Voting on Secession

* The Times’ Feb. 23 editorial “Secession Merits a Citywide Vote” urges elimination of the City Council’s ability to veto the Valley becoming a separate city. However, The Times wants to impose a citywide vote on the question--in addition to the vote of Valley residents.

There are two reasons The Times’ position is wrong and harmful.

First, a citywide vote is not needed to protect residents of the areas that will remain as Los Angeles. State law already provides that any division of the city can only take place if it is economically feasible. The division cannot adversely affect the residents of the new city or the remaining portion of Los Angeles.

The second reason a citywide vote is bad is that it substitutes a City Council veto with another veto. If the residents outside the Valley are protected by state law, why should they have a right to stop the Valley from becoming a new city?

When West Hollywood and Malibu became separate cities, the voters in other areas of the county did not have to approve the new cities.

What is the real reason politicians are lobbying for a citywide vote? The real reason is that they know they cannot stop secession in the Valley. Therefore they hope they can kill it by getting other areas of the city to defeat the division.

Elected officials and The Times should acknowledge the facts:

* Los Angeles is too big to be responsive.

* Residents are moving out of Los Angeles to smaller, better-managed communities.

* The rebuilding of Los Angeles will start with the Valley becoming a separate city focused on making this area a better place to raise your family and operate your business.

RICHARD H. CLOSE

Sherman Oaks

Close is president of Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.