Tom McClintock

Earlier this year, then-state Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills) introduced a bill to help clear the way for San Fernando Valley secession from Los Angeles. Boland’s bill made it through the Republican-controlled Assembly with much fanfare before dying in a state Senate committee in August.

Term limits prevented Boland from seeking reelection in the 38th District, which straddles the San Fernando and Simi valleys. But Boland’s successor, Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), reintroduced her bill on just his second day in office this month, calling it “Boland II in its original and pristine form.”

McClintock, 40, who lives in Northridge, served as a state assemblyman for parts of Ventura County from 1982 to 1992. He lost a bid for Congress in 1992 and state controller in 1994 and has spent the last four years working as a lobbyist for the National Tax Limitation Foundation and as a budget-reduction analyst with the Claremont Institute.

* * *

*

Question: You have accused the city of Los Angeles of being abusive and dysfunctional toward the San Fernando Valley. What do you believe are the most glaring examples of this?

Answer: That’s a decision for the Valley to make. The issue is not about secession. It’s about the right of a community to decide for itself what kind of government it is going to have.

This is a right that was taken away in 1977, when city councils [in California] were given the power to arbitrarily block such proposals. This bill is simply seeking to restore to communities a right that was taken away from them 20 years ago.

That said, I have heard a number of complaints from Valley residents, ranging from the amount of tax revenue they send out compared to the paucity of revenue that comes back to their community. There is also the issue of police enforcement levels, which are about half of what they are in other parts of the city.

Q: Do you feel that down the road, if secession were to occur, Joe Taxpayer in the Valley would be better off?

A: I think once the right of self-determination is restored, the attitude of the bureaucracy will change rather dramatically. The ultimate check on an abusive or dysfunctional government is the ability of the people to walk away from it. Once that right is restored, I suspect there will be a very sudden and beneficial change in the attitude of the city bureaucracy toward those communities.

Q: Unlike the last session, the Democrats now control the state Assembly. Realistically, do you think the bill has a chance of passing?

A: I think it has a much better chance this coming year than last. First, it’s not just the Valley behind this anymore. Community independence movements are now springing up in Venice, South-Central and Hollywood--to name just a few.

Second, many legislative leaders are becoming very aware of the intensity of feelings on this issue. The San Fernando Valley has a constituency of over 1 million people, which is not an insignificant thing to any politician considering a run for statewide office.

Finally, I think the city bureaucracy mobilized very quickly against the bill in the last session, and the popular voice wasn’t heard until very late in the debate. Many legislators made snap judgments, which upon reflection, they may very well change. I certainly don’t consider [Democratic state Senate President Pro Tem] Bill Lockyer as an adversary on this issue. I consider him a potential ally.

Q: So you feel you can turn this into a bipartisan issue?

A: It already is a bipartisan issue. In the last session, it had the bipartisan support of the elected legislators from the San Fernando Valley, and I strongly suspect that as we see many diverse communities seek independence, any partisan aspects of the bill will evaporate.

Los Angeles is now like the old Soviet Union, holding many captive communities against their will. Hollywood was an independent city until L.A. captured it. So was Venice until 1925, Watts until 1926 and San Pedro and Wilmington were also independent until they were gobbled up by the city in 1909.

People want to be free. They want to freely choose their own form of local government.

Q: One of the foremost obstacles to your bill will be whether secession would be voted on by the entire city or only the Valley. Why do you believe only the Valley should vote?

A: It’s not the business of people in Hollywood what kind of local government the people in Chatsworth wish to have, and vice versa. Furthermore, under this [bill] secession cannot be voted on until LAFCO [the Local Agency Formation Commission] determines that it’s revenue-neutral on the remaining city. So, by definition, the only area affected by secession is the community seeking independence.

So, those who argue that the entire city should vote because the entire city is affected don’t understand the issue.

Q: What do you think of the movement to reform the L.A. City Charter?

A: A concern I have is the many diversionary tactics the city has employed to derail the issue. As Paula Boland discovered late in the last session, these are not serious proposals, but rather excuses. When she amended her bill to provide for a full citywide vote, the same individuals who had been demanding that amendment still defeated the bill. It was [also] proposed we should study the detachment, ignoring the fact that LAFCO conducts such a study before a vote on secession could take place. So I have discovered that much of the talk over city charter reform is just a diversionary excuse.

Q: Do you think there is any chance city charter reform will be accomplished--and that it could help the Valley?

A: I think Will and Ariel Durant answered that question in their [writings about the] history of civilization. They asked, “What makes Ford a good car?” The answer: Chevrolet. Competition. If people have restored to them the right to choose, they will have automatically achieved the goal of a highly responsive city government.

For example, I look at the very significant and harmful friction between the residents of South-Central Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department. If the people of South-Central had their own city, I think they would have a much more responsive police department without the frictions we have seen for the past 20 years.

Q: It sounds like you believe that L.A. has gotten way too big for its own good.

A: It’s the nature of all bureaucracies to grow unchecked until they reach a point where they become so large and so indolent that they become obstacles to the very ends they were trying to serve. That tendency is disciplined in the private-sector bureaucracies by competition. If the quality of the goods slips, service declines or the cost increases, customers always have somewhere else to go.