Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Los Angeles

What's Riordan Done for L.A.?

Precious little. The city has rebounded, but is the mayor really responsible?

July 01, 2001|HAROLD MEYERSON | Harold Meyerson is outgoing executive editor of L.A. Weekly and incoming executive editor of the American Prospect

The city, by any number of measures, is back. Employment is up from the trough of the early '90s. Business flight has largely abated; new industries are locating here. Crime rates have fallen and a new, more vibrant downtown seems to be rising.

It's a tribute to Richard Riordan, whose eight-year term as mayor ends this weekend, that all of the above can be said of Los Angeles. Then again, it can also be said of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Boston, San Diego, Atlanta, Oakland, Columbus and Pittsburgh. No city is an island entire of itself, and if credit is to go to any public official for America's urban renaissance of the past half-dozen years, Bill Clinton is clearly standing at the head of the line.

Assessing Riordan's role in L.A.'s comeback is a trickier business--not least because the extent of L.A.'s recovery looks very different depending on your vantage point, for Los Angeles is still preeminently a two-tier city. When aerospace up and left in the first half of the '90s, it took with it a large chunk of L.A.'s middle class. The economy has come roaring back since then, but the middle class really hasn't. L.A. today remains America's capital of low-wage work.

Riordan took office at a historic nadir in L.A. history, with the city hemorrhaging jobs and still reeling from the riots of 1992. His pledge to "turn L.A. around" really had two components: He'd rebuild a police force that would make Angelenos feel safer and an economic climate that would make business feel more welcome.

Riordan was always the candidate of law and order rather than police reform. With the help of Clinton, who designated federal funds for hiring more local cops, he beefed up the LAPD, and crime rates started to fall. Then again, they fell in virtually every city in the land, and they fell on the watch of a chief--Willie Williams--whom Riordan harshly criticized and eventually replaced. Meanwhile, neither Riordan nor his police commissioners did anything to implement the key recommendations of the 1992 Christopher Commission. His commissioners impeded the efforts of the department's first civilian inspector general to monitor officer misconduct, while his own appointee as chief, Bernard Parks, fiercely resisted efforts to establish greater civilian control of the department.

It was in this climate--more enforcement, and damn the accountability--that the Rampart scandal erupted. Riordan wasn't responsible for the scandal, but more than anyone else, he was responsible for the climate--and, by extension, for the massive liability the city now confronts. Rampart, the attendant decline in the size and the morale of the force and the consent decree with the federal government all attest to glaring failures of local governance--and in particular, to Riordan's failure to grasp what was required to police a city like Los Angeles.

And what of the economy? Certainly L.A. has come a long way from the early '90s, when factory closings and the relocation of corporate headquarters seemed almost weekly occurrences. Not that Riordan really staunched those relocations; it's just that L.A. has run out of major enterprises, excepting Disney, that are still based here. But a new economy of smaller businesses has risen on the ashes of old, large-scale industrial Los Angeles, and Riordan certainly changed the atmospherics, if not all the codes and ordinances, to make this a more business-friendly city.

While the L.A. economy may be booming, however, it's far from healthy. The Census Bureau has yet to provide its economic breakdown of the 2000 census, but estimates of the increase in poor people in L.A. County over the past decade range from 500,000 to 840,000. We are the nation's capital of medical uninsurance (something over which the mayor has no authority whatever) and of residential overcrowding (something over which the mayor does have considerable authority had he simply chosen to exercise it).

A few weeks ago, the Census Bureau released a report on household overcrowding--and lo and behold, 23 of the 25 most overcrowded American cities were in California, most of them the working-class, heavily immigrant suburbs of L.A. (Santa Ana, El Monte and East Los Angeles headed the list, while L.A. proper--which includes such distinctly uncrowded neighborhoods as Brentwood and Bel Air--ranked 31st.) Yet, until his final year in office, Riordan denied that the absence of affordable housing was really a problem. While other cities established affordable-housing trust funds for nonprofit developers, L.A. established one only last year, at the behest of then-Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, Riordan's sometime nemesis. And while New York's trust fund exceeds a quarter-billion dollars, L.A. has currently set aside a princely $10 million for the purpose.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|