Let The City Know.
LET THE CITY KNOW:
You can also watch this episode on YouTube.
Prop 50 HAS PASSED. Now, could Gavin Newsom tell us about just why California has the second highest rate of unemployment in the nation, behind only Washington D.C?
Subscribe here to make sure you don’t miss my written work via Making a Neighborhood.
To support a Local Vendor Buyout campaign for East Hollywood, Virgil Village and Silver Lake, please do so via Quien Es Tu Vecindario.
J.T.
In 2011 the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) published a map and sheet showing homelessness rates per district in Los Angeles. On LAHSA’s 2011 map, the districts with the highest numbers of unhoused people were shaded dark-blue and included CD-9, CD-14, CD-13, and CD-8.
For the 2020 count, LAHSA did not publish a map showing district per homelessness, but that didn’t stop yours truly and some friends from publishing another one on their behalf. Our choropleth map below noted percent changes for homelessness rates per district in a bivariate color scheme from green to red. Also listed was a sheet ranking homelessness rates from highest to lowest per district based on LAHSA’s most recent count.
By 2020, fourteen of L.A.’s fifteen council districts, or 93% of the city, saw an increase of homelessness since 2011. The districts with the highest numbers of unhoused residents actually included the same four districts from ten years earlier, though in a slightly rearranged order. These districts were:
I. CD-14, where Skid Row, along with much of downtown, was moved to after city redistricting in 2012. The district was overseen by Jose Huizar from 2005 – 2020 but has been overseen by Kevin De Leon since 2020. At the start of his term an estimate of at least 7,600 people were reported without shelter, an increase of more than 245% since 2011.
II. CD-9, where historic South Central was still based after redistricting in 2012. The area was overseen by Curren D. Price from 2013 – 2020, when an estimated 4,900 people were reported without shelter, a decrease of 15.5% since 2011.
III. CD-8, where Leimert Park was still based after redistricting in 2012 along with the Crenshaw Corridor. The district was overseen by Marqueece Harris-Dawson from 2015 – 2022, when an estimated 4,400 people were reported without shelter, an increase of 175% since 2011.
IV. CD-13, where East Hollywood remained after redistricting in 2012. The district was represented by Mitch O’Farrell from 2013 – 2022 and but has been overseen by Hugo Soto-Martinez since 2022. An estimated 3,900 people were reported without shelter in CD-13 as of 2020, an increase of 105% since 2011.
| Council District | Total | Unsheltered | Sheltered | Individuals | Family Members | Families | Unaccompanied Minors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 9204 | 6523 | 2681 | 8530 | 664 | 210 | 10 |
| 9 | 5640 | 2943 | 2697 | 3665 | 1968 | 630 | 7 |
| 8 | 3579 | 1334 | 2245 | 2105 | 1462 | 496 | 12 |
| 1 | 3395 | 2570 | 825 | 3091 | 295 | 108 | 9 |
| 6 | 3228 | 1590 | 1638 | 1951 | 1269 | 361 | 8 |
| 13 | 2992 | 2310 | 682 | 2684 | 290 | 102 | 18 |
| 15 | 2373 | 1916 | 457 | 2168 | 196 | 61 | 9 |
| 11 | 2012 | 1704 | 308 | 1897 | 115 | 37 | 0 |
| 7 | 1746 | 1484 | 262 | 1696 | 50 | 14 | 0 |
| 10 | 1671 | 1348 | 323 | 1523 | 134 | 43 | 14 |
| 2 | 1364 | 1128 | 236 | 1329 | 34 | 10 | 1 |
| 3 | 1270 | 970 | 300 | 1141 | 129 | 34 | 0 |
| 5 | 1252 | 787 | 465 | 858 | 394 | 133 | 0 |
| 4 | 1203 | 887 | 316 | 1067 | 134 | 48 | 2 |
| 12 | 1051 | 964 | 87 | 989 | 62 | 19 | 0 |
| Total | 41980 | 28458 | 13522 | 34094 | 7196 | 2306 | 90 |
In 2022, the city saw improvements in getting more people sheltered, but nonetheless saw an overall increase in the rate of homelessness. The districts with the highest numbers of unhoused residents actually included the same top three districts from 2011, but there was a change for the fourth most affected area. These districts were:
I. CD-14, where Skid Row, along with much of downtown, remained even after redistricting in 2022. The district is still overseen by Kevin De Leon, though he is up for election this year and is likely to face a considerable challenge in November. Boyle Heights Beat is also holding a Candidate Forum for the community on Saturday, February 10, 2024.
II. CD-9, where the historic South Central area remained even after redistricting in 2022. The district is still technically overseen by Curren D. Price, but just earlier this week he pleaded not guilty to charges of embezzlement and is therefore going to remain away from the council until the case concludes, depriving the area of active representation at City Hall for the foreseeable future. CD-9 is also where dozens of residents were left homeless in 2021 after the Los Angeles Police Department detonated explosives there which injured 17 people and damaged at least 35 homes; as of June 2023, at least 15 families were still living in a hotel being paid for by the city–at least $9.5 million dollars most recently. The city also attempted to evict families from this arrangement until it was faced with a major public outcry.
III. CD-8, still home to the Crenshaw area, West Adams, and the Vermont-Florence area even after redistricting in 2022. The district is still helmed by Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who is likely to be reelected in 2024 for his final term as the community’s representative at L.A. City Hall. While CD-8 has remained the third most hit in terms of homelessness for over a decade, the district did see improvement in terms of people housed since 2020. CD-8 is also the only district of the top four on this list to have more sheltered than unsheltered people experiencing homelessness. Given Harris-Dawson’s position as the Chair of the Planning and Land Use Management committee at L.A. City Hall since 2019, it’ll be key to keep track of CD-8’s progress on this enduring issue.
IV. CD-1, still home to Pico-Union, Westlake-MacArthur Park, Lincoln Heights and Highland Park even after redistricting in 2022. While the district was overseen by Gil Cedillo since 2013, in June 2022 he was defeated by Eunisses Hernandez. Hernandez has pledged to fight gentrification in the community she was born and raised in and even to explore options for social housing in the area. The next couple of years are crucial, then, if she’s to fulfill these promises.
As usual, this is a developing story. To learn more, including on how to get involved, be sure you’re subscribed to J.T. the L.A. Storyteller!
J.T
When governors Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis held their “debate” this past November, one minor fact missing from the discussion was that donors in “the Golden State” have actually led the nation in supporting Donald Trump’s re-election campaign so far. Data from the Federal Election Commission shows that since August 2022 – September 2023, Californians have made at least 167,000 donations for the 2024 presidential election, $6.2 million of which has gone to the former president. Texan donors came in second for Trump over the last year at $5 million, while Floridians placed third for him at $4.6 million. New Yorkers, by contrast, contributed little more than $1.7 million to Trump, who himself is a former New Yorker. Trump first announced his intention to run for a second presidential term in November 2022.
In 2020, 23 of 58 counties in California went to Trump, including Kern, Shasta, El Dorado, and Placer counties, or where the state is far more rural than Hollywood and San Francisco still lead many to imagine. Trump tallied over 6 million votes from California that year, or more than any Republican candidate in state history. This also helps to explain why even though Trump lost areas like Orange County, there was still growth in support for him through certain segments of it, including in Asian-American and Latino communities there.
Still, $6 million from Trump voters in California during the past year does not mean the state as a whole is friendly to his camp. Instead, it’s indicative of an energized California Republican electorate early in the race, one that is bound to be outmatched at a rate of 2 to 1 by California’s Democratic supporters as the U.S. inches closer to November 2024. Yet the volume of donations from Trump voters across the state over the last year are consistent with California’s towering economic weight going into the 2020 election as well.
At that time, the nation’s most populous state led the nation with presidential campaign contributions at more than $290 million. New York came in second at $141 million, while Texas and Florida doled out $109 million and $103 million, respectively; of dollars from California for Biden or Trump in 2020, more than 3/4ths went to the Democrat.
To the “swing-states,” of course! In the form of television and radio ads, not to mention text messages and social media. This is because the electoral college system, which is a winner-take-all system in which just 51% of a state’s popular vote awards the state to any given candidate, makes it so hundreds of millions of dollars from California or Texas just support Biden or Trump landing slim majorities in a few swing-state counties. As the Washington Post noted recently:
“Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who won the 2016 popular vote by 2.9 million votes, or 2 percent, could have won the electoral college if about 80,000 people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had voted differently. In 2020, about 45,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin could have changed the outcome of that race, even though Joe Biden won the popular vote by more than 7 million.”
In summer 2023, then, the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics noted that given the last few election cycles and which states were won by a slim majority for the Democratic or Republican candidate, there are likely just four states to watch for 51% going to Trump or Biden in 2024:
“The four Toss-ups are Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin — the three closest states in 2020 — along with Nevada, which has voted Democratic in each of the last four presidential elections but by closer margins each time (it is one of the few states where Joe Biden did worse than Hillary Clinton, albeit by less than a tenth of a percentage point).”
In all likelihood, then, those $6 million for Trump from California’s red counties are pouring down in counties throughout Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin and Nevada. According to the Washington Post, outreach in some of these areas is already focusing on “Black, Latino, and young and female voters.” But to appreciate how much the electoral college system undermines California voters for the presidency, consider that even if the entire population of all four of these swing-states were suddenly combined, the Grizzly bear state would still have nearly 13 million more people to count for taxation and representation.
The Center for Politics also noted that Pennsylvania and North Carolina may also be in the mix in 2024. And it’s key to underline that the Center’s report was published prior to the brutal conflict in Palestine and Israel this fall, which has definitely diminished support for Biden from certain swing-state voters who chose him over Trump in 2020. Nowhere has this been more pronounced than in Minnesota and Michigan, where key swathes of Muslim and Arab American communities are now determined to deny Biden a second term.
For those wondering how Q3’s donations to Trump from California worked out locally, in the city of Los Angeles, out of just over 4,600 donations to presidential campaigns, there was an overwhelming sum of donations to Republican challengers for the office over the last year. But a division between donations to Republican alternatives to Trump and Trump himself reflected the dilemma for the GOP nationally. For example, 842 of donations from this set netted $507,000 for Joe Biden, while just over 1,300 donations from the same set provided nearly $900,000 for Republicans like Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy, among others.
By contrast, while Trump garnered just over $200,000 from the city of Los Angeles over the last year, he did so from more than 2,300 donations, which will also shift soon given his growing lead over the pack during this fall season. For the record, about 162 donations from this L.A. set also went to third-party and long-shot candidates such as Cornel West and Marianne Williamson.
Want to guess how many donations for Trump or Biden sailed out from 90210, or the Beverly Hills area zip code?
Naturally, this is a developing story. To get the scoop on Q4’s reports and hear more, be sure you’re subscribed to J.T. the L.A. Storyteller!
J.T.
With just eight days left before the June 7th primary, as of Friday, May 27th, less than 139,000 ballots of 2.1 million mailed out to voters in the city of Los Angeles have been returned to the Registrar’s office, making for a gap of 2,010,187 ballots to find quickly over the next week. 66% of these returned ballots have come from voters aged 50 and upwards. Since these groups hold only 44% of all ballots, their early returns mark an increase of 22% over their registration rate. Voters aged 18 – 49 currently hold 55% of L.A. city’s ballots, but can only claim credit for 36% of ballots returned to the Registrar so far, marking a 19% gap with respect to their registration rate.
Additionally, white voters have returned 59% of L.A. City’s 2.1 million ballots so far, or approximately 82,000 ballots, a 10 point increase from their share of ballots overall (49%). Latinx voters have accounted for only 20% of returns so far, or roughly 28,000 ballots, despite their hold on 33% of ballots overall, making for a 13 point decrease or gap with respect to their registration. Ballots returned from Asian-American voters currently make for 12%, or 17,000 ballots, a 3 point increase from their hold on ballots overall. And ballots from African-American voters returned so far make for 9% of all returns, or about 12,500 ballots, consistent with their hold on ballots overall (9%).
It’s accurate to say, then, that the 13 point gap for ballots returned from younger, Latinx voters in particular relative to their hold on all ballots have so far opened a path for more returns from white and Asian-American voters, particularly those over the age of 50.
The trajectory so far is reminiscent of L.A.’s last major primary in 2017, when Eric Garcetti and Mitch O’Farrell were re-elected to their offices by only 17% of L.A.’s voters; ballots from white voters also surged then as those from Latinxs fell by nearly half. The 2017 primary also saw saw an uptick in ballots returned from Asian-Americans compared to their registration rates, while ballots from African-American decreased, albeit slightly, compared to their registration rates.
Let’s now take a look at the numbers more locally. In Council District 13 (CD-13), at least 11,000 of approximately 148,000 ballots have been returned so far. 57% of these ballots are from voters aged 50 and upwards, compared to their share of 48% of the electorate in the district overall, an increase of 9 points. 43% of returned ballots in CD-13 so far hail from voters aged 18 – 49, compared to their share of 51% of the electorate overall, a decrease of 8 points compared to their registration. In terms of ethnic categories, white voters have accounted for 59% of these same returns so far, or 4 points up from their overall share (55%). Latinx voters, who account for 30% of the ballots in CD-13, have accounted for 22% of returned ballots so far, or a decrease of 8 points compared to their registration.
Asian-American voters, the third largest bloc in CD-13, have accounted for 17% of ballots returned in the area so far, an increase of 4 percentage points, while African-American voters, the fourth largest bloc in the area, have accounted for 2% of returns, consistent with their share of ballots in CD-13 overall.
In Council District 1, at least 7,300 of roughly 106,500 ballots have been returned so far. 62% of these ballots are from voters over the age of 50, compared to their 47% share of the electorate in the area overall, an increase of 15 points. Along ethnic categories, ballots returned from Latinx voters have made for 36% of returns so far, making for a gap of 12% with respect to their share of the electorate in CD-1 overall (48%), which is also the largest voting bloc in the area. White voters, who make up for the second largest voting bloc in the area (34%), have returned 35% of CD-1’s ballots, an increase of 1 point with respect to their share of the area’s eligible voters. Asian-American voters, who represent the third largest bloc of voters in CD-1, have returned 27% of the area’s ballots, an increase of 11 points from their registration rates in CD-1 (16%). African-American voters, the fourth largest bloc in the area (3%), have returned about 2% of ballots there, a slight decrease of 1% with respect to their registration in CD-1.
While so far L.A. City’s numbers aren’t exactly reassuring, they’re also not far removed from trends for the Golden State as a whole at the moment. Consider that across California, there are roughly more than 22 million voters on the rolls; of this number, those over the age of 50 represent up to 10.8 million voters (slightly more than the size of all of L.A. County before 2020, or 49%). However, as of May 27th, these voters accounted for more than 75% of ballots returned so far, an increase of 26 points with respect to their overall share. Inversely, voters aged 18 – 49 represent 51% of California’s electorate, but only made for 25% of votes back to the state registrar as of May 27th.
Additionally, white voters maintain the largest bloc in California, representing 57% of the electorate, but have returned at least 69% of the state’s ballots so far, or an increase of 8 points. Latinx voters, who make for the second largest bloc at 27%, have returned 15% of the state’s ballots, or a decrease of 12 points with respect to their rate of registration. Asian-American voters, who are the third largest group of voters at 12% of the state’s electorate, have returned 12% of ballots, consistent with their registration rate; and African-American voters, the fourth largest voting bloc at 4%, have returned 3% of the state’s ballots, a slight decrease of one point compared to their registration rates.
The numbers are obviously poised to change over the next week, but it’s clear that it will take more from the state and voting proponents across our cities to dislodge the historic trends. As the California Public Policy Institute noted as early as 2000: “At present, California’s electorate does not accurately reflect the state’s diversity. Despite being only about half of the state’s population, whites make up 68 percent of the voters. Latinos are well behind with only 19 percent of the electorate, and blacks and Asian Americans follow with 6 and 7 percent, respectively.”
According to the U.S. Census in 2000, Latinxs made for 32% of the state’s population then, while Asian-Americans accounted for 11% and 7%, respectively. As recently as 2020, white residents made for roughly 41% of the state’s population, while Latinxs, Asian-Americans, and African-Americans accounted for about 39%, 15%, and 6%, respectively.
Statistics cited for the June 2022 primary are from Political Data, Inc.’s Tracker, a well-crafted data engine. Keep up with more updates over the next week via this page and wherever else you follow JIMBO TIMES. And if you’re still doing research for your ballot, the L.A. Times can lead you to a useful guide HERE.
J.T.
| Rank | 1950 | Population | Rank | 2000 | Population | |
| 1 | China | 554.8 | 1 | China | 1 275.2 | |
| 2 | India | 357.6 | 2 | India | 1 016.9 | |
| 3 | U.S.A. | 157.8 | 3 | U.S.A. | 285 | |
| 4 | Russian Federation | 102.7 | 4 | Indonesia | 211.6 | |
| 5 | Japan | 83.6 | 5 | Brazil | 171.8 | |
| 6 | Indonesia | 79.5 | 6 | Russian Federation | 145.6 | |
| 7 | Germany | 68.4 | 7 | Pakistan | 142.7 | |
| 8 | Brazil | 54 | 8 | Bangladesh | 138 | |
| 9 | United Kingdom | 49.8 | 9 | Japan | 127 | |
| 10 | Italy | 47.1 | 10 | Nigeria | 114.7 | |
| 11 | France | 41.8 | 11 | Mexico | 98.9 | |
| 12 | Bangladesh | 41.8 | 12 | Germany | 82.3 | |
| 13 | Pakistan | 39.7 | 13 | Viet Nam | 78.1 | |
| 14 | Ukraine | 37.3 | 14 | Philippines | 75.7 | |
| 15 | Nigeria | 29.8 | 15 | Turkey | 68.3 | |
| 16 | Spain | 28 | 16 | Egypt | 67.8 | |
| 17 | Mexico | 27.7 | 17 | Iran | 66.4 | |
| 18 | Viet Nam | 27.4 | 18 | Ethiopia | 65.6 | |
| 19 | Poland | 24.8 | 19 | Thailand | 60.9 | |
| 20 | Egypt | 21.8 | 20 | France | 59.3 | |
| Rank | 2050 | Population | Rank | 2100 | Population | |
| 1 | India | 1 531.4 | 1 | India | 1 458.4 | |
| 2 | China | 1 395.2 | 2 | China | 1 181.5 | |
| 3 | U.S.A. | 408.7 | 3 | U.S.A. | 437.2 | |
| 4 | Pakistan | 348.7 | 4 | Pakistan | 408.5 | |
| 5 | Indonesia | 293.8 | 5 | Nigeria | 302.5 | |
| 6 | Nigeria | 258.5 | 6 | Indonesia | 272.8 | |
| 7 | Bangladesh | 254.6 | 7 | Bangladesh | 259.9 | |
| 8 | Brazil | 233.1 | 8 | Ethiopia | 222.2 | |
| 9 | Ethiopia | 171 | 9 | Brazil | 212.4 | |
| 10 | Congo, DR | 151.6 | 10 | Congo, DR | 203.3 | |
| 11 | Mexico | 140.2 | 11 | Uganda | 167.1 | |
| 12 | Egypt | 127.4 | 12 | Yemen | 144.2 | |
| 13 | Philippines | 127 | 13 | Egypt | 131.8 | |
| 14 | Viet Nam | 117.7 | 14 | Philippines | 128.8 | |
| 15 | Japan | 109.7 | 15 | Mexico | 128.1 | |
| 16 | Iran | 105.5 | 16 | Viet Nam | 110.2 | |
| 17 | Uganda | 103.2 | 17 | Niger | 98.6 | |
| 18 | Russian Federation | 101.5 | 18 | Iran | 98.2 | |
| 19 | Turkey | 97.8 | 19 | Turkey | 90.3 | |
| 20 | Yemen | 84.4 | 20 | Afghanistan | 90.3 |
It truly hasn’t been long since the days of Manifest Destiny in the mid-19th century led to an expansion project that violently spread from some 26 states in Northeast America to the west coast’s former Mexican territories. But for a child born in the United States today, before they turn 30 years old, the world and their country will look much different than it did for their parents at that age, and entirely other-worldly from the time of their grandparents or great grandparents.
Consider that in 1950, just after the end of World War II, seven European nations occupied a place among the top 20 most populated states. By 2000, only three would remain in the top 20; by 2050, only the Russian Federation will remain on the list (and will be out of the list by 2100). The rest of the list will be occupied by Asian, African, and a handful of American nations, including the U.S., Brazil, and Mexico. But consider as well that by 2050 the U.S. will be a “majority-minority” nation (the first of its kind), where although whites will likely remain the largest single group (47%), there will be more Black, Native, Latinx, Asian and other citizens (53%) in the country altogether.
It’s also fascinating that by 2100, the people and culture of nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, which have occupied the mind of many U.S. citizens as war-torn nations, will nonetheless continue expanding to outsize most other nations across the world. Just as well, it’s mind-boggling that the Philippines, which maintains a total area of some 115,800 square miles, is projected to count more people in its boundaries than Mexico, which holds a total area of some 761,600 square miles by 2100. Similarly, Yemen, which is one of the poorest nations in the Middle East–and which since 2015 has been locked in a war with Saudi Arabia, or one of the richest countries in the region–will also climb the ranks over the next 30 years to make the top 20 list; and Yemen will be 13th on the list by the end of the century.
The world is thus on track, or “destined,” to become only more diverse as the 21st century unfolds, making the development of peace and understanding between diversities more important with each day. In the spirit of friendly competition, however, the Californians–or Californianxs–in the vicinity need not to worry: The Golden State will remain the largest in the U.S. by 2050, when 48% of the state’s population is projected to be Latinx compared to the group’s current rate of 39%.
So many numbers, and such little time, but we still make the time in Los Angeles.
J.T.
