Does L.A.'s history of civic disengagement from its wealthiest residents and low voter participation (as evidenced in the March 5 nominating primary elections) have a correlation? A March 15 Los Angeles Times opinion piece drew a comparison.
Brentwood billionare Eli Broad has been the foremost donor to numerous local institutions, from museums and concert halls to universities and medical schools. Most recently, it's assumed the future of the city's Museum of Contemporary Art will most likely be influenced by its primary benefactor, Broad. He grew his fortune through home building, insurance and other ventures.
Broad has played a large role in donating (and finding donors) for local, cultural institutions known in L.A. today, and he seems to easily out among the rest of L.A.'s elite when called upon to solicit, the newspaper states. Other cities, like New York and Chicago have swaths of high-class civic donors.
The op-ed highlights L.A.'s lack of civic duty comes from that many of its wealthy business investors near and far may not actually be invested in the city's civic betterment. Similarly, it says the city's lack of political institutions and development are the cause of concern, highlighted by the historic low citywide election turnout.
Do you agree with the piece's comparison of L.A.'s civics disconnect?