside the city (eg, Burbank, Beverly Hills and - oddly - North Hollywood).

As you say, the city of LA has a strange, gerrymandered shape. But do
locals routinely distinguish between which of these districts are within
the city of LA and which are simply close to it? While I know that
Disneyland is in Orange County, I also think of Disneyland=LA, Disney
World=Orlando.

I don't say that the LA city boundaries have been gerrymandered for
partisan advantage, but just looking at the map of the city's outline
tells you that there has been contrived adjustment over the years.

But this is not unusual in the USA. Even the states have had their
shapes and edges defined by Congress. Just look at the way that Alabama
and Georgia each have a bit of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico. There
was a time when all of that was part of the Florida panhandle and when
Alabama (though obviously not Georgia) was landlocked.

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.

It's a major problem in the US House, where the politicians
on both sides have conspired together with political redistricting to make
most seats safe. That makes the real elections the primaries, not the
general election, and leads to the election of ever more extreme
politicians (who get and stay in by appealing to activists, not the
electorate as a whole).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

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.

It's a major problem in the US House, where the politicians
on both sides have conspired together with political redistricting to make
most seats safe. That makes the real elections the primaries, not the
general election, and leads to the election of ever more extreme
politicians (who get and stay in by appealing to activists, not the
electorate as a whole).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

The gerrymandering is mutually agreed, to give each party safe seats. Two
neighbouring marginal areas can swap districts to make both safe for the
opposing parties, which suits both of them.

On 16 June, 17:46, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 01:26, Recliner wrote:









JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2013 11:36, Recliner wrote:

wrote:
Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:

[ ... ]

You have difficulty avoiding responding to my posts without a snide
remarks. *Mention this to your therapist. *He may be able to help.
London has been my past home for a sum total of eight years.
Variously, I lived in Surbiton, Motspur Park, Maida Vale, The West End
(Hanson Street), New Malden, and Shepherds Bush. *The term "the city"
always referred to, and only referred to, the square mile (actually
1.6 square miles) of the City of London. *This was true even when the
term was utilized within the City of Westminster! *So, by your
imputation none of my neighbors, or colleagues, were sensible people..

Neither Edgware, nor Morden are in "the city" any more than Lancaster
and Long Beach are in the City of Los Angeles. *Both Lancaster and
Long Beach are certainly in the County of Los Angeles.
Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.

Wow, you lived in six well-separated London areas in just eight years
-- presumably you were on the run from the cops, debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands? *No wonder you needed therapy when you finally
escaped to the US, although from your previous posts, I get the
impression that you've kept up your peripatetic existence in the
States as well. I'm afraid I've never met a therapist, so I'll have
trouble discussing your case with one -- is it compulsory to use them
in the US, along with gun ownership? *In this country, few people feel
the need for either. Perhaps that's why you left.

I've visited the US around 70 times since 1979 but, fortunately, very
few of my itineraries included LA. I have to confess that I regarded
Long Beach as part of LA when I dined under the Spruce Goose there. I
now realise my grave error in not mastering the political geography of
the city before visiting it. Even worse, I made the critical mistake
of thinking that Disneyland and LAX were in LA when I was there. Was I
also wrong in thinking that Hollywood was in LA?

If you're interested in the answers, they a

(a) Long Beach is in LA county but isn't part of the city of Los Angeles
(it's a city in its own right);

(b) Disneyland is in Anaheim, about thirty miles from the nearest part of
the city of LA; Anaheim is in Orange County;

(c) LAX is indeed within the city of Los Angeles, though this appears to
have been achieved by contrivance; the shape of the municipality is odd, to say the least:

http://tinyurl.com/mwmua75

Just look at that narrow finger of territory heading south (parallel with
I-110) to take in San Pedro, but not Long Beach, which is adjacent to it.

(d) Hollywood and Belair lie within the city of LA, but adjacent areas
are outside the city (eg, Burbank, Beverly Hills and - oddly - North Hollywood).

As you say, the city of LA has a strange, gerrymandered shape. But do
locals routinely distinguish between which of these districts are within
the city of LA and which are simply close to it? *While I know that
Disneyland is in Orange County, I also think of Disneyland=LA, Disney
World=Orlando.

I don't say that the LA city boundaries have been gerrymandered for
partisan advantage, but just looking at the map of the city's outline
tells you that there has been contrived adjustment over the years.

IIRC San Pedro avoided being swallowed up by Long Beach, only to be
absorbed by Los Angeles.

But this is not unusual in the USA. Even the states have had their
shapes and edges defined by Congress. Just look at the way that Alabama
and Georgia each have a bit of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico.

Only Alabama, not Georgia.

There
was a time when all of that was part of the Florida panhandle and when
Alabama (though obviously not Georgia) was landlocked.

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.

It's a major problem in the US House, where the politicians
on both sides have conspired together with political redistricting to make
most seats safe. That makes the real elections the primaries, not the
general election, and leads to the election of ever more extreme
politicians (who get and stay in by appealing to activists, not the
electorate as a whole).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

On 17/06/2013 02:03, Recliner wrote:
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.

It's a major problem in the US House, where the politicians
on both sides have conspired together with political redistricting to make
most seats safe. That makes the real elections the primaries, not the
general election, and leads to the election of ever more extreme
politicians (who get and stay in by appealing to activists, not the
electorate as a whole).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

The gerrymandering is mutually agreed, to give each party safe seats. Two
neighbouring marginal areas can swap districts to make both safe for the
opposing parties, which suits both of them.

But the shape of the city of LA is so bizarre that it can't have been
created in that form for electoral purposes. Neither the state nor the
federal government would have been fooled. It must have been done for
the purpose of control over transport services (subject to the
moth-eating in the form of Beverly Hills, etc).

On 17/06/2013 04:01, e27002 wrote:
On 16 June, 17:46, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 01:26, Recliner wrote:









JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2013 11:36, Recliner wrote:

wrote:
Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:

[ ... ]

You have difficulty avoiding responding to my posts without a snide
remarks. Mention this to your therapist. He may be able to help.
London has been my past home for a sum total of eight years.
Variously, I lived in Surbiton, Motspur Park, Maida Vale, The West End
(Hanson Street), New Malden, and Shepherds Bush. The term "the city"
always referred to, and only referred to, the square mile (actually
1.6 square miles) of the City of London. This was true even when the
term was utilized within the City of Westminster! So, by your
imputation none of my neighbors, or colleagues, were sensible people.

Neither Edgware, nor Morden are in "the city" any more than Lancaster
and Long Beach are in the City of Los Angeles. Both Lancaster and
Long Beach are certainly in the County of Los Angeles.
Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.

Wow, you lived in six well-separated London areas in just eight years
-- presumably you were on the run from the cops, debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands? No wonder you needed therapy when you finally
escaped to the US, although from your previous posts, I get the
impression that you've kept up your peripatetic existence in the
States as well. I'm afraid I've never met a therapist, so I'll have
trouble discussing your case with one -- is it compulsory to use them
in the US, along with gun ownership? In this country, few people feel
the need for either. Perhaps that's why you left.

I've visited the US around 70 times since 1979 but, fortunately, very
few of my itineraries included LA. I have to confess that I regarded
Long Beach as part of LA when I dined under the Spruce Goose there. I
now realise my grave error in not mastering the political geography of
the city before visiting it. Even worse, I made the critical mistake
of thinking that Disneyland and LAX were in LA when I was there. Was I
also wrong in thinking that Hollywood was in LA?

If you're interested in the answers, they a

(a) Long Beach is in LA county but isn't part of the city of Los Angeles
(it's a city in its own right);

(b) Disneyland is in Anaheim, about thirty miles from the nearest part of
the city of LA; Anaheim is in Orange County;

(c) LAX is indeed within the city of Los Angeles, though this appears to
have been achieved by contrivance; the shape of the municipality is odd, to say the least:

http://tinyurl.com/mwmua75

Just look at that narrow finger of territory heading south (parallel with
I-110) to take in San Pedro, but not Long Beach, which is adjacent to it.

(d) Hollywood and Belair lie within the city of LA, but adjacent areas
are outside the city (eg, Burbank, Beverly Hills and - oddly - North Hollywood).

As you say, the city of LA has a strange, gerrymandered shape. But do
locals routinely distinguish between which of these districts are within
the city of LA and which are simply close to it? While I know that
Disneyland is in Orange County, I also think of Disneyland=LA, Disney
World=Orlando.

I don't say that the LA city boundaries have been gerrymandered for
partisan advantage, but just looking at the map of the city's outline
tells you that there has been contrived adjustment over the years.

IIRC San Pedro avoided being swallowed up by Long Beach, only to be
absorbed by Los Angeles.

But this is not unusual in the USA. Even the states have had their
shapes and edges defined by Congress. Just look at the way that Alabama
and Georgia each have a bit of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico.

Only Alabama, not Georgia.

My mistake.

I meant Mississippi and Alabama, both of which would otherwise be
landlocked.

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).

JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 02:03, Recliner wrote:
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.

It's a major problem in the US House, where the politicians
on both sides have conspired together with political redistricting to make
most seats safe. That makes the real elections the primaries, not the
general election, and leads to the election of ever more extreme
politicians (who get and stay in by appealing to activists, not the
electorate as a whole).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

The gerrymandering is mutually agreed, to give each party safe seats. Two
neighbouring marginal areas can swap districts to make both safe for the
opposing parties, which suits both of them.

But the shape of the city of LA is so bizarre that it can't have been
created in that form for electoral purposes. Neither the state nor the
federal government would have been fooled. It must have been done for the
purpose of control over transport services (subject to the moth-eating in
the form of Beverly Hills, etc).

Yes, it really is a bizarre shape -- presumably it's changed over time?
Maybe it has something to do with who paid to develop each area (putting in
roads, services, etc)?

Incidentally, state and federal governments do nothing to stop
gerrymandering: it's the same two parties who connive at it wherever they
can. It suits politicians at all levels to have seats that are cheap to
defend in elections. Senate seats can't be gerrymandered, but most others
can.