It’s no surprise that the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles have an instinct to outdo one another. Both are highly influential cities nationally and internationally. And both cities attempt to foster a more liberal, earth-conscious mentality.
But fast-forward to the present and the gloves have come off.
There is no denying that there is more than just a little competition between the two. But the newest “tiff” just happens to fall during the tail end of Earth Week and poses the question of which is greener.
The Los Angles Times has detailed Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s new environmental plan, which he claims would make L.A. the “cleanest and greenest city in the country.” But Villaraigosa’s plan is being juxtaposed against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s agenda of also having “the greenest large city in the United States of America.”
Within Villaraigosa’s plan to elevate L.A.’s “greenness,” and thus its hip-ness, is a plan to cut 35 percent of greenhouse emissions and strengthen the role of the eco-friendly non-profit, U.S. Green Building Council, reports the same article.
But many will rightfully argue that Los Angeles has some catching up to do if it wants to be in the same eco-ballpark as San Francisco’s “greeniosity”.
Why are we so behind the Bay? Maybe it’s the moth-to-the-flame paradigm of wannabe actors and Hollywood? A sort of “build it and they will come” philosophy?
Could this tail-wagging-the-dog mindset realistically be contributing to environmental brain drain in L.A. to the point of no return?
The city of San Francisco is home to a population just under 800,000, with a median household income of $65,497 – as opposed to Los Angeles’ population of four million with a median household income of $51,315, according to the 2006 U.S. Census.
What does this have to do with being green? Well, only that it’s easier to be green when you have more green.
Of course, this evaluation is in the most simplistic of terms. I’m not accounting for the higher cost of living, which no doubt San Francisco has (not by much, however). It doesn’t consider the fact that Los Angeles has a vastly larger population, but simply that Los Angeles’ tax dollars and massive county boundaries can’t compete with the more densely compact San Francisco.
Rather than leaving it at that, L.A.’s deputy mayor for energy and environment, Nancy Sutley, went as far as calling San Francisco a “boutique city,” in the same article.
Yes, she went there.
I don’t think Sutley speaks for all of Los Angelenos, though. San Francisco ranks No. 2 as one of the most sustainable cities in the U.S., according to Sustainlane.com, and I, for one, will not argue that it is a token boutique.
San Francisco has higher green construction standards, a better and cleaner public transit system, and many more years devoted to getting to that level.
In fact, San Francisco should be used as an example emulated by its southern neighbor. Instead of vying for a title, we should be working together.
We are practically one and the same. Just don’t tell San Francisco that.
Erin McKenzie is a junior journalism major and an assistant opinions editor for the Daily Forty-Niner.
