Valley Secession Measure Clears Assembly Panel

A controversial bill that would make it easier for the San Fernando Valley to secede from the city of Los Angeles sailed through a key Assembly committee Wednesday with minimal debate.

The measure passed by a 5-0 vote of the Assembly Local Government Committee following testimony from the bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Paula Boland (R-Granada Hills), that Los Angeles is too big and unwieldy and that City Hall is too far removed from the Valley to adequately represent the area.

“Local government is a government that’s responsive and close,” Boland said.

There is currently no organized effort aimed at making the Valley its own civic entity, although local leaders say such sentiment exists beneath the surface.

But there has been an ongoing campaign to make the city more responsive to Valley needs. If the Boland bill passes, it would provide leverage in negotiating a better deal for the Valley from City Hall.

Boland said she is tired of waiting for favors from downtown and wants to give Valley residents the tools to move forward, if they choose. Noting that the Valley would be the sixth largest city in the country if it seceded, Boland said, “We’d like to have a crack at our own government.”

Standing in the way of that prospect is a law passed in 1977, when the Valley last considered detaching from Los Angeles, which gives the Los Angeles City Council veto power over any proposal to secede. Boland’s bill would eliminate the council’s veto power.

That power has made it “virtually impossible” for any area to detach, said Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson, who was involved in secession efforts in the 1970s and testified at Wednesday’s hearing.

“There should be a level playing field for people to determine where they belong,” Bernson told the committee.

San Pedro-area City Councilman Rudy Svorinich also spoke in favor of the Boland bill, as did United Chambers of Commerce representative Gary Thomas.

Los Angeles city lobbyist Leslie McFadden, testifying before the committee, said that any secession should be put to a vote of all residents of Los Angeles, not just of the Valley. She also said that the bill should have no adverse fiscal effect on the city.

City Councilman Nate Holden joined the city lobbyist in opposing the measure, though he said, “as far as I’m concerned they can go any time they choose.” But the process has to be orderly, not chaotic, Holden said.

He offered a less drastic remedy to long-standing complaints that the Valley is the cash cow for the city when it comes to revenue and the stepchild when it comes to services.

“If people in the Valley are unhappy about their services, they need to talk to their representatives,” Holden said.

Boland said the issue isn’t the Valley lawmakers that are at City Hall, it’s the relative lack of clout that comes with having one-third of the population but only four all-Valley council districts out of 15.

She is unsympathetic to worries from Los Angeles that it may not be fiscally viable without the Valley.

“To keep people in bondage because they don’t want to give up their money certainly isn’t democracy at its best,” Boland said after the hearing.

The next step for the secession bill is the floor of the Assembly, where Boland predicts passage. The state Senate is another matter. Boland said she hasn’t lobbied for her bill on the Senate side yet, so does not yet have a sense of its chances.

“The Senate will do it [kill the bill],” Holden said outside the hearing.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), the Democratic leader of the Assembly, said he will oppose the bill personally but will not organize other Democrats to vote against the bill as a bloc.

“It’s bad for the Valley,” Katz said in an interview. “It will turn out to be too expensive.”

Katz also said Boland, who is running for the state Senate in a new district, is “grandstanding,” as he said she did on the Los Angeles Unified School District breakup bill. Though that bill passed, breakup efforts are stymied.

“She just walked away from it,’ Katz said.

Even some supporters of the Boland bill say it is too soon to jump on the Valley secession bandwagon.

“If the Valley is treated equitably . . . I don’t thing there would be any necessity for it,” Bernson said.

“If it doesn’t happen and we continue to be shortchanged, then I wouldn’t be surprised if a movement for secession would arise, and if that were to come, I would support it,” he said.