Los Angeles Voters Reject First Public Bank Bid for U.S. City
Source: Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles voters rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed the city to establish a public bank, which would have been a first for a U.S. metropolis.
About 58 percent of voters cast ballots against the charter amendment that would have started the process, with 78 percent of precincts reporting, according to the Associated Press.
Proponents said the city should manage its own deposits to benefit its residents instead of letting big banks profit from them. They had hoped the bid, supported by the citys mayor and council president, would also give momentum to those around the country. The only public bank in the 50 states is Bank of North Dakota, established in 1919.
But questions of how it would work and cost, which have dogged attempts in Massachusetts and elsewhere, weighed on the effort.
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-07/los-angeles-voters-reject-first-public-bank-bid-for-u-s-city
Response to brooklynite (Original post)
iluvtennis This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Not have to be beholdent to the greedy corporate numbskulls like the fascist bofa or hellsfargo.
iluvtennis
(19,861 posts)stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)It would bring substantial financial independence and stability to Los Angeles and profits (instead of to Wall Street).& North Dakota figured out decades & decades ago "how it would work.",,,there's no mystery.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Here's an article that explains the benefits:
[link:http://www.governing.com/columns/public-finance/col-case-state-owned-bank-north-dakota.html|
Voters need to be educated as to the benefits of having a state run bank, infrastructure banks.
They are great new sources of financing infrastructure, local small businesses, etc.