LOS ANGELES:

As a high profile city and a tourist attraction and a place where vacationers would go to enjoy themselves, the local politicians and police would most likely want to either a) minimise the crime by keeping a tighter grip on the criminal activity, or b) turn a blind eye to criminal activity in order to boast "a safe place to be, see there weren't even that many people jailed here last quarter" to sucker in the potential investors. 

this could work as a blind eye to the local mob and a toughened hand to outsider criminals coming in and causing grief for the local tourist board to the point that even if you've got a CA who is extremely influential in other cities, he doesn't carry so much weight in the city of angels and can fail to keep you free when you're caught committing armed robberies or trying to pimp out prostitutes. This means if people really want to come to your city and spend time gathering information and visiting the BD to maximise their vision to spot the stealthier mobsters and RIA/MIAs that were missed and are still lurking in this city, they'll have to get used to scratching messages on the prison walls and risk losing profits by coming to such an awful city.

LA was never much of a power house as far as the mobs concerned and shouldn't be made to be a disputed place to want to be, either.

IF however, it's decided for whatever reason that LA needs something a little more, just to make sure it's not so far beneath the other cities it's never used, it could be changed to house the highest exp gains for JBs. Since the locals would lose major business if word got out that criminals were being sprung left right and centre the mayor would ensure the finest training and incentivize the guards to do their jobs well.

I would actually like to contest this to a certain degree because there is a Los angeles crime family that does still exit to this day. In fact it was in the prohibition era that this family saw itself at the height of its power in fact the family even had its own seat on the commission. As some one who resides in socal Im very well versed on the criminal politics. While the LA family is not as strong as others around the country they have held unbridled influence over Californians political machine for many years. They as well maintain a  street presence though it is  indirect a few years back the fbi busted up a 3 million dollar book making/loan sharking operation being jointly run by the LA mob and members of the sinaloa cartel.Maybe 3 or so weeks ago in fact in San Diego the fbi cracked down again on the owner of some card rooms for money laundering in speculated connection for the mob. My whole point here is to say while the west doesn't necessarily have the famous mafia history like other cities I wouldn't totally throw it in the garbage heap I would say create an unparalleled bond between LA and LV in terms of bonuses and who ever can control LA can reap the bonuses of both cities in a sense  or literally. One of the greatest criticisms of the LA mob was there inability to act on the gold mine that was LV perhaps here in our world we can change that.

In all honesty I feel like unless the bonuses are exactly equal, this will just lead to people working out which is the best city and stacking there time and time again. And for that reason, I can't really see it working even though city specific bonuses is something that sounds quite appealing.

underwearbuddy " I feel like unless the bonuses are exactly equal, this will just lead to people working out which is the best city and stacking there time and time again."

they are already unequal. people have already worked out the strongest cities and thats why the central cities and NY are always the ones occupied by the majority.

I get why squishy would want there to be come unevenness between cities, in order to make jealousy and inspire power play wars to stop stagnation, but in all honesty... I'm not sure that the strength of the city its self is really that much of a motivating factor for warring one another. Also, stagnation isn't really an issue any more. at least not for the last year or so. Plenty of site wide wars, figurative resets and in the last year no one has lived to be past a year. 

it seems the wars kick off these days once the bunched up masses of which ever major city are moved out to other cities. They some how lose their trust-ability or something and it leads to conflict. It might be a good idea to incentivize people to stop bunching up in 3 of the cities and actually move people out and around. even if that's only achieved by making the other cities appealing to occupy because once you have 2 crews in a district (regardless whether it's a gf crew and another, or 2 ordinary crews) that it's financially crippling to the city to set up more HQ's in the district.

the idea of having different bonuses in each city really adds another level to the strategy of building your empire and makes the occupation of the currently lesser interesting cities a beneficial thing to get. Even if it means losing the built up masses in a single city (and risking wars and conflict), that we've seen repeatedly for the last year.

Currently there is no such thing as 'the strongest city'. They are all equal. The only difference is drug prices. And that doesn't make a city strong, that just means more people travel to those places.

I always thought this was a terrific thread with a few great ideas.