Support for LAist comes from
We Explain L.A.
Stay Connected

Share This

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.

News

L.A. Spends $56 Million with Arizona-Based Companies, Will They Cut Ties with them Today?

5b2b37434488b30009263003-original.jpg
Stories like these are only possible with your help!
You have the power to keep local news strong for the coming months. Your financial support today keeps our reporters ready to meet the needs of our city. Thank you for investing in your community.

Photo by Shawn Nee/Discarted

Today the Los Angeles City Council will debate and vote on a resolution calling for the end of city business with the state of Arizona and companies headquartered there until the controversial immigration bill SB 1070 changes. In an analysis (.pdf) prepared for the discussion, $56.28 million has been identified in city contracts with Arizona-based companies.

The department with the most investment with Arizona is the L.A. Harbor, which spends $25.6 million, most all of it going towards Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's Clean Truck Incentive Program. “We don’t recommend rescinding the contracts due to adverse effects on the environment and public health," a port spokesman told the LA Times.

But the report from city analysts recommends a much more conservative ban, which may lead to many contracts staying put. Instead of a black-and-white ban, the report recommends refraining from doing business when it won't cost the city much money by going elsewhere and to also only terminate contracts when it fiscally makes sense and won't get the city into legal trouble. The ban on official travel is recommended "unless special circumstances can be demonstrated to the Council that the failure to authorize such travel would seriously harm City interests."