Pasadena Councilmember’s suggestion to annex Altadena stirs debate among recovery efforts

Altadena is back on Pasadena’s radar–and not in a way that many Altadenans would appreciate.

Fiercely independent, quirky and undeniably unique, Altadena has always been content to chart its own course outside Pasadena’s borders. But in the wake of the Eaton fire, which razed much of its community, a familiar debate is flaring up: Should Altadena finally join Pasadena?

That idea has been floated around by at least one Pasadena council member, who believes annexation could be the key to rebuilding faster and securing a stronger future for both towns.

“I’m not saying that we should get rid of the name Altadena or anything like that,” Councilmember Tyron Hampton said in a recent interview. “But as far as services go, it would be more beneficial to that community moving forward to be a part of the City of Pasadena, or for it to be its own city.”

Hampton argues that Pasadena’s resources, infrastructure and municipal services—such as water, power and emergency response—could help Altadena recover more quickly from disasters like the recent Eaton fire.

“Altadena has no utilities. Yes, they have power, but it’s not the most reliable source of power, number one,” he said. “Number two, they don’t have water in Altadena at all. All the water companies in Altadena were already on the brink of bankruptcy.”

The City of Pasadena provides water and other municipal services to over 6,000 residents and businesses beyond its borders, including parts of Altadena, he said. The Pasadena Fire Department was also among the first responders at the Eaton fire, which highlights the city’s ability to provide critical resources during emergencies.

In addition, Hampton pointed out the economic and educational implications of the annexation. He noted that the massive displacement of residents from Altadena due to the fire could result in a 10% decline in Pasadena Unified School District enrollment.

The exodus of Altadena residents could also hurt Pasadena’s sales tax revenue. Altadena’s more than 40,000 residents play a key role in Pasadena’s economy, contributing an estimated 15-25% of the city’s sales tax revenue through their purchases, he said. Losing this customer base would have a serious economic impact on the city.

“We will be able to protect one of the largest assets completely north of us with our fire services, with our police services, with our municipal services that are first class,” Hampton said. “So we (might) possibly be able to prevent something as destructive as what we saw.”

But not everyone shares his optimism. Altadena historian and author Michele Zack, when reached by phone on Thursday, expressed skepticism about the proposal. She said that while she can’t speak for all Altadenans, she doubts the idea will fly with a community that has cherished its independence for so many decades.

“We can be a contentious bunch, but there’s one thing that everyone agrees on, and that is that they don’t want to be part of Pasadena,” Zack said.

This isn’t the first time Pasadena has eyed its neighbor to the north.

Over the years, the city has taken “47 bites out of Altadena” on a block by block basis—sometimes annexing as little as a few houses or businesses at a time, Zack said.

By 1946, Pasadena had chewed up 37 parcels in the unincorporated town in piecemeal efforts to expand Pasadena’s borders, consuming hundreds of acres along its western, southern, and eastern edges, she said.

These attempts were often driven by Pasadena’s growing need for water resources and its desire to strengthen its tax base.

But one particularly striking example was the annexation of Florecita Farm in 1936 on Altadena’s far western edge. While the annexation gave Pasadena some access to canyon water, there was an unspoken motive: the mayor of Pasadena lived in the area and needed to legally reside within city limits, according to Altadena Historical Society.

These annexation efforts continued until at least 1984, when Pasadena proposed incorporating the area west of Lake Avenue, promising better services and an end to what it called “taxation without representation.” In response, a group called Altadena for Altadenans was formed to oppose the proposal, which ultimately failed.

By the 1980s, new laws provided Altadena with greater protection from annexation. In 1980 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors declared Altadena as having its own “sphere of influence,” reinforcing the town’s autonomy and shielding it from further encroachment by its “big sister” to the south.

In addition, Proposition 13—a landmark property tax reform measure passed by California voters in 1978—fundamentally changed the way property taxes were assessed and managed.

By capping property tax rates and limiting annual increases, Proposition 13 significantly reduced the financial incentives for cities like Pasadena to pursue annexation, making it less economically appealing to absorb predominantly residential areas like Altadena.

Even today, Altadena’s commitment to its autonomy and unique identity remains steadfast—a culture that persists even in the face of the recent devastation caused by the fire.

“There’s a lot of regulations that come with being a city that we don’t have to contend with, and I think a lot of Altadenans enjoy that autonomy,” Altadena Town Councilmember Connor Cipolla said Thursday. “It’s core to our identity … that we are of eclectic homes and people. Although there’s a lot less of those homes standing, my hope is that we’ll rebuild and we’ll be back stronger than ever and more resilient to any disasters that come.”

Cipolla also noted that Altadena is well-served by the county, with Supervisor Kathryn Barger as the town’s “technical mayor.”

“I don’t think that we would have any better services under Pasadena than we do currently under the county,” he said. “And it would probably cost us a lot more, if we were to do something like that.”

For now, it seems Hampton’s idea hasn’t gained much traction among his colleagues.

Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo said that while he believes Councilmember Hampton’s comments were well-intentioned, now is not the right time for these discussions.

“At the moment, we are in an emergency,” he said Thursday. “Our role is to protect residents’ safety and property, and be supportive of our neighbors in Altadena,” he said. “It would be inappropriate to engage in discussions of annexation as our collective attention should be solely focused on the mission of ensuring that residents in Pasadena and Altadena are safe and find the assistance that they need to get through this terrible tragedy.”

Pasadena Vice Mayor Jess Rivas echoed the sentiment, and stressed the importance of protecting Altadena’s autonomy.

“The people of Altadena have the right to decide their own destiny. Pasadena city council members should not initiate discussion of annexation at any time, but especially not while so many Altadenans are displaced and not able to fully participate,” she said in a statement Thursday.

“Furthermore, fundamentally transforming both of our governmental structures in the midst of a complex, multi-year recovery and re-building effort would be unwise,” she added. “Rather than engage in the distraction of annexation talk, Pasadenans should work as partners with Altadenans and the County of Los Angeles to rebuild our shared community.”

Across the border, Cipolla was even more blunt.

“My one line response to Councilmember Hampton would be: ‘Good luck,’” he said.