Why Exclude the Valley From the Healing Process? : Rebuild L.A.: To speed renewal, include residents on the other side of Mulholland Drive.

When first formed, Rebuild L.A. was criticized by numerous groups who said they were being excluded from this important community effort. Without their involvement, they argued, a true healing of Los Angeles could not take place and permanent solutions could not be found. RLA responded by purporting to create an inclusive organization representative of the people of Los Angeles. But in its effort to be inclusive of these various groups, RLA has forgotten one rather large and important constituency--the entire San Fernando Valley.

In speaking of the Valley, I am mindful that during the past decade, its demographics have changed dramatically. The Valley is no longer simply a community of white suburbanites who speak with a unified voice on all issues. Rather, it includes every race and ethnicity found “on the other side of the hill.” Nevertheless, there is no denying that there exists a sense of “Valley” identity among Valley residents.

Why is it so important to include the Valley in RLA and what are the consequences of not doing so? RLA’s board of directors, now some 80 strong, includes only one San Fernando Valley representative. This lack of representation is similarly reflected in the composition of the various task forces created by RLA to help implement its agenda.

The exclusion reinforces the negative notion that revitalizing and rebuilding our inner city is not a responsibility to be shared by the Valley. Recognizing that the Valley is geographically isolated from the inner city, that it is home to 40% of the Los Angeles electorate--and the more politically conservative voters, at that--one would think that responsible and visionary efforts to rebuild our city would want to involve Valley residents in becoming part of the solutions to our city’s problems.

Historically, the Valley has distrusted the downtown power structure, viewed as only being interested in the Valley as a tax base. Recently published audits confirm that the Valley has not received its share of resources from the city. For example, the recently completed school redistricting, which carved up Valley districts and diluted Valley representation on the School Board, was created by the City Council under the influence of the downtown power structure. These and other examples demonstrate the political alienation that has characterized the Valley’s relations with Greater Los Angeles.

Many Valley residents and community leaders feel the concerns of the downtown politicians and business leaders stop at Mulholland Drive. Excluding the Valley from RLA serves to perpetuate this political separation and can only hinder the rebuilding effort.

Excluding the Valley from RLA also hinders solutions that require the Valley’s support. An excellent recent example is the defeat of Proposition N. The measure would have increased the police force by 1,000 officers and was to be financed by a relatively small property tax increase. Yet the Valley, feeling little or no connection to South-Central and being suspicious that few or none of the 1,000 new officers would be deployed in the Valley, caused this measure to fail. South-Central, meanwhile, will interpret the Valley’s vote as callous indifference to its needs for more police protection and services.

One way this lack of understanding can be minimized is to bring the Valley more into the process, thereby increasing the possibility of bilateral sensitization. One sure way to ensure no progress is to remain separate and uninvolved with each other. This is a failure of community and political leadership. RLA’s task is so monumental that it is critically important to include representatives from the Valley. Many Valley residents view the rebuilding of Los Angeles as part of our collective responsibility. It is painful to be ignored in the process.