City government for the future, p. 35 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 35 of 253 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
22
CITY GOVERNMENT FOR THE FUTURE
Bollens, Professor of Political Science at the University of
California, Los Angeles, was retained as a consultant to
study the feasibility of identifying communities within the
city and using them in some way to improve representation and participation. Dr. Bollens was asked to survey
related developments elsewhere and proceed with the design of a subunit of the city government if it appeared to
be feasible. Parts of the discussion in this section and in some
other sections of this chapter are drawn from Dr. Bollens'
report as submitted to the Commission. The actual Neighborhood proposal is based on his report but represents the
Commission's final judgment.
Nationwide Interest in Community
and Neighborhood Government
Community or neighborhood governmental organizations
are being widely advocated as a means of reducing the remoteness of the governments of big cities.
the acir proposal. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), a body made up largely
of public officials, has made the following proposal.
The Commission recommends the enactment of State legislation authorizing large cities and county governments in metropolitan areas to establish neighborhood subunits of government
with limited powers of taxation and of local self-government
with respect to specified or restricted functions including the
administration of specified portions of Federal, State and local
programs. Such subunits would be dissoluble by the city or
county governing body at any time.11
The ACIR recommends that these subunits have a community council of four to nine members and possess advisory or delegated substantive authority in such functions
as planning, zoning, urban renewal, crime prevention,
code inspection, recreation, and education.
ced suggestions. The Committee for Economic Development (CED), a prominent private organization composed of leading businessmen and educators, has also discussed the need for citizen participation in city affairs.
In congested central cities, as well as in suburban areas, there
is a necessity for active citizen participation in public affairs—
to clarify neighborhood needs, to propose constructive solutions, and to mobilize voluntary services. . . . [The] dilemma
between the need for large-scale unity and the enlistment of
active citizen interest is serious, but it may not be insoluble.
To insure attention to distinctive neighborhood needs, followed
by appropriate and effective action, giant metropolitan centers
might be divided into "neighborhood districts," on the order
of magnitude of about 50,000 residents each.12
The CED suggests that neighborhood districts should have
small popularly elected councils which would study the
needs of the neighborhood and make recommendations to
the city government. Revenue for the council operations
would come from the city government. Through the use of
such neighborhood councils, the CED believes, ci
needs would be made known to the city government and
service levels could be adjusted to them.
kerner commission recommendations. The Kerner
Commission directed considerable attention to the structure
of local government and the need for greater citizen participation in its affairs. In the Commission's Report of the
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, it made
the following recommendations.
To open channels of communication between government and
ghetto residents, improve the capacity of the city administration
to respond effectively to community needs and provide opportunity for meaningful citizen participation in decision-making,
we recommend establishment of joint government-community
Neighborhood Action Task Forces covering each neighborhood
within the city which has a high proportion of low-income
minority citizens.13
The Neighborhood Action Task Force concept provides a basis
on which lasting structures can be erected. The principal change
required in order to transform the official component of the
Task Force into a permanent instrument of local government
involves the establishment of offices in the neighborhoods
served. . . . The neighborhood city hall would accomplish
several interrelated objectives. It would contribute to the improvement of public services by providing an effective channel
for low-income citizens to communicate their needs and problems to the appropriate public officials and by increasing th
ability of local government to respond in a coordinated
timely fashion. It would serve as the eyes and ears of the ma
and council and furnish an informal forum for complaint*
and grievances. It would make information about government
programs and services available to ghetto residents, enabling
them to make more effective use of such programs and services while making clear the limitations on the availability of
all such programs and services. It would expand opportunities
for meaningful community access to and involvement in the
planning and implementation of policy affecting the neighborhood. Most important, the neighborhood city hall, building
on the task force approach, affords a significant opportunity
to accomplish the democratic goal of making government
closer and more accountable to the citizen.14
In conclusion, the Kerner Commission pointed out. "The
demand for a community voice represents a marked and
desirable gain over the apathy that existed before The
essential question which city leadership must face is the
ultimate goal of community participation."15
NEIGHBORHOOD service centers. In 1967 the national
Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued a report on six neighborhood service centers that had been
formed to study the problems of youth in ghetto areas.16
Over time, these organizations discovered that in order to
help the delinquent, pressing family problems also had to
be solved, and they expanded their activities accordingly.
The authors of the report define the neighborhood service
center as a "conveniently located facility, staffed by p
fessional workers and community residents wuh n.i :r
ing, designed to provide specific and speedy services
Object Description
| Title | City government for the future, 1969-07 |
| Description | Section 2: City government for the future: report of the Los Angeles City Charter Commission. Los Angeles, California: Los Angeles City Hall, 1969 July. PART OF A SERIES: A critical component of the Commission's investigation centered on the idea that governance of the LAPD was shared between the Office of the Chief of Police, an administrative body, and the Board of Police Commissioners, a citizen body. To better understand the dynamic between these two entities, the staff of Heller, Ehrman, White, & McAuliffe researched the history of the Los Angeles City Charter, focusing primarily on its provisions regarding the distribution of power and the structure and organization of the LAPD. Included in the series are reproductions of reports, dissertations, article clippings, excerpts from city documents, and charter amendments related to the charter's conception and development over time. The series also includes several summaries of expert witness interviews regarding the effectiveness of this structure. |
| Coverage date | 1809; 1850/1974; 1984 |
| Publisher (of the original version) | Los Angeles City Hall |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California, USA |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
| Date issued | 1969-07 |
| Type | texts |
| Format | 253 p. |
| Format (aat) | reports |
| Format (imt) | application/pdf |
| Language | English |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
| Series | Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
| File | Los Angeles City document index |
| Box and folder | box 21, folder 7, item 3 |
| Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
| Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
| Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
| Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Filename | indep-box21-07-03 |
Description
| Title | City government for the future, p. 35 |
| Format (imt) | image/tiff |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Full text | 22 CITY GOVERNMENT FOR THE FUTURE Bollens, Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Los Angeles, was retained as a consultant to study the feasibility of identifying communities within the city and using them in some way to improve representation and participation. Dr. Bollens was asked to survey related developments elsewhere and proceed with the design of a subunit of the city government if it appeared to be feasible. Parts of the discussion in this section and in some other sections of this chapter are drawn from Dr. Bollens' report as submitted to the Commission. The actual Neighborhood proposal is based on his report but represents the Commission's final judgment. Nationwide Interest in Community and Neighborhood Government Community or neighborhood governmental organizations are being widely advocated as a means of reducing the remoteness of the governments of big cities. the acir proposal. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), a body made up largely of public officials, has made the following proposal. The Commission recommends the enactment of State legislation authorizing large cities and county governments in metropolitan areas to establish neighborhood subunits of government with limited powers of taxation and of local self-government with respect to specified or restricted functions including the administration of specified portions of Federal, State and local programs. Such subunits would be dissoluble by the city or county governing body at any time.11 The ACIR recommends that these subunits have a community council of four to nine members and possess advisory or delegated substantive authority in such functions as planning, zoning, urban renewal, crime prevention, code inspection, recreation, and education. ced suggestions. The Committee for Economic Development (CED), a prominent private organization composed of leading businessmen and educators, has also discussed the need for citizen participation in city affairs. In congested central cities, as well as in suburban areas, there is a necessity for active citizen participation in public affairs— to clarify neighborhood needs, to propose constructive solutions, and to mobilize voluntary services. . . . [The] dilemma between the need for large-scale unity and the enlistment of active citizen interest is serious, but it may not be insoluble. To insure attention to distinctive neighborhood needs, followed by appropriate and effective action, giant metropolitan centers might be divided into "neighborhood districts," on the order of magnitude of about 50,000 residents each.12 The CED suggests that neighborhood districts should have small popularly elected councils which would study the needs of the neighborhood and make recommendations to the city government. Revenue for the council operations would come from the city government. Through the use of such neighborhood councils, the CED believes, ci needs would be made known to the city government and service levels could be adjusted to them. kerner commission recommendations. The Kerner Commission directed considerable attention to the structure of local government and the need for greater citizen participation in its affairs. In the Commission's Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, it made the following recommendations. To open channels of communication between government and ghetto residents, improve the capacity of the city administration to respond effectively to community needs and provide opportunity for meaningful citizen participation in decision-making, we recommend establishment of joint government-community Neighborhood Action Task Forces covering each neighborhood within the city which has a high proportion of low-income minority citizens.13 The Neighborhood Action Task Force concept provides a basis on which lasting structures can be erected. The principal change required in order to transform the official component of the Task Force into a permanent instrument of local government involves the establishment of offices in the neighborhoods served. . . . The neighborhood city hall would accomplish several interrelated objectives. It would contribute to the improvement of public services by providing an effective channel for low-income citizens to communicate their needs and problems to the appropriate public officials and by increasing th ability of local government to respond in a coordinated timely fashion. It would serve as the eyes and ears of the ma and council and furnish an informal forum for complaint* and grievances. It would make information about government programs and services available to ghetto residents, enabling them to make more effective use of such programs and services while making clear the limitations on the availability of all such programs and services. It would expand opportunities for meaningful community access to and involvement in the planning and implementation of policy affecting the neighborhood. Most important, the neighborhood city hall, building on the task force approach, affords a significant opportunity to accomplish the democratic goal of making government closer and more accountable to the citizen.14 In conclusion, the Kerner Commission pointed out. "The demand for a community voice represents a marked and desirable gain over the apathy that existed before The essential question which city leadership must face is the ultimate goal of community participation."15 NEIGHBORHOOD service centers. In 1967 the national Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued a report on six neighborhood service centers that had been formed to study the problems of youth in ghetto areas.16 Over time, these organizations discovered that in order to help the delinquent, pressing family problems also had to be solved, and they expanded their activities accordingly. The authors of the report define the neighborhood service center as a "conveniently located facility, staffed by p fessional workers and community residents wuh n.i :r ing, designed to provide specific and speedy services |
| Filename | indep-box21-07-03~035.tif |
| Archival file | Volume68/indep-box21-07-03~035.tif |
