A Million People, Zero Mayors
How one million Angelenos live in a democratic blind spot.
The Hidden Metropolis
A million people live in unincorporated Los Angeles County across 2,600 square miles, two-thirds of the County's total area. That is more than San Francisco, more than Boston, more than the entire states of Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. If combined into a single city, it would be California's third-largest, after Los Angeles and San Diego.
These are not just the rural fringes. The largest unincorporated area, East LA, has nearly 119,000 residents. Many others have tens of thousands. They include dense urban neighborhoods like Florence-Firestone and Lennox, complete with schools, businesses, and community centers.
None of them can vote for a mayor. The County's own planning department explains that "the Board of Supervisors is their 'city council' and the Supervisor representing the area is their 'mayor.'" But each supervisor governs 2 million people across both cities and unincorporated communities. When residents need municipal services, they petition politicians who oversee territories larger than entire states. The boundary lines are often invisible. The democratic difference is not.
The Great Carving
The history is simple and damning. As Los Angeles County's population exploded through the 20th century, cities incorporated by cherry-picking the most profitable territories. Commercial districts got annexed for their tax revenue. Wealthy residential areas incorporated to control their own services. Lower income neighborhoods were systematically excluded, left to County administration while generating tax revenue for the broader system.
Beverly Hills incorporated in 1914 to avoid being absorbed by Los Angeles. West Hollywood incorporated in 1984 for the same reason: local control, local taxes, local services. The pattern repeated over and over across the County. Cities drew their boundaries around wealth and excluded everything else.
What remains is an archipelago of unincorporated territory spanning 2,600 square miles. Some are as small as a few blocks, while others like East LA house nearly 119,000 residents. Combined, they contain a million people who live in communities that have most of the things cities have except local representation.
The Economics of Exclusion
Cities will not annex these areas because the fiscal math does not work. Lower-income neighborhoods require more in municipal expenditures than they generate in property and sales taxes. Wealthy incorporated cities benefit from the workers who live in unincorporated areas. These residents teach their children, patrol their streets, fight their fires, staff their restaurants, and provide essential labor, but cities do not pay the cost of governing them.
LA County LAFCO, or local power brokers and politicians, could push for more annexations but choose not to. Unlike Orange County LAFCO, which has pursued a 25-year commitment to transitioning unincorporated areas to neighboring cities through aggressive use of spheres of influence policies, LA County LAFCO has not adopted similar policies to compel cities to take responsibility for adjacent communities.
The result is a system where everyone benefits except those excluded. Cities get essential workers without governance costs. The populous unincorporated territories that are left over are managed from miles away.
The Infrastructure Deficit
The democratic gap shows up in concrete and asphalt. Unincorporated communities face persistent infrastructure challenges that reflect their lack of political leverage. Sidewalks end at jurisdiction boundaries. Street lighting follows County-wide maintenance schedules rather than local priorities. Public transit serves these areas but often with minimal rider amenities.
The infrastructure disparities are documented and stark. Significant development happened between the 1940s and 1960s, when sidewalk construction was not required in unincorporated communities. Consequently, many streets lack sidewalks entirely.
Electoral accountability makes a difference. Incorporated cities respond more directly to resident complaints about potholes, lighting, and pedestrian safety because local officials face regular elections. Unincorporated areas compete for attention within County departments that manage infrastructure across thousands of square miles.
The County has ambitious plans but struggles with bureaucratic inertia. The 2015 General Plan established capital improvement plans for all unincorporated areas, promising coordinated infrastructure investment. A decade later, the County is still in the early stages of these CIPs for most planning areas, with implementation timelines stretching into the late 2020s. Large bureaucracies move slowly, and without direct electoral pressure from affected communities, there is little incentive to accelerate the pace of change.
The Incorporation Trap
When unincorporated communities try to incorporate, they discover that state law effectively prohibits poorer areas from becoming cities. California's incorporation statute requires new municipalities to demonstrate "fiscal viability" through comprehensive fiscal analysis proving they can provide full municipal services without outside assistance.
This standard punishes communities for being lower-income. Wealthier areas can easily demonstrate fiscal viability because they generate substantial tax revenue per capita. Poorer areas cannot, even though they need municipal services more urgently.
East LA attempted incorporation in 2012 when LAFCO found that the unincorporated area would not be able to financially sustain cityhood. Despite having a larger population than cities like Berkeley or Pasadena, the effort failed because the community could not meet fiscal viability requirements.
The pattern continues today. A county study released in May 2025 finds incorporation remains financially unviable for East LA, with the area facing a projected $28 million annual deficit if it became a city. Instead, officials propose creating a Municipal Advisory Committee to help shape services and policy.
Regional Subsidy
Unincorporated LA County represents a massive subsidy from poorer communities to wealthier ones. Residents pay County taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes like everyone else. They generate sales tax revenue, property tax revenue, and various fees. But they receive services with far less democratic accountability.
The scale of this wealth transfer is substantial. East LA generates only $5.7 million in annual sales tax revenue, while receiving $36.4 million in police services alone from the County. Yet nearby incorporated cities like El Monte generate $31 million in sales tax revenue and Monterey Park generates $18.6 million, giving them far more control over how those resources are allocated.
Meanwhile, incorporated cities benefit enormously from this arrangement. They rely on workers who live in unincorporated areas but do not bear the cost of providing municipal services to those workers.
Signs of Change
There are modest signs that this system may be evolving. Voters in Los Angeles County approved Measure G in November 2024, expanding the Board of Supervisors from five to nine members and creating an elected county executive position. The reform aims to provide more focused representation by giving each supervisor smaller districts and fewer constituents.
Los Angeles City has experimented with neighborhood councils through its Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, providing advisory input on local issues. While these councils have limited authority and mixed results, they demonstrate that structured community representation is possible even within existing bureaucratic frameworks.
But these reforms address symptoms, not causes. Expanding the Board of Supervisors from five to nine still leaves each supervisor governing over one million people. Advisory councils provide input opportunities but lack decision-making authority.
Beyond Reform
Fixing this requires confronting the fundamental question of whether democratic representation should depend on economic status. California must reform incorporation law to remove fiscal barriers that prevent lower-income areas from achieving municipal status. This could include:
State subsidies to help newly incorporated cities meet initial service obligations and bridge the gap between service costs and revenue generation.
Phased incorporation processes that allow communities to gradually assume municipal functions rather than requiring immediate full-service capacity.
Regional revenue-sharing mechanisms that reduce fiscal disparities between neighboring communities.
LAFCO reform requiring more aggressive policies to eliminate unincorporated urban areas, following Orange County's model.
Between the Lines
Drive through East LA on a Tuesday evening and you will see civic life in action: neighbors walking to community meetings, parents advocating at their children’s school, residents organizing block parties and voter registration drives. You will see everything that makes community possible
What you will not see is anyone these residents can easily vote out of office if the streetlights stay broken, if the buses stop running, if the promises remain unkept. Los Angeles County has 88 incorporated cities. The unincorporated areas, if combined, would be the fourth-largest city west of the Mississippi. But they cannot combine, cannot incorporate separately, cannot force annexation. They can only endure. The people are organized. The government is not.
