Those for and against secession, on this and that side of the hill, finally have something to agree on: The latest proposal for splitting up the city of Los Angeles is ridiculous. Released the Friday before last (always a good day of the week to get something out to the public you’re hoping neither reporters nor news consumers will pay much attention to), a LAFCO consultant’s most recent proposal would have a new Valley city that consists of a new name, a city council, a dozen and a half employees and that’s it. Nothing else would change. The complaints people have about being ignored by L.A. City Hall would still go to the same place. The only difference is that there would be one more step, an impotent Valley city hall, between the complainer and the person or agency who could do anything about it. Have the decades of resentment, the cries of taxation without service and the machinations of wannabe politicians looking for elected seats to fill come to this: a mayor and city council with a city that has no assets, kings without a kingdom? Just in case you’ve been distracted by a worldwide war against terrorism, let me get you caught up: In response to what it claims was a half-baked plan for secession by Valley VOTE, consultants hired by LAFCO came up with their own proposal for a new Valley city that calls for elected officials with an existing revenue stream to control, every single municipal service being delivered as now by the city of Los Angeles (only Valley citizens would be customers instead of taxpayers), every asset except streets remaining in the hands of L.A. and a vague sense that after a “transition” period things could change. In their defense, LAFCO’s consultants who prepared the report insist their plan is at least a start, a village of a million and a half people can’t become a city overnight and, besides, that new city council will have authority to make land use decisions. Let’s go ahead and assess that great value right away and get it over with. This is the San Fernando Valley that has been trying to find a quick, easy way to get buses from the east to the west side for decades now. Then, at the proverbial last minute, the process was almost stopped because a neighborhood group for what to them were legitimate religious reasons would not have been able to walk across the bus route on the Sabbath. This is the same Valley that is quickly running out of housing and yet has a political establishment that has managed to stall development of Ahmanson Ranch in nearby Ventura County, most recently with the help of Councilman Dennis Zine who was able to get the L.A. City Council to refuse to extend Victory Boulevard. In other words, the authority to make land use decisions is useless if you live in a community that’s paralyzed by indecision. Back to the latest LAFCO proposal: The problems seem obvious. First, the average Valley citizen’s complaint is that services are not delivered in proportion to the tax money that goes to the city of L.A. We want quicker response times from the police and fire departments, we want fewer street repairs during rush hours, we want the potholes in front of our houses fixed immediately, we want quieter garbage trucks in the early morning hours, and we want it all cheaper. What would change if the same government bureaucracy is delivering the same services as now? If those seven elected officials who more or less represent the Valley on the L.A. City Council can’t get us quality services at a reasonable price now, how will 15 who have absolutely no influence at all at L.A. City Hall do any better? Second, about this “transition” period that will take place over three years but the details will be worked out later: Why later? Is that the way you do business? If you’re working on a deal with another company, do you say, “Here, just take my money now and we’ll decide in three years what you owe me in return”? It is true that time is running short if a secession question is going to appear on the November 2002 ballot, but that’s not a very good reason for giving up, perhaps forever, on what you want. It may be true that Valley VOTE could have done a better job of detailing a plan for the city it wants, but that’s no reason to deny ordinary citizens interested in secession what they thought they were going to get. And, finally, what about all those assets everybody who lives in the Valley whether they’re for or against a breakup thought belonged to them? And that they thought they were buying equity in for all these years like everybody else in L.A.? The Van Nuys Airport? Police and fire stations? Parks and ball fields? Water treatment plants? None of those things belong to citizens of the Valley? If the answer is that all of this is more of what will be worked out during a “transition,” I would be careful. If, for instance, I was a mayor or city councilman in a suddenly shrunken L.A., what would my constituents expect when bargaining with a Valley full of people who can’t vote for me? By the end of last week, it appeared that the number of people willing to support this plan had dwindled to maybe two: Consultant Keith Curry, the poor guy who got paid to write it, and County Supervisor and LAFCO Commissioner Zev Yaroslavsky whose best defense seems to be, “Not every decision should be made ahead of time.” LAFCO Executive Director Larry Calemine is characteristically sphinx-like about the whole thing and several LAFCO commissioners are wondering themselves who gave Curry his marching orders. So, what was the point? A plan for secession that would never fly? A proposal that nobody would ever vote for? Michael Hart is editor of the San Fernando Valley Business Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].
