Valley Commentary : A Difficult Decision for a Booster of Los Angeles : A local business leader is evaluating moving his manufacturing operation out of California. Legislators have created a non-competitive climate, he says.

Driven by the state and the city’s lack of interest in maintaining or attracting industry to the area--including my existing manufacturing operation in Pacoima--I am actively evaluating moving all or part of my $25-million-a-year businesses out of California.

This decision has not been an easy one. As a native of Los Angeles, I have devoted much of my personal and professional time to promoting the area, including my recent election to serve a two-year term as the chairman of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn.

VICA, a nonprofit business organization with 350 corporate members and affiliates, is dedicated in its efforts to preserve and encourage the economic vitality of the region. To some small degree, we have improved the business climate, but not even close enough for me and other manufacturers to remain competitive with those around the world or in neighboring states.

My fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders and long-term employees of our company is to minimize expenses wherever possible in order to remain competitive in the worldwide markets we serve. The tax-and-spend attitude in California has placed my firm at a disadvantage, with a corporate income tax that costs between 5% and 11% more than our competitors. This can easily become the difference between profit and loss as our industry (medical devices) becomes ever more competitive and cost-sensitive. Clearly these tax costs diminish our ability to create jobs and new products.

As much as I love California, I am not willing to operate in a non-competitive environment by staying in this state, especially when neighboring states are aggressively courting us with very inviting business benefits.

*

For example, in Nevada and Texas the state corporate income tax is zero, compared to 11% in California. Their permitting processes are streamlined and business-friendly. Their regulatory agencies are not overlapping, self-funding and environmentally shortsighted. Education is a priority. And their business revenue programs are not unreasonable.

I don’t want to leave, and I despise the ABC (anywhere but California) industry relocation mantra that I hear from my colleagues in the medical-device industry. But to keep my firm--and other businesses--in Los Angeles, there must be significant changes.

These include:

* Eliminating or dramatically reducing the state corporate income tax, at least for sales out of California.

* Broadening and improving the one-stop permitting process instituted by Mayor Richard Riordan.

* Restructuring regulatory agencies by eliminating self-funding and providing incentives to resolve problems rather than find fault and impose fines in order to continue to fund themselves.

* Streamlining government bureaucracies to reward competence instead of job-protected tenures.

* Empowering city and state managers to hire and fire.

* Refusing to spend city or state money on federal programs that the federal government won’t reimburse, i.e., welfare and illegal immigration.

To support the infrastructure, someone has to pay. However, if the state and city continue to drive businesses and jobs out of the area, where will the money come from?

*

This is everyone’s problem. I would like to stay here, and so would my 350 employees. But I am tired of our company’s being placed in a position where it could ultimately be forced out of business by staying in Los Angeles.

I take my fiduciary responsibilities seriously. Why can’t our legislators take theirs seriously? We must vote those that don’t out of office now, before it is too late.