Valley Secession Still Faces Hurdles

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 Boland still pass the state Senate and governor to become law, the secession effort would then face LAFCO--the Local Agency Formation Commission--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 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.

Although the decision over whether to secede rests theoretically with voters in the Valley, it could be 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 trash pickup.

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 LAFCO, the semi-autonomous 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 would be the most difficult issue to decide. At the top of the list: tax revenues and public works.

Agreements would need to be in place long before the issue went before LAFCO. 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.

But Peter Detwiler, a consultant to the state Senate Housing and Land Use Committee, 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 “revenue neutral.” In other words, the boundary changes cannot wind up costing either of the two new entities any extra 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 new Valley city would need to be financially viable over the long term.

Detwiler said 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.

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 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles City Council, special districts, local cities and the public.

The board would review all the fiscal studies and consider public comment at hearings. If more than 25% of the affected residents or property owners objected to the split, the issue of secession would have to 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 could the decision be appealed in court.

Times staff writer Beth Shuster contributed to this story.