The overhaul of L.A. County government begins now
In November, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure G, which promised to transform county governance. The process that will implement its reforms begins now with the creation of the Governance Reform Task Force, and L.A. County leaders, residents and media need to be engaged because, as the saying goes, 'The devil is in the details.'
For too long, the county has underserved the people of Los Angeles. With nearly 10 million residents, our county is more populous than 40 U.S. states, yet it is governed by only five supervisors, each overseeing about 2 million people. The result has been reactionary leadership that maintains the status quo when the challenges we face require speed and innovation.
At its core, Measure G is about ensuring that the county can meet our greatest challenges. After all, the design of a government shapes the behaviors of those who govern us. The Board of Supervisors will be expanded, over time, to nine members from five. And an elected county executive will provide for the separation of executive and legislative powers, and a more accountable county government.
Take for example the devastating January fires. The Palisades and Eaton fires tore through the cities of Los Angeles, Malibu, Pasadena and Sierra Madre. The largest devastation in terms of deaths, homes lost and residents displaced was in the unincorporated neighborhood of Altadena. Instead of having one voice and one plan leading fire response and recovery at the county level, residents must navigate a maze of district by district bureaucracy to put the pieces of their life back together. Imagine if there was just one elected county executive guiding one regional strategy — this is the future we can create.
Now let's consider homelessness — the most pressing issue facing the county year after year. Despite spending billions of dollars each year, the county has yet to move the needle far enough in addressing the issue. When an audit was mandated by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, the county learned of eye-popping inefficiencies and nepotism, leading it to pull its funding from the city-county Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, and leading to the resignation of the agency's chief executive. Is this effective governance? Is this the best we can do?
In their recent book 'Abundance,' Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson point to the need for proactive government in fostering innovation and breaking stagnation that places such as Los Angeles face. But ending the status quo won't be easy. So many entities will resist change — agencies that have been allowed to underperform, vendors who overcharge, nonprofit organizations whose million-dollar contracts with the county may change — because an opaque county system is working for them.
Right now, the vision and continuity of the county change on an annual basis along with the rotating chair structure of the five-member board. Most actions get decided based on district preferences instead of the regional greater good. But as the founding fathers noted, government works best with checks and balances. The county supervisors, as the legislative branch, should have a healthy level of friction with an executive to keep them accountable to the people. Measure G's addition of an elected county executive establishes those checks and balances. This change is critical to the leadership needed to tackle major crises such as homelessness and emergency response.
The new task force will also define the scope of a new independent ethics commission mandated by the measure.
Measure G is not just governance reform — it's also democratic renewal. Los Angeles County's form of government hasn't changed since 1912, when our population was just 500,000 and women didn't have the right to vote. To have world class transportation countywide, to transition to a green economy, to lessen disparities between rich and poor requires innovation.
As the task force begins the process to implement the voter-approved Measure G, we need the voices of all 88 cities and our hundreds of neighborhoods to help define the future of county government. Tune in for our livestreamed meetings, email your ideas to the task force and be sure to get involved as the task force develops and rolls out a community engagement strategy in the coming months.
We can't afford to waste this opportunity. As a member of the task force, I welcome your participation in shaping the county we all deserve. This thrilling process starts Friday — join us.
Sara Sadhwani is a politics professor at Pomona College and was appointed by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, co-author of Measure G, to serve on the Governance Reform Task Force. measureg.lacounty.gov.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
7 vote centers open for District 1 Supervisor special election
SAN DIEGO (FOX 5/KUSI) — Voters living in San Diego County's First Supervisorial District can begin casting their ballots early starting Saturday, June 21, as part of the special general election to fill the district's vacant seat. Seven vote centers will open across the district and remain available daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. through Monday, June 30. On the final day of voting, Tuesday, July 1, six additional vote centers will open for a total of 13 locations, and voting hours will extend from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Here's a list of the seven vote centers that opened on Saturday, June 21: Bonita Vista Middle School – Cafeteria (650 Otay Lakes Rd., Chula Vista) Chula Vista City Hall (276 4th Ave., Chula Vista) MAAC Community Center (1387 3rd Ave., Chula Vista) South Bay Union School District – Burress Auditorium (601 Elm Ave., Imperial Beach) Mountain View Community Center – Back Meeting Room (641 S Boundary St., San Diego) San Ysidro Senior Center (125 E Park Ave., San Ysidro) Spring Valley Community Center – Olsen Room (8735 Jamacha Blvd., Spring Valley) Meet the candidates in the runoff for the Board of Supervisors District 1 seat Find a vote center near you by using this Vote Center Finder tool. Voters are encouraged to check for changes in voting locations since the April primary and confirm their eligibility at More than just a polling place, vote centers provide additional services. Here's what you can do at these centers: Vote in person or drop off your mail-in ballot. Use accessible ballot marking devices. Register to vote or update your registration and cast your ballot on the same day. Get assistance and materials in multiple languages. Election officials are reminding voters of the following: Ballot marking devices do not store or count votes — they simply print your selections, which are reviewed and submitted by hand to poll workers. Campaigning or electioneering — including signs, petitions, or advocacy materials — is prohibited within 100 feet of any vote center or drop box. Only residents of District 1 may vote in this election. Voting begins in runoff race for District 1 seat on Board of Supervisors Voters can also return ballots by mail — no postage required — or at one of the 29 official drop boxes located throughout the district. Drop boxes are open 24/7 and will close promptly at 8 p.m. on July 1. Voters must sign and date their return envelope for their vote to count. Find a drop box near you by using this Location Finder tool. District 1 spans from Barrio Logan and East Village in the north to the U.S./Mexico border in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean eastward to the Otay and San Miguel mountains. It includes cities like Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, and communities such as Bonita, La Presa, and Lincoln Acres. The runoff for the empty District 1 seat, which was set after no candidate received enough votes to win outright earlier this year, pits two South Bay mayors against each other: Imperial Beach Mayor Paloma Aguirre and Chula Vista Mayor John McCann. Both are vying to serve the remainder of the term former Board of Supervisors Chair Nora Vargas abruptly vacated in the weeks after winning re-election. The winner of the special election will serve out the remainder of the current term, ending in January 2029. For a complete list of vote centers, drop box locations, or to check your voter status, visit or call 858-565-5800. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- Bloomberg
The Case for an ‘Anti-Abundance' Agenda
Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's new book, Abundance: How We Build a Better Future is a rare thing: a serious book on public policy that has also launched a movement. Senior Democratic politicians have taken to name-checking the book (and progressive activists to denouncing it). Abundance clubs have formed in cities across blue America. I think the argument is sound as far as it goes (though lots of other people such as Brink Lindsey, Steven Teles, Marc Andreessen and Philip K. Howard have been making a similar case for years). Progressive politicians have got in the way of progress by privileging interest groups over the common good and following procedure over achieving goals. The result is a shortage of desirable goods such as housing or infrastructure. What Klein and Thompson say about the United States is even more true of the United Kingdom, where the average house price is eight-and-a-bit times the median income compared with five-and-a-bit times in the US.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Yahoo
Commission recommends Kern supes OK oil review, permitting plan
A high-stakes effort to resume local oil permitting advanced this week as Kern's Planning Commission voted Thursday night to recommend approval of the county's third attempt at a massive environmental review. The board voted 4-0 with Commissioner Joe Ashley, a local oil executive, absent. Next the controversial measure will head to the county Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider certifying the review and adopting a related ordinance during a special meeting June 26. Because the board is seen as likely to approve the proposal over the objections of climate and environmental justice activists, the bigger challenge for the county may be getting the approval of state appellate court judges. They have ruled, as recently as two years ago, that the county's efforts violate the California Environmental Quality Act. Kern's latest attempt includes new concessions that would raise the costs oil companies face when applying for permission to drill in the county. If the legal bid falls short, permitting will remain in the hands of Sacramento, where producers complain that the process is slow and hobbled by politics. People attending Thursday's commission meeting spoke up in opposition and support for revisions that would allow the county to permit up to 26,970 new wells by 2035. The county estimates that, based on past experience and depending on barrel prices, it will give out no more than about 19,000 drilling permits during that time, and that many of those will merely replace other wells set to be idled. Relatively few people criticized the county effort on Thursday; if history is a guide, a much greater number of opponents will weigh in when the Board of Supervisors takes up the issue. Many groups see the permitting process as overly broad "fast-tracking" at a time when oil production should be curtailed for climate and health reasons. Policy Director Ema De La Rosa at the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability urged the commission Thursday night to reject the proposal. She said oil and gas has historically impacted poor people and communities of color she said suffer disproportionately from illnesses including asthma, cancer and high-risk pregnancies. "Residents in Kern County already endure the worst air quality in the nation … and expanding these operations will only worsen the public health crisis and further burden already impacted communities," she said. Later she added, "Doubling down on fossil fuel reliance is a step in the wrong direction as the state is working toward a clean energy future." Director Lori Pesante of Sierra Club's Kern-Kaweah Chapter said in a statement ahead of Thursday's meeting it's time for the county to move past oil production. 'Kern's Planning Commission should prioritize clean air, new job opportunities in the renewable energy sector, and protecting the public from dangerous leaks and spills," she stated, "not double down on a failed approach that would give the oil industry a free pass to pollute our neighborhoods.' The architect of the county's effort, Director Lorelei Oviatt of Kern's Planning and Natural Resources Department, made the point oil production is still legal in the state, and that permitting done in Sacramento does not incorporate the 89 mitigation measures and standards Kern's system would impose for the protection of local air, water and biological and cultural resources. Oviatt said by email Friday the benefits of oil and gas production in Kern extend beyond the county, including to Southern California refineries that rely on local petroleum. "Returning Kern County to full environmentally protective permitting is critical for providing gasoline to consumers at prices we can all afford, stabilizing our local business community and providing investor confidence," she wrote. Since before it was initially adopted in 2015, the measure has been a top concern for local oil producers, which more recently are also dealing with a new state law forbidding oil work within 3,200 feet of a home, school or other sensitive site. Kern's proposed ordinance does not attempt to change that regulation. CEO Rock Zierman of the California Independent Petroleum Association trade group expressed support for the county's actions in an email Friday. "If we want any hope of saving the local oil industry and reducing gas prices, Kern must be empowered to take over permitting from the state, which is refusing to process permits in a timely manner' he stated. One of the county's newly proposed mitigation measures, included to address the appellate court's concerns, would prohibit new wells on farmland until old oil-field equipment is removed. Oil producers would also have to secure an ag easement within the county measuring the same size as any lost farmland. Additionally, oil companies applying for permits would have to pay into a fund that would match state investments in water systems serving local disadvantaged communities. Fees for each new oil well would amount to $9,732. It is projected to raise between $17.3 million and $25.9 million per year.
