Valley’s Path to Self-Rule Is Lined With Mines

A divorce between Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley, if it ever came to that, would provide enough fireworks, politics, process and paperwork to make even the nastiest marital breakup seem amicable.

Despite this week’s passage by the state Assembly of a bill that would eliminate some obstacles to such a breakup, any split would probably be bogged down for years, or even decades, by a daunting series of public hearings, popular votes and legal challenges--any one of which could be fatal.

Not only must the bill by Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills) still pass the state Senate and governor to become law, the secession effort would then face LAFCO, an obscure nine-member panel of politicians and appointees with the power to kill the notion altogether, a power beyond appeal unless a court intervenes.

Though the rules here are different, the experience of smaller cities that have gained independence from the county after years of struggle is instructive. Activists in the campaigns that created the cities of Malibu and Santa Clarita say success requires enormous motivation and energy, financial resources and perseverance against seemingly overwhelming odds.

“There needs to be a dedicated group to build public opinion to a fever pitch,” said Rita Garasi, an activist in the Santa Clarita cityhood movement that germinated in the 1970s but did not succeed until 1987.

“It will take courage for the citizens of the [Valley] to desire their independence [despite] threats of more taxes or other dire outcomes if they take control over their own destiny.”

Although the decision over whether to secede rests theoretically with voters in the Valley, it would probably be several years before they could vote on the issue, even with the most rapid progress.

That’s because the proposal would be subject to the same standards and review process that govern communities trying to incorporate themselves out of county control. Those cases are problematic enough because they require elected and appointed officials to carve up precious tax revenues and to rethink a smorgasbord of issues from police patrols to which entity is responsible for picking up trash.

In the case of a Valley secession, those issues and problems would be magnified. Figuring out which side of the Santa Monica Mountains keeps what and how much the other side has to pay would be hashed out by lawyers and consultants in a process that could take many years, if not decades, say experts on the incorporation process.

“It’s got a long way to go,” said Larry J. Calemine, executive officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, the semiautonomous board that decides all city boundaries within Los Angeles County and has final say over incorporations, annexations--and secessions.

Long before LAFCO would consider the breakup, though, the details of the split would have to be worked out. Boundaries would need to be drawn. Studies would be conducted to determine whether the Valley could support itself over the long haul.

Just to get the ball rolling, supporters of secession would need the signatures of 20% of the registered voters within whatever boundaries are eventually drawn.

But most difficult of all, the secessionists and the city government would have to split the Valley’s assets and liabilities. As in a divorce, who gets what will be the most difficult issue to decide--at the top of the list: tax revenues and public works.

Los Angeles and the Valley would have to resolve all questions over which revenue streams belong to which municipality. Should the Valley share in revenue from Los Angeles International Airport? Or from the harbor? How much would the Valley pay for services provided by installations built partially with Valley taxpayers’ money, such as the Hyperion sewage treatment plant?

Such agreements would need to be in place long before the issue went before LAFCO. But Calemine said that because there are no statutory limitations on how long the negotiations can take, it could be years before the two sides reach consensus.

Or, Los Angeles could play hardball by refusing to negotiate at all. Fresno County employed that technique to prevent cities within its borders from annexing areas rich in stores and factories, which would have eroded the county’s tax base.

Such a tactic would probably be dealt with in court.

But Peter Detwiler, a consultant to the state Senate Housing and Land Use Committee, disagreed. He said that because Boland’s bill includes requirements that the Valley incorporate as an independent city at the same time it divorces Los Angeles, such agreements would be worked out by formulas established in state law.

He sees problems, though, in state legal requirements that all incorporations and annexations be what is called “revenue neutral.” In other words, the boundary changes cannot wind up costing either of the two new entities any money, or make a profit for either of them.

So what Los Angeles would lose in tax revenue, it would have to gain back by not having to provide police and fire protection to the Valley.

At the same time, the independent Valley city would need to be financially viable over the long term. Detwiler said that the combination of the two could be deadly. If the Valley is a cash cow for the rest of the city, as some secession proponents believe, then the effect on the city coffers would be negative. In such a case, LAFCO could impose conditions under which the Valley would have to pay Los Angeles the difference.

But such a requirement could be just enough to tip the scales in the Valley away from financial self-sufficiency, Detwiler said.

Once the agreements were reached, the proposal would come before LAFCO, which includes representatives from the Board of Supervisors, the City Council, special districts, local cities and the public. Only two members of the current board--Councilman Hal Bernson and retired judge James DiGiuseppe--are from the San Fernando Valley.

The board would review all of the fiscal studies and consider public comment at hearings. If more than 25% of the affected residents or property owners object to the split, the issue of secession must be submitted to a public vote. If not, LAFCO alone could approve it--in theory.

In practice, almost all incorporations are subjected to a vote and require a simple majority to take effect.

If the proposal were rejected by LAFCO, proponents would have to wait a year before reapplying. Only if the board ignored the data collected during hearings and studies can the decision be appealed in court.

“LAFCO is an incredible hurdle,” Garasi commented. “It’s a political body with political appointees beholden to the Board of Supervisors who will absolutely fight this tooth and nail.”

But Supervisor Mike Antonovich said the board would have no reason to fight Valley cityhood, and the city of Los Angeles lacks the power to prevail at LAFCO, which has members from other, smaller, county cities who would be sympathetic.

“The city is going to fight it tooth and nail. But in a court of law, I would think common sense would prevail,” Antonovich said. “I have no doubt LAFCO will approve it.”

Even before such a move could get to LAFCO, the Valley would reap benefits, and it’s about time, he said.

“Los Angeles city has played Rip Van Winkle with the citizens of the San Fernando Valley for decades,” Antonovich said. “This legislation will correct those failures of the past and ensure greater power to the San Fernando Valley.”

Under Boland’s bill, only the Valley would vote on secession, which concerns Cal State Fullerton political science professor Raphael Sonenshein. He fears that with a low voter turnout, perhaps as few as 10% of the city’s residents would decide whether to fragment the entire city. “It’s an incredibly horrifying scenario,” he said.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky agrees that it’s wrong not to allow the entire city of Los Angeles to vote on secession. “I cannot imagine it is equitable for a decision to be made about a detachment that may have an impact on the whole city and not have the whole city vote on it. I think that issue will come to the fore quickly” in the state Legislature, he said.

Brad Sherman, a candidate for Congress in the 24th District, which stretches from the West Valley into Ventura County, told a group of Encino property owners recently that Valley residents should carefully consider the economic and emotional costs of seceding, which would require a tremendous outpouring of civic attention focused on independence, to the exclusion of other problems and possibilities.

The fight over secession and the ensuing fight to make it work “will become the preoccupation of this decade and the next decade,” Sherman predicted.

And even if it doesn’t get that far, Councilman Bernson predicted that the city government will now be more inclined to focus on Valley issues and less inclined to deny them.

“Obviously the City Council will no longer be able to do what it wants to the Valley without immunity,” Bernson said. “If the Valley were to be treated a little more equitably, . . . I think that would alleviate a lot of the pressure right there.

“If the mayor and the City Council actively fights [the legislation], it’ll just generate the momentum for people to secede.”

No matter what, Calemine said, “It’s going to be interesting.”

Times staff writer Beth Shuster contributed to this story.

* IN SACRAMENTO: Opponents scramble to kill secession legislation. A1