Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

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?

Truth matters. Community matters. Your support makes both possible. LAist is one of the few places where news remains independent and free from political and corporate influence. Stand up for truth and for LAist. Make your tax-deductible donation now.

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."

You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our connected community. We are free to tell the full truth, to hold power to account without fear or favor, and to follow facts wherever they lead. Our only loyalty is to our audiences and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen our community.

Right now, LAist has lost $1.7M in annual funding due to Congress clawing back money already approved. The support we receive from readers like you will determine how fully our newsroom can continue informing, serving, and strengthening Southern California.

If this story helped you today, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.

Your tax-deductible donation keeps LAist independent and accessible to everyone.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief

Make your tax-deductible donation today

A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and  below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right