The LA Times this morning threw the bulk of its decreasing local political resources into the race for Council District 5. It asked the candidates what they think about various developments.
Think of that: the candidates for Council in CD 5 are mostly parroting the challenger candidates for Mayor on development issues. Yet the Times is far more interested in what the candidates for a Council District have to say about planning and development than in what challengers or even the Mayor has done in these arenas that most control the very quality of our civic lives.
The future of LA, with ever increasing density, could either end up like Tokyo (optimist) or Sao Paolo (pessimist). The westside could become as traffic-choked as Seoul in a few short years. The City's owner-occupied-to-renter ratio continues its slide towards the renter's side, meaning fewer and fewer opportunities for home ownership for more and more people.
The Mayor appointed an amateur planner from San Diego who took up planning in midlife to handle development issues. (It fit a pattern of key appointments, from Animal Services to Cultural Affairs to Traffic, as the Mayor culled the nation for out-of-towners who would be completely beholden to his office alone.) Now, instead of investigating why the Mayor has willfully brought a dystopic future to Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times solicits position papers from candidates who have even raised less money than Walter Moore on development issues that face the richest one-fifteenth of the City.
There's no mention of the Mayor's race at the Daily News either this morning.