A Balanced Budget Means a Surplus of Sacrifice : Ending deficit spending, as so many Valley residents advocate, could threaten jobs, public safety services, transit and environmental protection.

Nowhere is the homeowner movement as strong as it is in the San Fernando Valley. In 1978, Valley voters provided the base of support for the passage of Proposition 13, the property tax measure that slammed the brakes on state government. In Valley politics, a political candidacy is a non-starter unless one takes a solemn oath to protect Prop. 13 “against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me, Howard Jarvis.”

So it should not be a surprise to anyone that the movement for a balanced budget also has found a home here. You can find near unanimity that less is more, whether it’s a homeowners meeting, the chamber of commerce, civic groups or a bunch of screenwriters and wannabe moguls at Starbucks. Champagne corks were no doubt popping in the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. boardroom when the president proposed a seven-year balanced budget plan.

Even though there is still haggling in Washington over the specifics of how that budget will look, the point of no return has arrived. Balanced budgets will be a political reality. Anyone running for office in this neck of the woods has to be for them. Once the near-exclusive domain of conservatives, a government that lives within its means is now a fundamental part of the political landscape. As long as our immediate, personal economic futures are in doubt, we will continue to demand that our government not spend more than it takes in. And since Article 1, Section 1 of the Valley Constitution guarantees early retirement for any politician goofy enough to call for a tax increase, look for terminal cuts to projects we have come to take for granted.

We’ve already seen the departure of the mother of all big-government projects: the defense / aerospace industry. The Valley has suffered the loss or downsizing (Gawd, how I hate that word!) of major defense contractors, most notably Lockheed. Let’s face it, that was the first big-government employment program we lost, and the effect has been felt from the Skunk Works of Burbank to the corporate boardrooms of Calabasas. Talk all you want to about big government, but money spent on our nation’s defense translates into mortgages, car payments, rent, groceries and tuition. Ever resilient, those affected directly or indirectly are remaking their lives and their futures, but not without a great deal of pain and sacrifice.

Other so-called big-government programs have been or are about to be closed. Valley war veterans no longer have a hospital in Sepulveda at their disposal. Don’t look for improvements in public housing--even though some sites in the northeast Valley are models for privatization and public-private partnerships. Rail? Mass transit? I wouldn’t bet the house on it. With the coming of balanced budgets, don’t look for more large public projects. It’ll be the political equivalent of completing a Hail Mary pass if Metro Rail makes it north of Hollywood. Even the extra cops included for Los Angeles in the federal budget are under attack for 1996. Don’t look for much help from the feds in the future on this score.

The biggest loser, without a doubt, will be our environment. Unchecked growth and uninspired planning have left us crowded, congested and choking on our own pollution. Passage of Proposition 13 put an end to funding for state or local projects aimed at mitigating the adverse impact of development. The Hansen Dam Recreation Area, a popular destination, remains the unwanted stepchild of the city Department of Recreation and Parks. Valiant efforts to revive the area through federal funding for restoration of the lake might just have been in vain. Sepulveda Basin’s future has to be in doubt, too. It’s one thing to build a recreation area; the real challenge is to maintain it. And we are already seeing a drastic cutback in funds for the cleanup of toxic waste.

Acquisition for land in the Santa Monica Mountains has to be the one thing we have all been able to support. Since 1979, efforts to build a mountain park have been bipartisan and nothing short of heroic. Funding, however, has been in decline, and the Republicans in Congress talk about selling off natural resources to reduce the debt. It sounds like the open space we’ve worked so hard to preserve will be put on the auction block. Saving all the land the park planners would like would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. (And if it weren’t for the ‘80s recession, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy would not have been able to pick up land at reduced prices.) Now, budget cuts combined with a rebounding real estate market could mean the end of land conservation efforts. The one-two punch of zero federal dollars and aggressive developers might just be too much.

Out of decency and simple respect for hard-working, taxpaying families, government ought to be lean and efficient. But I can’t help thinking that we’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater in our effort to balance the budget at all costs. The Valley has shown a distinct ability to cut off its nose to spite its face (see rail project, San Fernando Valley). Too often we say no to everything without taking into consideration the long-term effect on our quality of life. So while all this balanced budget talk may make us feel good today, we might want to think about the kind of future we’re building.

Like my old man used to say, be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.