Council Votes to Fight Valley Secession Bill

Following a sometimes heated debate over the meaning of “democracy” and “self-determination,” the Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to oppose state legislation that would make it easier for the San Fernando Valley to secede.

The 8-6 vote was generally cast along geographic lines, with most Valley council members voting to support the bill by Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills).

The measure, which would strip the council of the power to block a secession vote, passed the Assembly last week and is headed for the state Senate, where its future is uncertain.

During the council debate, opponents of the bill asked the city attorney’s office to study whether the city can sue to challenge the legality of the legislation because the law would only apply to the city of Los Angeles.

“If it’s worth consideration of the state Legislature, it should be good enough for every city in the state,” said Council President John Ferraro.

But most of the debate centered on who should be allowed to vote on a secession plan. Supporters said that regardless of whether Valley voters choose to secede or not, the council should not have the power to stop them.

“The Boland bill is not about secession--it’s about equality,” said council member Hal Bernson, who represents the northeast Valley and was part of a 1970s effort to study Valley secession.

He and council members Richard Alarcon, Laura Chick, Marvin Braude and Joel Wachs, all of whom represent parts of the Valley, voted to support the bill. Ferraro and Mike Feuer, who represent portions of the Valley, voted to oppose the Boland measure.

Council member Rita Walters, who represents parts of South-Central Los Angeles, was absent. The only non-Valley supporter was council member Rudy Svorinich Jr., who represents the harbor area, where secession talk has long persisted.

Svorinich said that currently, the eight members of the council who do not represent parts of the Valley--including himself--control a majority of the council and can impose their will on the area.

“Eight members of the council can subvert the will of 1.7 million people to decide where their government can be located,” he said. “That is not democracy.”

But the eight council members who opposed the bill argued that it is undemocratic because it would not allow voters in other parts of the city to have a voice on a secession that could dramatically impact the entire city.

“Democracy says everyone who is affected gets to vote,” said council member Jackie Goldberg, who represents Hollywood and surrounding neighborhoods.

Ferraro said he opposes the bill because it may lead to further secession movements. “I don’t want to see Toluca Lake break off from the city or even Woodland Hills break off from the Valley,” he said.

Despite the heated debate, the vote was mostly symbolic. Because of the city’s longtime legislative policy of opposing any measure to make secession easier, lobbyists for the city of Los Angeles have for months been pressing lawmakers in Sacramento to oppose the Boland bill.

The council’s vote, however, will lend more credibility to the arguments that city lobbyists are making in Sacramento, said Ronald Deaton, the city’s chief legislative analyst.

The endorsement of the council’s vote by Mayor Richard Riordan is not required, as it is with other council actions. Riordan has taken no position on the bill but has voiced opposition to a secession.

In an interview, Boland said she was encouraged that her bill was supported by six of the 15 council members.

“It’s good news because last year I heard the vote would be 10 to 5,” she said. “So, it’s good news.”

Boland also rejected charges that her bill is undemocratic, saying the legislation provides a vote only to those who live in the area that would secede because they would be most affected by a breakup.

“Who is getting the right to vote are the people affected,” she said. “They are determining their future.”

During the council debate, some supporters of the bill also took great pains to say that although they support the Valley’s right to vote on a secession, they do not necessarily want the Valley to break away.

In fact, Chick said that she supports the bill but would campaign against any secession. She also suggested that Boland sponsored the bill to win over voters in her bid for a state Senate seat next year.

“This is not a grass-roots movement,” Chick said. “It is being driven by the political ambitions of the candidate.”

Supporters and opponents of the bill said that regardless of whether the measure is adopted, the city must do more to empower residents to have more say in how they are governed.

Alarcon promised to introduce a motion that asks city analysts to study possible changes in the way government works that could give residents more power to decide on local issues, such as taxes and water rates.

“I want the city to unify,” he said.

Feuer, whose district is half in the Valley and half in the Westside, voted to oppose the bill but agreed that the council could do more to make Valley residents “feel more in control.”

“Let’s make no mistake about it,” he said, “We are an interdependent city.”