LAist: The Future of a 217 Year-Old Landmark

Jeremy_Oberstein

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:29:41 -0800

The Treaty of Cahuenga did not expressively permit people to continue their cultural practices, per se. It did not bar it, however. If you are really interested, Article 3 states: "Until a treaty of peace be made and signed between the United States of North America and the Republic of Mexico, no Californian or other Mexican citizen shall be bound to take the oath of allegiance." You might be thinking of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American war. That treaty had good intentions (Mexicans could keep their property, for example), but most of those well intentioned articles were never honored or watered down to the point of inconsequence.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:10:37 -0800

I could be wrong, but I was told the treaty also guaranteed Mexicans and their descendants the right to continue their cultural practices and their language, Spanish.

thelookieloo

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:22:55 -0800

Great post. Campo is such a cool site and we need to do all we can to protect parks and historic facilities such as this one. FYI: The City Planning Department just held a public scoping meeting for the proposed project last week and has completed an initial study. They are going to have to do an EIR for this project as they determined that it may have a significant effect on the environment. Oh and re the Campo site: The proposed project would necessitate alteration and/or removal of "non-historic" features on the Campo site (including the concrete wall on the north/west edge of the property)... If you have comments about the proposed project or want more info contact Jon Foreman at City Planning (jon.foreman@lacity.org).