LA grew less than 1% per year through the decade
The US Census of 2010 found that Los Angeles had 3,792,621 residents.
In 2000, the City had 3,694,820.
Los Angeles through this time "grew" 97,801--or 9,780 souls a year.
Or about 00.25% a year. 1% of 3,694,820 is 36,948, &c.
Three years ago, I asked Gail Goldberg why she was continuing to plan as though the city were growing in population. Her answer was a lie: she said the city was growing three ways, by immigration, natural increase, and by American relocation ("immigration, copulation, relocation").
In truth, no statistics were insisting that LA was growing. The San Diegan city planner, who took up planning as a dabbler in midlife only had it on the authority of the Mayor who appointed her that LA was growing.
When it wasn't.
Yes, all through the transit hub projects that have hopelessly skewed the city's renter ratio, all through the densifications, the City of Los Angeles was growing at a rate of about 00.25% percent a year. Not even a third of one percent.
The City is vastly rearranged. Though some of us have known it for a long time, last week's Dodger debacle especially has now left many ordinary citizens wondering: what happened?
A second staggering what happened blow arrived Friday, on the strength of a good piece by Ryan Vaillancourt in the Downtown News, that downtown's biggest landlord is also at the brink.
The last time so many people wondered what happened so fresh after an event, it was May 1992.
What has happened was this: our City's planning policies over the past five years were, and still continue to be, based on a baldfaced lie. There was never any evidence that LA was "growing." But we continued to pretend we were. And we continue to pretend we are growing today.
The City itself should probably be in Federal receivership. There was no riot, no earthquake, no Katrina that swept into Los Angeles; there was no Gulf spill. But now we have a $400 million deficit, and we're now using that deficit to shake down the City's own workers.
No, there was no civil disturbance nor natural disaster during this time. There has only been a Mayor who answers to billionaires and a kleptocratic City Council continuing to densify even when people weren't really coming, creating dozens of boarded up commercial strips, uncertain commercial occupancies, and a population at considerable risk with a declining industrial base.
Through this time, the City wasn't even appreciably growing at all. In fact, it was decreasing in population.
Yes, decreasing. There was no special push to "make everyone count" in 2000. There was an enormous push to do so--led by the Mayor's office--in 2010. We sought to count many more people in 2010 than we did in 2000.
Our school district has been losing students since 2004.
Who/what made Gail Goldberg lie to the public, and other politicians to lie to the public, about inevitable growth, inevitable increase?