Resolution No. 1247
r~'.. -4 "il. .t'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.<(
" - 26
Q z
~o:
>- <( 0
0 U~ 27
- - .J
Ul~zffi<(
Ulz~~u
.. c( 0: II: . 28
OUO....lo::
...1->00:
U>I-..I<=<(
ii: o(o~a. 29
~~>>... z
:::el-!:;"'o
OUUgl-
.CJ 30
J: Ul Z
I- gi=
..z
!::;) 31
~J:
32
.. ,
.
RESOLUTION :NO. 1247
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON DISAP-
PROVING THE PROPOSED BOROUGH SYSTEM FOR THE h<'JETROPOLITAN DISTRICT
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY"
THE CITY C01JNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON DOES RESOL\lE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS , it has been brought to the attntion 0 f the
City Council of the City of Vernon that the City of Los Angeles
is desirous of creating a Borough system for the Metropolitan.
District of Los Angeles Coun~ and
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Vernon is
unalterably opposed to the creation of a Borough system, if
created outside of the City of Los Angeles:
NOW ~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS Il'OLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of
Vernon does hereby go on. record as~posing any Borough System
for the Metropolitan D~ trict of Los Angeles County.
Section 2. The City ulerk shall certify t~ the passage
of this resolution and cause a certified copy thereof tobe sent
to WILLIAM A" SMITH, Supervisor of the First Supervisorial
District of Los Angeles County, and the same shall be in full
force and effect from and after the date of filing.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
1944"
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
.
.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELIS)
I, T" J" FURLONG, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1247 was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon, and approved
by the Mayor of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 7th day of March, 194~
~
1IaJ.'Oh2S. 1964
H_o~l. 1Jllliaa A.Sld.tth
~I" ot..u...luJIel'Yl....1Dl.trs..t
.o....~4_,.
Loa Ang.l....
Dear 811'.
I am herewith.. anolo.ins O...tltle4oopy ot R4a801u.tlaa
D18a_ov1q of .-. bopoae4 .~ .,.. rfn' the ,.....pOU'-
:os..rlot of Loa AnpleaOOUDt,. a40pPd bJ' tbe 01,,.00..11 01
.. 01t1 QtV.rnOll .t>thabresulaJ.'m.e'inI heItt OILIaMh'tb, 1Nt.
y~ vel')' tNIl
~.-T.Pu1tlq. .01t7 m.a.
"
Qtounty of iLos .Angeles
i10arb of ~up:trtti1iorl1
IjOl1 1\ug.eltS
MEMBERS OF' THE BOARD
.JOHN ANSON FORD
CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM A. SMITH
OSCAR HAUGE
ROGER W. .JESSUP
GORDON L. McDONOUGH
~
WILLIAM A. SMITH
SUPERVISOR, F'IRST DISTRICT
~P:, ~ 1
(JJ .'~
fri~n~ :
\S)~tt ,
~ February 15, 1944
.4~~
~>
Dear
During the past several weeks you undoubtedly have read
much publicity and also heard much radio publicity abou,t a pro-
yosed Borough System fop the metropolitan district of Los
Angeles County.
As one member of the Board of Supervisors is taking a
leading part in the proposed consolidation of governmental
agencies of Los Angeles County, it may be that the Board of Super-
visors will be asked to take a stand on this Question in the near
future. In order that I may have a cross section of public
opinion in my district, I am sending this form letter to several
hundred citizens in the district asking for their comments.
If this Question were to come before the Board of Super-
visors at this time, I am of the opinion that I would fight
vigorously against any such consolidation or Borough System
for the metropolitan district. As you know, the metropolitan
district of Los Angeles County takes in practically all of that
territory of Los Angeles County between the ocean and the moun-
tains. This would mean that all incorporated cities and all
unincorporated communities of Los Angeles County would be taken
into the Borough System.
If the City of LOB Angeles l\Tant s to put in a Borough
System for that city, I have no objection. In fact, I think it
would be a very fine thing. There may be some areas adjacent
to the city which should be taken into the city by ~nnexation
and become a part of any form of government the city desires
to have. When the city, hO~Tever, steps out to take in all other
communities in the county in a Borough System, that brings up
a different question.
The proponents of this plan present as a principal argu-
ment the one of economy in government. Their second most impor-
tant argument is that "re l.roulcl have uniform ordinances and la'lf.r
enforcement trJ'oughout all of Los Angeles County. I li\Till concede
that one central government does offer op'Jortunities for economy.
I will not concede, however, th8t the mere fact that an oppor-
tunity for economy exists necessarily means that such economies
will be put into practice.
With the form of government we have at the nresent time
there are still many opportunities for economy. So far the citi-
zens who are payinc the bill have not sho"lrTn that they 'iivant such
economies to be put into effect. In fact, it is my opinion that
many proposecl economies, if started, would bring dO',,7f1 much criti-
cism on the heads of public officials who are administering that
kind of e,conomy.. In other ,.'ord.s, it is my o:pinion theft economy
is not the first interest in government but that the citizens are
interested primarily in t~e service that government can render to
tI'1e ~)ublic. We recognize the fact t118,t eervices rendered by
government must be 'Jaid for and in a democracy, we demand the
right to designate what services "Te "dsh government to carr;)' on.
'"
If economy is to be the only factor involved, why not
carry it out all the way down through government into the
private lives of our citizens. A community kitchen, for in-
stance, for each several hundred families would be much more
economical than for each family to have its ovm kitchen.
Who, however, wishes to live under such a system?
Or, let us examine the proceedings from the other stand-
point. If this plan is good for a group of cities, why is it
not then just as good for a group of counties~ Why not consoli-
date all of the counties in the state under one state government?
Carry it still further if it has been so successful, then why
not do away with state governments entirely, cons61idating them
all into one with a central government in Washington, D. C. In
other words, a dictator.
I think we will all agree that a friendly dictator could
give to our country the most economical government but who in
tarnation wants a dictator?
It has been my observati6n in close contact with City
Cm.mcils throughout the First Supervisorial Dietrict that these
City Councils are giving to these cities economical government
and giving to the citizens of those cities the service th~se
cities desire. It is mv ouinion that the citizens of these
cities are still desiro~s of retaining their autonomous form of
government and would object seriously to becoming a part of a
great central government centered in the City of Los Angeles.
I am quite firmly convinced that the citizens of the
severa.l (afferent sections have different viewpoints on "rhat
is deeirable in the V'iray of ordinances having to do with
special conditions in the several districts and that they would
object seriously to having uniform enforcement throughout LOB
Angeles County. I believe that the people desire to have their
government as close to them as is possible.
The same could be said for the unincorporated communities
of "rhichthere are many in the First Supervisorial Di strict.
These communities, through the civic organizations within their
boundaries, have direct contact with their elected officials
and can reach them '\,ri th no effort '\Jhat ever, ',iThereas this could
be changed and undoubtedly would if the Borough System were to
be in effect. In fact, the unincorporated communities probably
would lose their identity as a governmental unit.
The Borough System had great popularity for a time, but
those cities which have adopted a Borough System are not the
cities we point to with pride when we speak of the American
system of government. To state it bluntly, the Borough System
has not produced what the proponents of the Borough System say
it can produce.
I am firmly convinced that the question of a Borough
System or consolida.tion for the metrouolitan district of Los
Angeles Cou.nty is a HdeacL ducklt which should be buried and
forgotten. I may be wrong. Wonft you let me hear from you9
WAS ~ an
Yours truly,
) , 9\1/
U-; (17~/~
w. A. Sm~, Supervisor