Apportionment and City Council

* In the past several months, The Times has devoted a great deal of resources to reporting various efforts to revise the structure of Los Angeles through its charter and by legislation.

While this does reflect a widespread unhappiness with government as usual, the fundamental question remains that of representation. The high degree of displeasure with government rests primarily upon the view that elected officials are simply not responsive to the needs and demands of their constituents.

A primary cause is the manner in which apportionment takes place.

It is virtually impossible for Councilman [Joel] Wachs to be able to respond to the incredible divergence of Sunland-Tujunga and west Van Nuys . . . especially when the district is connected by portions of the landing pattern for Burbank Airport. In a like manner, Councilman Mike Feuer must attempt to respond to the critical needs of Sherman Oaks while attempting to represent Bel-Air and Century City.

A reasonable apportionment that respects the constitutional provisions for districts to be as compact and contiguous as possible would at least allow council members to respond to the needs of their communities.

Those responsible for apportionment at all levels would be well-advised to provide districts that can be represented, rather than reflective of special interests of the specific ideological view of the incumbent.

ALEXANDER L. SOSS

Studio City