Why Stop at One New City?

Seceding from the city of Los Angeles is a seductive idea for Valley residents--a blunt instrument that focuses generations of anger and frustration into one decisive political act. But it’s not the most effective way to solve the political problem that outlying areas perceive in being part of the city.

Instead of simply breaking one enormous city into two huge ones, it would make a lot more sense to take Los Angeles apart completely--to split it into many cities so small that no one city could dominate the region. But even this radical restructuring wouldn’t solve things all by itself. Because under this scenario, Southern California would become even more Bosnia-like, unless the split were accompanied by the creation of a regional confederation in which these fiefdoms (not just the former L.A., but all the other little cities too) are accountable to each other.

Big cities and small cities each bring their own baggage. Big cities may be remote and bureaucratic, but small cities can be parochial and inward-looking, often to the detriment of all the residents of a region. A one-shot Valley secession promises the worst of both worlds: a new city large enough (1.3 million residents) to be unresponsive, yet still parochial enough to distance itself from the rest of the metropolis.

*

Furthermore, a one-shot Valley secession is not likely to be the end of it. In all probability, the economically powerful Wilmington-San Pedro area, fueled by the Port of Los Angeles, will want to secede as well, and might succeed in doing so first. Soon enough the Westside would wonder why it was still hanging on. The West Valley would decide it might be better off without the East Valley. And so on.

A radical breakup that left the city in a half-dozen--or even a dozen--pieces right off the bat might actually level the playing field far more effectively. No one city could push any others around; indeed, the city of North Hollywood and the city of Burbank might start speaking to each other on more or less equal terms, which might actually be good for both of them.

But smaller cities are inevitably more parochial, and that’s why a radical breakup would have to be leavened with mutual responsibility. There would have to be a way to make sure that all the little cities--the old ones as well as the new ones--are strongly accountable to one another and for the problems of the entire metropolis. Los Angeles as it’s currently constituted can push other cities around because it’s so big. But for the same reason, it also absorbs a lot of problems that the little cities are clever enough to avoid.

So the price for independence would have to be cooperation, either voluntary or forced. All the cities of the San Fernando Valley, for example, would have to accept the idea that together they were responsible for a certain amount of low-income housing. They could fight among themselves about how that housing should be distributed; indeed, the rich cities might pay the poor cities to take it. (However odious this may seem, it is far preferable to the current system, which lets the rich cities off the hook completely.) But the confederation would have to be irrevocably bound to the goal and the numerical targets, so that nobody could slither out of the responsibility.

Similarly, regional infrastructure such as water projects and airports--even the Port of Los Angeles--would have to be jointly owned and operated, or at least their benefits would have to be distributed among a wide variety of small cities. In the long run, this might have the effect of putting everything in the region on the table for discussion.

It might make sense, for example, for North Hollywood to participate in operating the Burbank Airport. As things stand now, the city of Los Angeles is in more or less perpetual litigation with the airport over noise issues in North Hollywood; it would be far better to work these problems out at the airport board meetings, rather than in court.

*

Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, which jointly own the airport, would undoubtedly resist letting the noise-haters into their club; but they might be more receptive if, under some regional arrangement, they had a chance to share in the profits from the Port of Los Angeles or LAX if they played ball with North Hollywood.

Best of all, economic incentives would mean that government services could be provided at the scale where they make the most sense. Adjoining cities might choose to merge their police departments, as some small cities around Los Angeles are talking about, even as the cities themselves remain independent. Thus, the advantages of both big and small cities could be realized by the residents.

*

The idea of breaking up Los Angeles wholesale is not without its problems. The example of Orange County suggests that in some cases where there is no dominant city, the county government might assume the bulk of political power. Some safeguards would have to be imposed to assure that the county operated on a level playing field as well. If that were done, perhaps the county could begin talking with the cities about how to jointly impose health-care delivery systems, as is occurring in Solano County.

Maybe shattering L.A. into a multitude of cities isn’t the best idea. After all, there’s still much to be said for being part of a region’s largest and dominant city. But shattering Los Angeles is surely a better alternative to the Valley’s frustration than simply seceding.