Growth in L.A. and ‘Vigilante Planning’

You suggest that the ongoing process of vigilante planning is the consequence of city officials failing to agree on a rational, coherent vision of how Los Angeles ought to manage its explosive growth. I submit that the opportunity for political patronage exists when instability, uncertainty and protraction of decision-making prevails, and that the underpinning of this situation lies in the lack of motivation on the part of our elected officials to fix the problem. While we have haughtily sniggered at the perceived tolerance of our eastern city brethren for their pothole political payoffs, we may be falling victims to grander and glossier exploitation.

Enlightened communities in the Southland do not brook such shenanigans. They demand and receive stability in well-conceived master plans. They are served by elected officials and bureaucratic infrastructure who apply imagination in steering development fees back into the community to improve the quality of life. And, they are comfortable in the knowledge that applications for change are thoroughly reviewed, not merely rubber-stamped acceptances of a developer’s funded impact analysis. Is it any wonder that Angelenos feel compelled to band together for self-protection?

Unlike the era of vigilante justice in “How the West Was Won,” the impact of the ongoing vigilante planning is not transitory. Future generations will inherit the consequences of these failures and will measure the effect in neighborhood deterioration and increases in crime. We deserve better, and if it is not forthcoming from City Hall, then the numerous vigilante committees of homeowners may well be seen as the instruments for “How the West Was Saved.”

J.A. DOWELL

Northridge