A motion that is likely to pass in the City Council will take a chunk of Van Nuys and plop it within Sherman Oaks' boundaries. This will be the second time that Van Nuys has lost parts of its neighborhood--Valley Glen and Lake Balboa are also post-Van Nuys 'hoods.
Despite both the Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks neighborhood councils opposing such a move, outgoing Councilmember and Conroller-Elect Wendy Greuel showed her support in an open letter. "I have considered all possible courses of action and possible alternatives. Neither the city's previous decisions on similar cases nor city policy on community naming provides any grounds for denying this request." Greuel said she received overwhelming support for the move.
It's really not the end of the world if the neighborhood name change happens, but it does open up dialogue for future cases like this.
Not only does the city have sketchy records on community names and maps, the process allows the will of the people to dictate their neighborhood name. Should the Sherman Oaks residents of Mulholland Drive become part of Bel Air because they share the same zip code and have the will to be part of Bel Air? Should parts of Studio City that share the famous 90210 zip code be annexed into the City of Beverly Hills just because the media and residents historically refsue to properly identify it as Studio City? The list could go on and on.
Disclosure: Editor Zach Behrens is a member of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council. He voted against the annexation because there was a lack of compelling evidence for the needed shift.




What are the new proposed borders?
Their campaign website used to have a killer map overlay tool, but that seems to be gone. Here's a link to a rough draft map:
http://www.partofshermanoaks.org/faq.html#recognition
But that map's borders are not exactly what was presented to the Sherman Oaks NC, so I'm not sure. From what I know, the new Sherman Oaks could be:
Basically, here is what it is: between Burbank and Oxnard, save for the industrial sections and between Sepulveda and Hazeltine.
The only reasons these things ever happen is because residents decide "ewww, the yucky brown people have gross homes in (neighborhood X), I think I'd like to my neighborhood to have a different name."
If this was about Hispanics then they would not be changing city names, they would be moving far away from the area. This does have to do with color though, the color green. This will bring their property values up and money can make people do (and propose) weird things.
In saying that, they do have some interesting arguments, but not sure if that is enough to constitute annexing a part of a city.
You're pretty quick to jump into racial territory there torrmoz. I don't think it's warranted.
My guess is that this is purely financial. Van Nuys has a bad reputation, with lower property values than surrounding neighborhoods. By bringing themselves into Sherman Oaks, they're probably thinking it will help them as far as getting their homes sold in the future.
Some people won't even consider a home if it's listed as being in Van Nuys. A simple name change will bring in home buyers who otherwise wouldn't consider the neighborhood.
This is fabulous! People who come together for self-determination can actually be listened to by a major politician, Ms. Greuel, a Los Angeles City Councilwoman. Sacramento should embrace this rarefied ability. She listened to her constituents who made their case and, even with some significant opposition from not one but two neighborhood councils, thought that the majority of the people who live in the area actually had a say. My hat's off to Ms. Greuel, and I think she will continue to serve the people in the role of Los Angeles City Controller come July 1st.