June XX, 2024Senator Maria Elena DurazoChair, Senate Local Government CommitteeState Capitol, Room 407Sacramento, CA 95814RE: Assembly Bill (AB) 2986 (W. Carrillo) Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles: East Los Angeles Task ForceDear Senator Durazo, On behalf of the City of Commerce, I am writing in opposition to AB 2986 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo. I am deeply concerned about the disingenuous narrative espoused by the proponents of this bill around decades-old annexations and the disempowerment of East Los Angeles at the hands of neighboring cities. Further, I do not believe that East Los Angeles incorporation should happen at the expense of other cities whose boundaries have been determined through the official procedures determined by the State of California. The proponents of AB 2986 contend that East Los Angeles has been torn apart by the annexation of commercial assets into the City of Commerce. That is an offensive narrative that ignores the hard work of volunteers—residents and business leaders in Commerce— who set out in 1959 to incorporate the City of Commerce as the 67th city in Los Angeles County. The City of Commerce has over 12,000 residents and through collaborative efforts of business and residential community in 1959 has seen its local job growth reach almost 50,000, improving the livelihood and economy of the region. Proponents of the bill seem to suggest that incorporation would enable East LA to capture territory from neighboring cities to bolster its own tax base. This is an affront to the will of voters who have done the hard work to establish the boundaries for neighboring cities like Commerce. The City of Commerce has a strong relationship with the County of Los Angeles. We often work together on projects that would mutually benefit residents of both Commerce and East Los Angeles. For example, we have jointly invested in road improvements along streets that straddle the two jurisdictions. This ensures that our residents have safe roads to carry out their daily tasks. Residents of East Los Angeles already have access to these critical services, which incorporation could put at risk given without sufficient revenue for East LA.As you determine your position on AB 2986, I urge you to consider the potential impacts of East LA incorporation on neighboring cities. Please vote “no” on AB 2986. Thank you,CC: Senate Pro Tem Local Government Committee MembersJune XX, 2024Senator Maria Elena DurazoChair, Senate Local Government CommitteeState Capitol, Room 407Sacramento, CA 95814RE: Assembly Bill (AB) 2986 (W. Carrillo) Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles: East Los Angeles Task ForceDear Senator Durazo, On behalf of the City of Commerce, I am writing in opposition to AB 2986 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo. I am deeply concerned about the disingenuous narrative espoused by the proponents of this bill around decades-old annexations and the disempowerment of East Los Angeles at the hands of neighboring cities. Further, I do not believe that East Los Angeles incorporation should happen at the expense of other cities whose boundaries have been determined through the official procedures determined by the State of California. The proponents of AB 2986 contend that East Los Angeles has been torn apart by the annexation of commercial assets into the City of Commerce. That is an offensive narrative that ignores the hard work of volunteers—residents and business leaders in Commerce— who set out in 1959 to incorporate the City of Commerce as the 67th city in Los Angeles County. The City of Commerce has over 12,000 residents and through collaborative efforts of business and residential community in 1959 has seen its local job growth reach almost 50,000, improving the livelihood and economy of the region. Proponents of the bill seem to suggest that incorporation would enable East LA to capture territory from neighboring cities to bolster its own tax base. This is an affront to the will of voters who have done the hard work to establish the boundaries for neighboring cities like Commerce. The City of Commerce has a strong relationship with the County of Los Angeles. We often work together on projects that would mutually benefit residents of both Commerce and East Los Angeles. For example, we have jointly invested in road improvements along streets that straddle the two jurisdictions. This ensures that our residents have safe roads to carry out their daily tasks. Residents of East Los Angeles already have access to these critical services, which incorporation could put at risk given without sufficient revenue for East LA.As you determine your position on AB 2986, I urge you to consider the potential impacts of East LA incorporation on neighboring cities. Please vote “no” on AB 2986. Thank you,CC: Senate Pro Tem Local Government Committee Members June XX, 2024
Senator Maria Elena Durazo
Chair, Senate Local Government Committee
State Capitol, Room 407
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Assembly Bill (AB) 2986 (W. Carrillo) Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles: East Los Angeles Task Force Dear Senator Durazo,
On behalf of the City of Commerce, I am writing in opposition to AB 2986 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo. I am deeply concerned about the disingenuous narrative espoused by the proponents of this bill around decades-old annexations and the disempowerment of East Los Angeles at the hands of neighboring cities. Further, I do not believe that East Los Angeles incorporation should happen at the expense of other cities whose boundaries have been determined through the official procedures determined by the State of California.
The proponents of AB 2986 contend that East Los Angeles has been torn apart by the annexation of commercial assets into the City of Commerce. That is an offensive narrative that ignores the hard work of volunteers—residents and business leaders in Commerce— who set out in 1959 to incorporate the City of Commerce as the 67th city in Los Angeles County. The City of Commerce has over 12,000 residents and through collaborative efforts of business and residential community in 1959 has seen its local job growth reach almost 50,000, improving the livelihood and economy of the region.
Proponents of the bill seem to suggest that incorporation would enable East LA to capture territory from neighboring cities to bolster its own tax base. This is an affront to the will of voters who have done the hard work to establish the boundaries for neighboring cities like Commerce.
The City of Commerce has a strong relationship with the County of Los Angeles. We often work together on projects that would mutually benefit residents of both Commerce and East Los Angeles. For example, we have jointly invested in road improvements along streets that straddle the two jurisdictions. This ensures that our residents have safe roads to carry out their daily tasks. Residents of East Los Angeles already have access to these critical services, which incorporation could put at risk given without sufficient revenue for East LA.
As you determine your position on AB 2986, I urge you to consider the potential impacts of East LA incorporation on neighboring cities. Please vote “no” on AB 2986.
Thank you,
CC: Senate Pro Tem
Local Government Committee Members
June XX, 2024
Senator Maria Elena Durazo
Chair, Senate Local Government Committee
State Capitol, Room 407
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Assembly Bill (AB) 2986 (W. Carrillo) Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles: East Los Angeles Task Force Dear Senator Durazo,
On behalf of the City of Commerce, I am writing in opposition to AB 2986 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo. I am deeply concerned about the disingenuous narrative espoused by the proponents of this bill around decades-old annexations and the disempowerment of East Los Angeles at the hands of neighboring cities. Further, I do not believe that East Los Angeles incorporation should happen at the expense of other cities whose boundaries have been determined through the official procedures determined by the State of California.
The proponents of AB 2986 contend that East Los Angeles has been torn apart by the annexation of commercial assets into the City of Commerce. That is an offensive narrative that ignores the hard work of volunteers—residents and business leaders in Commerce— who set out in 1959 to incorporate the City of Commerce as the 67th city in Los Angeles County. The City of Commerce has over 12,000 residents and through collaborative efforts of business and residential community in 1959 has seen its local job growth reach almost 50,000, improving the livelihood and economy of the region.
Proponents of the bill seem to suggest that incorporation would enable East LA to capture territory from neighboring cities to bolster its own tax base. This is an affront to the will of voters who have done the hard work to establish the boundaries for neighboring cities like Commerce.
The City of Commerce has a strong relationship with the County of Los Angeles. We often work together on projects that would mutually benefit residents of both Commerce and East Los Angeles. For example, we have jointly invested in road improvements along streets that straddle the two jurisdictions. This ensures that our residents have safe roads to carry out their daily tasks. Residents of East Los Angeles already have access to these critical services, which incorporation could put at risk given without sufficient revenue for East LA.
As you determine your position on AB 2986, I urge you to consider the potential impacts of East LA incorporation on neighboring cities. Please vote “no” on AB 2986.
Thank you,
CC: Senate Pro Tem
Local Government Committee Members