Recapturing suburbia: Urban secession and the politics of growth in Los Angeles, Boston, and Seattle - Page 80 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 80 of 407 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
minorities and feared it would negatively impact the goal of racial and class integration (South Bay
County Formation Review Commission, 1978:61-88).
In 1977 in neighboring Palos Verdes Peninsula, the cities o f Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling
Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and a few small, unincorporated areas also campaigned for independence.
Their proposal was to be called Peninsula County. The 1978 Economy and Efficiency Commission
found that each separate county would likely have lower social service needs, and thus, lower
property taxes, and agreed with proponents that a smaller county would improve representation and
responsiveness. However, its report also noted that the proposal would separate “a relatively affluent,
predominantly white community from the relatively poor remainder” (28-30). The County Formation
Review Commission for Peninsula County agreed that a separate Peninsula county would be
economically viable and able to provide all required services at less cost. However, it too commented
on the “detrimental” impacts o f furthering socio-economic stratification. It also noted that “both
residential and commercial property will become more attractive in the Peninsula area, resulting in an
increase in real estate values...” (Peninsula County Formation Review Commission, 1978:7-8).
Both the South Bay and Peninsula efforts successfully gathered the requisite 25 percent of
the signatures to trigger a study and subsequent vote. In June of 1978 - at the same election as
Proposition 13 — voters in the secessionists areas approved Propositions C (South Bay County) and D
(Peninsula County) with 77 percent o f the vote. However, both measures were thwarted by voters in
the rest of LA County by a wide margin (Keppel, 1978:16). The Peninsula County Formation Review
Commission noted that if Prop. 13 passed, the tax motivations for the movement would, at least in
part, be nullified. However, it concluded that the “social motivations for new county formation, such
as responsiveness and local control, would remain” (Peninsula County Formation Review
Commission, 5).
A simultaneous effort to break away a larger portion of the South Bay gathered momentum
soon after the failure of the earlier South Bay County campaign. The South Bay County II proposal
69
Object Description
Description
| Title | Recapturing suburbia: Urban secession and the politics of growth in Los Angeles, Boston, and Seattle - Page 80 |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | minorities and feared it would negatively impact the goal of racial and class integration (South Bay County Formation Review Commission, 1978:61-88). In 1977 in neighboring Palos Verdes Peninsula, the cities o f Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and a few small, unincorporated areas also campaigned for independence. Their proposal was to be called Peninsula County. The 1978 Economy and Efficiency Commission found that each separate county would likely have lower social service needs, and thus, lower property taxes, and agreed with proponents that a smaller county would improve representation and responsiveness. However, its report also noted that the proposal would separate “a relatively affluent, predominantly white community from the relatively poor remainder” (28-30). The County Formation Review Commission for Peninsula County agreed that a separate Peninsula county would be economically viable and able to provide all required services at less cost. However, it too commented on the “detrimental” impacts o f furthering socio-economic stratification. It also noted that “both residential and commercial property will become more attractive in the Peninsula area, resulting in an increase in real estate values...” (Peninsula County Formation Review Commission, 1978:7-8). Both the South Bay and Peninsula efforts successfully gathered the requisite 25 percent of the signatures to trigger a study and subsequent vote. In June of 1978 - at the same election as Proposition 13 — voters in the secessionists areas approved Propositions C (South Bay County) and D (Peninsula County) with 77 percent o f the vote. However, both measures were thwarted by voters in the rest of LA County by a wide margin (Keppel, 1978:16). The Peninsula County Formation Review Commission noted that if Prop. 13 passed, the tax motivations for the movement would, at least in part, be nullified. However, it concluded that the “social motivations for new county formation, such as responsiveness and local control, would remain” (Peninsula County Formation Review Commission, 5). A simultaneous effort to break away a larger portion of the South Bay gathered momentum soon after the failure of the earlier South Bay County campaign. The South Bay County II proposal 69 |
