Politics Prompted Resurrection of Secession Bill

When legislation aimed at giving the Valley a chance to break away from Los Angeles fizzled last August, many Capitol watchers predicted the issue was as dead as the Delta air on that muggy summer night the bill was done in.

What a difference six months--and an election--make.

Not only is the issue back this year, it is back on the fast track. Many Democrats and Republicans say they expect a bill to whiz through the Legislature.

The story of how last session’s Little Engine That Couldn’t became this year’s bullet train involves politics and policy. Some key lawmakers have also expressed newfound reservations about why the City Council’s 15 members hold veto power over an entire area that may want to incorporate as a municipality.

“When the choice is [whether] a small group of people decides or everyone votes, it’s hard not to take the populist view,” said state Sen. President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward).

Portrayed last year as the person who killed the secession bill sponsored by then-Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills), Lockyer now has his own secession measure, which eliminates the City Council veto.

Lockyer’s bill also calls for a commission to study the impact of splitting up Los Angeles and a separate commission to study detachment and incorporation law as state policy.

“Breaking up cities is . . . a fair thing to talk about,” Lockyer said Tuesday.

Lockyer’s bill has its first policy committee hearing today in the Local Government Committee, where it is expected to meet approval and move to the Rules Committee for a second hearing.

Besides the powerful Lockyer, a mostly new crew of eager Valley lawmakers is bringing the issue to the fore again.

On the Legislature’s second day this session, Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) introduced the same bill Boland fought for.

But in contrast to the party squabbling that marked last year’s secession battle, Democrat Bob Hertzberg, another new Valley legislator, got together with McClintock.

They worked out a compromise and are co-sponsoring the kind of bill they both believe has a chance of winning approval.

“We’re going to get some form of a secession bill this year,” Hertzberg said.

A third Valley Assemblyman, Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar), has his own measure pending. He seeks two-thirds approval by voters in the Valley in order for secession to succeed.

The passionate opposition to the bill last year by the powerful Latino Caucus also has dissipated.

Assembly Majority Leader Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), an ardent and eloquent foe of the secession effort last year, is now willing to support a bill.

“The time is now for the Legislature to step in and forge a compromise that the shareholders think is fair and move on,” Villaraigosa said.

“We need to get beyond this debate on secession and get to the real debate--how we work to get government closer, more responsive and relevant to the people.”

Even the city of Los Angeles, which lobbied mightily against the Boland bill last year, has softened its stance, provided that the entire city would get to vote on whether the Valley could separate.

The question of who should vote on secession was the key sticking point last year. Boland sought a Valley-only vote, while Lockyer and other Democrats balked.

A citywide vote is a feature of all but one of several competing bills this year. “A citywide vote is almost a given,” Lockyer said. “That’s changed the debate.”

Politics was also a factor last session, Lockyer concedes.

Democrats did not trust Boland’s motives, because she was running for state Senate and they were not about to let her have a big win, especially because they had their eye on the seat she sought.

Boland lost the election and now is sitting on the sidelines as her plan to bring “self-determination” to the Valley moves toward reality.

Away from the nasty tone of last year’s fight between Lockyer and Boland, Valley civic leaders who back the legislation--but not necessarily secession itself--approached legislators one by one and won them over.

The long arm of term limits, which has some key legislators looking toward statewide office, helped their cause.

Looking ahead to his forced retirement from the Senate in 1998, Lockyer is planning to run for California attorney general. The vote-rich San Fernando Valley plays a key role in carrying any state election.

Although many legislators say Lockyer’s support will be what carries the legislation through, he said Tuesday there could be a few snags, including the question of whether Gov. Pete Wilson would sign a bill that includes a $1.2-million appropriation for a study. But Lockyer professes to be flexible on that point.

And what is Lockyer’s own view of whether the “great city” of Los Angeles should be divided?

“If it ever does go to a vote of the people, I would hope Los Angeles would turn it down,” he said.

* CITY REACTS: Council vote lays groundwork for compromise. B4