Being mayor of LA is not for the weak of spirit

Tim Rutten, a great recent addition to the LA Times Op-Ed page, has an excellent piece on where Antonio Villaraigosa is at this stage of his first term as mayor of Los Angeles. He's doing well so far, hiring good people, but the jury is out because the job isn't done. It will never be done, of course, but Villaraigosa set for large goals for himself, and has not yet accomplished them. Rutten points out the contradiction of being mayor of LA:

Los Angeles is arguably more difficult to govern than any other major American city. Its mayor is elected by one city to govern another. The "city" that elects a chief executive is far older, more affluent and whiter than the real thing. The city that elects a mayor has interests; the city that the mayor governs has needs, and in that disjunction much of our civic discontent simmers.

I don't think it's entirely fair to describe LA as unique in this respect. New York certainly faces this conundrum, and Washington has the added burden of not really being in control of its fate. But the basics are right.

Rutten is not quite damning with faint praise, but neither is he slamming Antonio. He's reserving judgment, which, honestly, is refreshing for an Op-Ed piece. It's refreshing because it's an honest appraisal, and it's neither too cynical nor too optimistic. This is what "balanced" means.