And having such populous districts does not serve the county.

But what’s the point of counties to begin with? In L.A. County, 88 cities have their own councils. L.A., with about 3.5 million people, has 15 representatives. Unincorporated cities could form their own councils or allow themselves to be annexed.

If counties were eliminated, nearly every function could either be provided by cities, the state, or special-purpose regional districts.

And having such populous districts does not serve the county.

Contrast that to the State of New Hampshire, population 1.3 million, about 9,300 square miles, 400 representatives and 24 senators!

I’ll e-mail you offline with other thoughts that might not be directly in proper context if posted here; if you find those thoughts useful, feel free to incorporate them in whatever “retool” you may choose to post here.

With L.A. having 15 council districts, there should be a way of divvying up 5 theoretical seats. The danger of no framework would mean the bloc would be used as a bribe toward a constituency the Mayor or City Council is trying to win. In 2001, all 5 seats would have went to the San Fernando Valley as countersecession bait.

Three contiguous council districts means that the districts must be next to each other, and that each representative must be a resident of one of these pairs of districts. For instance, the Valley would be guaranteed one delegate by the combination of three Valley council seats, the Eastside would be guaranteed one seat, etc.

*5 seats go to a non-L.A. city and/or unincorporated area based upon county supervisors’ districts. Supervisors will vote on delegates as part of regular county business.

Such seats would have to — by law — be determined by the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee, not the Board of Supervisors. Besides, having them responsible for those five appointees, in addition to their rotating seat, would technically give them six seats instead of their current five.

*1 seat will go to an L.A. County delegate of the Metrolink board.

Immediate conflict of interest problem, as the Los Angeles County members of the Metrolink Board are appointed by the Metro Board of Directors.

And you have me completely confused as to what you mean by having the City of L.A. appointees be “from three contiguous council districts”.

How does the experience of an elected Board like the Bay Area Rapid Transit District differ from the appointed Board we have?

How has it worked for the LAUSD or other sub-municipal boards?

You have very high incumbency along with voter apathy levels in the high 80s.

This will lead to what has been called by economists as regulatory capture.

You claim deep knowledge and insight then ask “Where is the common interest, common enemy, or common friend among the Supervisors regarding the MTA” The include/eligible transit operators (aka the MUNIS) is the obvious rejoiner. Which shows you haven’t been paying attention to the real politics going on with the Metro Board.

You condescending dismissal of many of us as clueless is par for the course as your lastest long rambling post proves to be insubstantial and unimpressive. But what should we expect from someone who has despite all his big talk failed in all his stated goals and seems to be quickly fizzling despite the excessive media attention.

By the way, where is that lawsuit about Expo Phase two environmental clearance you said in public was about to be filed? Hasn’t it been more than 45 days?

If you are a resident of the city of L.A., you should feel disempowered as you are underrepresented on the Metro board. Four votes out of 13 equals 31 percent of the bloc. Populationwise, L.A. city is about 40 percent of the county. When it comes to productivity, either in transit ridership or vehicle traffic, we’re talking 60 to 70 percent. Furthermore, despite LADOT being the city’s official transit agency, Angelenos count on Metro for about 90 percent of bus service (100 percent for rail) in the city.

An L.A. Weekly article several years ago made a good point. It is the L.A. County supervisors who are overrepresented on the Metro board. They are directly responsible for unincorporated areas that represent less than a million people countywide. Otherwise, they are a redundant presence since much of the county lives in an incorporated city.

What complicates matter is that Metro is a state, not a county, agency. Sacramento determines the composition of the board and Metro’s charter. Changes must come from the people who ruined the state fiscally.

Here’s how I’d reconstitute the Metro board, using the same 13 seats:

*5 seats would go to Los Angeles city. There is no obligation for one of the seats to go automatically to the mayor. (Antonio Villaraigosa is one of the more engaged mayors on the Metro board. His successors might not be. His predecessors, Richard Riordan and James Hahn, might as well have had their heads down throughout the meeting.) The only requirement there would be is that each seat must be filled by a person from three contiguous council districts. The mayor, having residency in at least one district, can jockey to be one of the representatives.

*1 seat goes to one county supervisor automatically. It could be rotated annually among the five.

*5 seats go to a non-L.A. city and/or unincorporated area based upon county supervisors’ districts. Supervisors will vote on delegates as part of regular county business.

*1 seat will go to an L.A. County delegate of the Metrolink board.

*1 seat will go to an L.A. County resident nominated by the governor and approved by the legislature.

And using the Chandler ROW would not be wise. Olive is the street that serves the commercial heart of Burbank. It has the largest job centers in that gap between the SGV-SFV, and room for growth. Who would seriously advocate traveling miles away from ABC, Disney and the many entertainment businesses along the corridor, just because an old abandoned track is a mile or two away. (Oh yea, I forgot there’s a whole faction of people in L.A. who think avoiding major trip generators on major corridors is smart transit planning…forgive me).

It confuses me how people take issue with community opposition for track alignments that slice through the middle of low-density single family residential communities, especially when there are countless unserved commercial corridors in the region, especially when several major ones run parallel to these abandoned ROWs in question. A good majority of the Venice-Sepulveda Expo diversion advocates are not and were not NIMBYs but rather people who look at stations smack in the middle of residential areas in large urban areas and legitimately say, “How the heck does that make any sense?” To be clear that’s not to say Venice-Sepulveda was superior or not, but rather that there are legitimate issues with laying tracks on ROWs in the middle of low density communities, and proposing such will generate legitimate criticism. Criticisms like limited space for growth/redevelopment, and limited potential ridership.

Too many folk want to and GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO ignore these legitimate issues and focus on making strawman arguments, and yelling from the mountaintop their rally cry: NIMBYs!!!!! NIMBYs!!!! and their “ridiculous” concerns about community division, noise and vibration. These concerns, which are “SO ABSURD” that most urban areas in the country have laws on the book prohibiting the type of disruption.

Political bodies across the U.S. have recognized that noise disruption and vibration are legitimate issues and residential communities in particular are in need of protection. A person can get a ticket for blasting a stereo in the middle of the night through a residential community, yet when a citizen expresses concern about trains generating twice as much noise, they’re suddenly worse than Hitler in the eyes of some train aficionados.

That’s an incredibly simplistic statement. The saying in Washington is “You don’t know how to count,” as in you don’t know how to identify the number of votes necessary to get something to pass. What that really means is you don’t know how to read the political landscape, and to be frank, I’m not surprised Dana. I’ve frequently said that many of the leaders of some of the transit advocacy organizations (SOME not all) are clueless about MTA board politics.

But I digress. The point is there is no natural political coalition on the board among the Supervisors. Just because they come from the same body (the Board of Sups) doesn’t mean jack! Where is the common interest, common enemy, or common friend among the Supervisors regarding the MTA – the things it takes to build a political coalition? The only issue that collectively impacts the Sups is the Sherriffs budget, because the more MTA gives the less the County Sups must give.

Comparatively, the mayor has 4 guaranteed votes at any given time. Couple with that at least one County Supervisor (Zev or MRT), and you have the largest voting bloc (5) on the board. It is a true bloc because there are common interests, common constituencies, common enemies, and common friends. And more times than not the bloc is often 6, because the mayor can often with ease tie in both Zev and MRT.

That leaves a terribly high mountain for any faction to climb that is opposed by the Mayor. Their only power is in coming together against the Mayor’s bloc, where there is absolutely no unifying issue, interest, enemy or ally. Perhaps one could argue subsidies for the muni operators is an issue the anti-Mayor bloc has a collective interest and could benefit from combating the Mayor’s bloc. But as long as Santa Monica, which is landlocked by L.A. is one of those 4 small cities, it’s terribly unlikely. So now the anti-Antonio bloc is faced with trying to break away Zev or MRT, both of which have more MTA service in their boundaries than muni service. Again, that’s terribly unlikely.

Heck, one doesn’t even need to postulate or some politico to figure this out. Just look at history. Search for an item since Antonio’s been Mayor that something has gone through MTA board opposed by the Mayor’s faction.

You won’t find one.

Now comparatively how many items have been successful despite being opposed by the natural anti-Mayoral faction?

How does the Mayor and three appointees equal seven votes? That sure is faulty math. If anything the Supervisors with the City Selection appointees are a more decisive block of votes.

Calwatch, I too am curious whether any move toward changing the FAP for dividing funds among the include/eligible transit operators makes any headway. My guess will be no, especially when funding is a dicey situation anyway.

Dan W., the residents along the Chandler ROW between N. Hollywood and Burbank already have complaints about the bike path there. I am sure Najarian realizes even a hint of a rail project there would cause huge pushback by the NIMBYs.

The Lakers would have to win the championships again next year.