Valley Secession and Tujunga History

I’d like to thank Robert Jones (Essay, May 22) for pointing out some of the very good arguments against Valley secession. For the record, however, I’d like to clean up one very basic point: I opposed secession from the start.

While I understand people’s frustration with government, I do not believe secession is the answer.

In the Valley and throughout the city, Angelenos have felt shortchanged for years. That’s why I ran for mayor in 1993; that’s why I’ve fought to shake up the bureaucracy and chart a new course for Los Angeles.

We are making progress, but I’m still not satisfied. Working together, we’ll continue to move this city in the right direction.

RICHARD J. RIORDAN

Mayor of Los Angeles

* As someone who enjoys local history, I was pleased to see Kevin Starr’s article (“Deconstructing Los Angeles,” Opinion, May 26), and even though I am in favor of secession, was gratified to read Starr’s argument against it.

However, at risk of seeming like a Tujunga booster, there are two corrections I would like to propose in reference to my hometown. First, Tujunga was not annexed to Los Angeles in 1915 as the article implies, but in 1932. At that time local citizens voted 718 to 659 to join the city. Several lawsuits were filed at the time claiming the election was rigged.

As for the “gnome” name, Tujunga is one of many California names taken from the Shoshone. The “nga” ending means “place of.” And Tujunga is generally translated as “place of the old woman” or “place of the earth mother.” KIRK A. WEISS

Tujunga

* Starr attempts to make a case for opposition to the secession of the San Fernando Valley from the city of Los Angeles to become its own city.

Says Starr, “It’s time for Valley Los Angeles to cease being a victim and start being a leader . . . saving the city and saving itself.” Wel1, Valley leaders are exercising leadership and their choice is self-determination of their own future.

After the fiasco and utter failure of Rebuild LA, which purportedly involved a citywide, federally subsidized effort to repair the city after the riots, it is absurd and ludicrous to suggest the the Valley must assume a lead role in fixing the longer-running, systemic problems which challenge Angelenos. Let the Valley exert its own will and become all it can be, including a good neighbor city to Los Angeles. Starr’s case for rejecting Valley cityhood is specious. It should be rejected and the decision of Valley citizens should prevail in the choice to become a city or remain part of Los Angeles.

MIKE LENNON

Irvine