Judy Pham

Prospectus: The Aftermath of the LA Riots

              The Los Angeles Rebellion erupted on April 29, 1992 after the acquittal of four white police officers who were, caught on amateur videotape, accused of using police brutality during arrest of Rodney King, a black motorist, just fifteen months earlier. The policemen were declared innocent at 4:00 pm and by 6:00 pm there was a peaceful protest in front of the Los Angeles Police Department. However, these protests turned into rock throwing and dissatisfaction permeated to the sea of upset citizens throughout Los Angeles.  By 6:30 pm Reginald Denny, a white truck driver, was dragged out of his truck and beaten by the crowds that had formed in the intersection of Normandie and Florence Avenue. Fire engulfed retail stores, commercial buildings, and homes. Violence between looters and police and business owners persisted. The authorities were unable to handle the unrest (some scholars say the police held back in fear of the angry crowds) and could not get the city under control. The National Guard was sent in to mitigate the violence and looting and soon restored order to the city. The riots continued until May 2, 1992 and amounted to over 40 deaths, over 2500 injuries,  and roughly $1 billion in property damage. This was considered one of the most major civil upheavals to face Los Angeles.

              The Rodney King trial may have sparked the unrest, but the causes of this multi-ethnic civil unrest stemmed from more than just that trial. Racial tensions in South Central Los Angeles were already building up due to the demographic transformation of Latino and Asian immigration flowing into the region. Many Korean businesses opened up in historically black neighborhoods. Just a year before the riots, a Korean liquor store clerk shot a black teenager, Latasha Harlins, over an argument they had because she suspected the teen had tried to steal a bottle of orange juice. Also, the loss of many decent-paying, unionized, manufacturing jobs and lack of investment in the real estate and business sector further added to the frustration and alienation of the residents of South Central. These conditions are only a few of the speculative reasons why the riot broke out.

              The damage had been done and South Central Los Angeles lay in ruins. The next part was figuring out what to do.  The aftermath of the riots brought about questions of police brutality, racial tensions and space, and what  to do with all the property that had to be rebuilt. Many urban planners saw this as an opportunity to rebuild and revitalize the area. However, there was not nearly enough public funds to recuperate for all the property damage. This is where "Rebuild L.A." fits in. Rebuild L.A. was a non-profit organization created by California Governor Pete Wilson and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in conjunction with  national business leader Peter Ueberroth. Rebuild L.A. attempted to revitalize South Central by means of initiating the private sector's involvement into the city's economy. However, Rebuild L.A. faced severe problems including finding private businesses to commit to long term investments, challenges from community groups and internal organizational issues. The organization had a grand mission to save South Central with little support and practical means to execute their plans.  Within a year of its establishment, many of its supporters felt that Rebuild L.A. had lost its direction. Many newspaper journalists were critical of  the organization leader's decisions. In 1995, Rebuild LA changed its name to RLA and focused on encouraging already existing industries to stay and expand. There were plenty of critiques about the organization but RLA did manage to accomplish something. The RLA project ended in 1997.

              I'm curious about how South Central has recovered in these past years, especially what Rebuild L.A. attempted to do. Many city planners were critical of Rebuild L.A. and some even argue that not much was done to alleviate poverty and the lack of investment in the area. I read a newspaper article that said it wouldn't be surprising if a riot occurred in South Central now (it was written in 2007). Many conflicts arose from Rebuild L.A. because the organization did not have a clear, definite goal nor did they have a board that knew how they were going to live up to the promise of revamping South Central. I want to examine how Rebuild L.A. attempted to "fix" the problems (race and space, police brutality, etc.) that the riots addressed, and what lessons we can learn from it now. While my focus is mainly on Rebuild L.A.'s influence in shaping and transforming South Central Los Angeles, I also wonder how the community has reacted to the program's involvement. In the aftermath, Rebuild L.A. should have cooperated with grass root organizations and involved the community more in the planning process. Even today, the image of South Central still appears to be characterized with  gangs, urban decay, poverty, and high crime rates. However, this isn't the case for all areas in South Central. South Central is a city of homes, and like in any neighborhood, there are good and bad areas.

              I see the aftermath of the L.A. Riots and the Rebuild L.A. relating to the built environments cluster because when people in position of power make decisions regarding space and people, they have to take into account for whom they are catering to. This is a similar/parallel conflict that Jacobs addressed in her discussion of sidewalks. I understand that this topic is so broad and so I have to define my parameters and narrow my focus. I won't focus on what occurred during the riots but instead, I want to examine the changes that Rebuild L.A. made to improve South Central.  I think Rebuild L.A. was an honest effort, but like many people, I'm critical of how much the program tried to revitalize and help the residents of South Central recover from the riots.  For example, the organization wanted to increase the amount of supermarkets in the area because there was an abundance of liquor stores but not much access to a variety of groceries. Despite all the expectations, much of the planned building of supermarkets never came to fruition as big name supermarkets were reluctant to move into these areas.

              I've read differing viewpoints on the effectiveness of Rebuild L.A., from newspapers such as The L.A. Times and New York Times, but also from scholarly secondary sources and books. I want to evaluate how the organization marketed itself, how they executed their plans and through these various ways, how it brought change and progress to South Central. With what I've learned about the L.A. Riots of 1992 and the potential causes of it, and Rebuild L.A.'s efforts, what does that tell me about the make up of South Central Los Angeles, and how do we approach further economic endeavors? Where does that leave the residents and merchants of South Central, eighteen years later, who had to pick up the pieces and rebuild their lives?