Secession Economics

* Re “Bipartisan Valley Secession Bill Launched,” Feb. 14.

After reading today’s article on the Valley’s continued attempt to secede from the city of Los Angeles, I harken back a few months to recall the City Council’s opposition to such a measure.

If I recall correctly, the City Council’s position was that the Valley was not subsidizing services provided elsewhere in the city. Their position was that the Valley received as much “bang for its buck” as anywhere else in the city.

Do City Council members really believe this? Do they really expect those of us who live in the Valley to believe this? And if this proposition were true, why should the City Council care if the Valley seceded? The loss of tax revenues generated by Valley businesses and homeowners would be offset by the decreased cost to the city of providing services to the Valley. The city could then concentrate its efforts on city problems and leave us ingrates in the Valley to handle our own problems with schools, crime, municipal services, etc.

The bottom line is this: Since the Valley does, in fact, subsidize services the city provides to the inner city, Hollywood, etc., the city stands to lose quite a bit if the Valley secedes. The savings that the city expects to receive from the Valley’s secession will not be sufficient to offset the lost revenue. If the opposite were the case, the Valley would not want to secede, and the city would bid it good riddance. The city of Los Angeles needs the Valley; the Valley does not need the city of Los Angeles.

MICHAEL J. ALLEGRETTI

Northridge