91.1 F
San Fernando
Thursday, Mar 28, 2024

SECEDE—Harbor Area LAFCO News May Be Bad for Valley Too

Could a “one bad apple” situation threaten a plan to get Valley secession on the next election ballot, even if preliminary blueprints have already shown it could exist as a viable separate city? The results of a study released last week conclude that a divorce of San Pedro and Wilmington from Los Angeles would, in just three years, produce an annual deficit of $35.4 million for a separate Harbor city. In other words, on its own the Harbor could not meet demands for services and programs without going in the red. The findings are a stark contrast to the results of a similar study on a San Fernando Valley split. Data released by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in March show that the Valley could produce more than $1 billion a year in revenue, cover the costs of an annual $68 million alimony payment to Los Angeles and still come up with a surplus. Valley secessionists are now in the final stages of preparing their official divorce petition for LAFCO, which will have final say over whether voters see the issue on an election ballot. But getting the measure on the ballot is only one hurdle. A majority of voters in the Valley and a majority of voters citywide must approve a Valley split. So if Harbor area secessionists are not successful in their efforts to get their own measure on the ballot, would that area’s voters support a Valley breakup anyway? Most likely, said Richard Close, chairman of ValleyVOTE, the group spearheading secession here. Close said San Pedro may be able to revise its budget projections to produce a stronger case for secession and get a measure on the ballot. He also said that, without the Harbor measure, garnering support for the Valley could be more challenging. “I don’t think it would hurt us, but it’s not going to help us either,” said Close. “The more areas (seeking to break away) on the ballot at the same time, the easier it is for us. It makes it more difficult because those areas won’t be as motivated to vote with us. Their heart may be there, but if they aren’t on the ballot they may not have the motivational drive and it could make our goal a little more difficult.” According to Bob Poole, founder of The Reason Institute, a Los Angeles-based government think tank, Harbor area voters would likely be more inclined to support Valley secession than not, because it would afford them an opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t. “My own speculation is that they would be more sympathetic to the Valley on the grounds that, although they may not have their chance this time, it would give them time to come up with a more viable system for doing so next time around,” said Poole. “Valley secession would both set a strong precedent for others and establish a blueprint for them to work from.” San Pedro secession advocates may have another reason to act quickly: Valley-based voters would not be able to support a Harbor secession if they are no longer part of Los Angeles in 2004, the next time the issue could be on the election ballot. “(The Harbor) wouldn’t have the Valley support the next time around because the Valley voters would be gone from the city,” Close said. The Valley is also counting on support from Hollywood voters, where secessionists are awaiting their own LAFCO report on the financial feasibility of a breakaway from Los Angeles. Close said that report is due in August and should produce favorable data. Unlike the Harbor area, which is primarily industrial, Hollywood has a rich tax base and more money to work with. “Proportionately, they have a lot more income than the Harbor,” Close said. Pro-secessionists have also said a Valley split would ultimately benefit voters living in what remains of Los Angeles because there would be more resources for those who are left and greater opportunity for direct representation in government secession advocates’ two strongest talking points. However, Poole said he didn’t believe those arguments would be persuasive. He suggested anti-secessionists could overpower the smaller-is-better argument by focusing voters’ attention on what it is they stand to lose, not gain. “They would get better representation assuming the size of the city council would stay the same,” said Poole. “But I suspect that this will be demagogued and presented in terms of class warfare. So it could go either way.” According to official election figures, nearly half of the voters who participated in the last general election live in the Valley. That, and the fact those considered the most likely to vote against a Valley secession make up a small percentage of the voter base, said Close, add up to a strong show of support for Valley cityhood. According to a Los Angeles Times poll, the Valley, Harbor area and Hollywood are home to roughly 44 percent of the city’s residents and 48 percent of all registered voters. In the last general election, 48 percent of all city votes were cast in the Valley. “I’m confident that even if we are the only secession issue on the ballot, we will get the double majority,” Close said. “If taking away services from Los Angeles is the number one reason people should vote ‘no,’ I don’t think they are going to get more than 5 or 6 percent to vote on it that way. It’s bad logic, because it assumes we don’t have any poor people in the Valley.” Finally, Close said members of his group and its consultants met Thursday with LAFCO and its consultants to discuss the details of their final application. He said the May 14 deadline for turning in the final proposal would be met and that the two sides are in basic agreement on the data. “We had a very productive meeting dealing with a number of subjects and I don’t see any major problems whatsoever,” Close said. “The big picture is we are in agreement with LAFCO. We don’t agree with every page and every number, but in general we are in agreement.”

Featured Articles

Related Articles