Lockyer Bows to Pressure, Drops Secession Bill

Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer Monday withdrew his bill to ease the path of San Fernando Valley secession--costing the secession movement its most powerful supporter in state government--because some Los Angeles senators protested against a northerner “messing in L.A. politics,” he said.

The surprise announcement came at a rare private meeting of Republican and Democratic senators from the Los Angeles area and less than a week after Lockyer and the coauthors of an Assembly bill on the same subject seemed to be near compromise on a joint measure--appearing to strengthen its prospects.

The Hayward Democrat’s withdrawal from the secession-bill wars was unexpected because he had expended significant political capital promising Valley leaders that he would stand behind them in trying to change current law. He is expected to run for state attorney general next year.

As the law stands, secession is virtually impossible because the Los Angeles City Council can veto any insurgent groups seeking to form a new city. The bills debated in Sacramento would strip the council of that power.

A coauthor of a competing secession bill, Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), is one of many close to the issue who were stunned to learn of Lockyer’s announcement.

“I was very surprised,” McClintock said.

Without Lockyer’s bill in the mix, the Assembly measure sponsored by McClintock and Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks), which has already passed the Assembly, is in the best position to win favor in the Senate, though that is by no means certain.

A separate, more controversial bill by Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar) is pending in the Assembly.

McClintock and Hertzberg had been working closely with Lockyer on melding their two bills when Lockyer pulled the plug Monday, without notifying them.

“It’s just too divisive within my own caucus,” Lockyer said in an interview. “There are too many strongly held views about the matter.”

At the meeting with Lockyer Monday, some Los Angeles lawmakers, including Sens. Diane Watson and Richard Polanco, voiced continuing opposition to such legislation.

“He was jumped all over for getting into L.A. politics . . . and he said, ‘I’ve had it,’ ” said Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles), a supporter of the secession bills who attended the meeting.

Lockyer predicted the McClintock-Hertzberg bill will pass the Senate, even without his active assistance.

A Lockyer spokesman said that, unlike last year, when he engineered the failure of former Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland’s secession measure, he will do nothing to impede the McClintock-Hertzberg bill.

McClintock also said he is optimistic of Senate approval, noting his bill passed the Assembly 74-1.

“I’m still very confident based on strong bipartisan support in the Assembly, that the measure will be successful,” McClintock said.

The key difference between the Lockyer and McClintock-Hertzberg measures was the Lockyer bill’s mandate for a study of the impacts of secession on Los Angeles, a study that pro-secession forces did not want in any case.

Former U.S. Rep. Bobbi Fiedler, who has been involved in pro-secession efforts, called Lockyer’s move “a tremendous coup for Hertzberg and McClintock,” as well as a boon to those who prefer a simple approach to secession.

“This has the potential to be a real asset to us,” Fiedler said.

“As long as he doesn’t withdraw support for getting rid of the council veto, we will be OK,” said Jeff Brain, co-chairman of Valley VOTE, a group of activists backing the secession legislation.

Although Lockyer killed Valley secession legislation last summer, until Monday he had taken a leading role in supporting it in this session, meeting frequently with Valley leaders and promising to push through his measure, despite a personal aversion to secession.

But his efforts were not appreciated by some members of the Los Angeles-area legislative delegation.

Polanco said in an interview that during Monday’s meeting with Lockyer, he expressed his opposition to “any effort that would ultimately lead to the breakup of the great city of Los Angeles.”

Watson said she questioned Lockyer’s use of his leadership position to benefit a law that affected only one part of the state--one he does not represent.

“If you’re going to use the power of the state Senate pro tem office, it ought to be for statewide” policy, Watson said in an interview.

Under such withering fire by Democratic allies in the caucus, Lockyer backed down.

“I thought I was constructively advancing a fair and enlightened policy,” Lockyer said after the meeting. “It’s just better that I step aside and let the other bills, the Assembly bills, proceed on their own.”

Watson said the “politics of all this has bearing” as Lockyer prepares to run for statewide office, hinting that black voters in central Los Angeles would not look favorably on Lockyer’s bid for the attorney general’s job next year if he facilitated the city’s breakup.

“It’s a deep, deep wound,” Watson said. “It’s a white-flight issue. . . . I don’t think a lot of people would forget it.”

Watson and Polanco said they will fight the McClintock-Hertzberg secession bill when it reaches the Senate floor. “The McClintock bill will come over and have a difficult time,” Polanco said.

Reaction to Lockyer’s announcement was mixed at Los Angeles City Hall, where debate over possible Valley secession has been heated, splitting the City Council along geographic lines.

The council’s official position since March has been to support any legislation that would eliminate the council’s power to veto a secession movement as long as all city residents can vote on a proposed breakup.

In the past, the council has supported nullifying its veto power if a citywide vote were taken but also insisted that any secession legislation apply to all cities in the state. The council also insisted that a full financial analysis be completed before a secession vote is taken.

Although McClintock’s bill is in line with the council’s position, some council members argued that the Lockyer bill was superior because it called for a full financial analysis before a vote could be taken.

“It’s unfortunate, because I think we do need a study,” said Councilman Richard Alarcon, who represents parts of the northeast Valley. “If you are going to break up the largest city in the state and create the two largest cities in the state, you should have an in-depth analysis.”

Council President John Ferraro, who lobbied state lawmakers last year against the secession bill offered by Boland, agreed.

“It’s foolhardy to put a decision before the voters without a study,” he said.

But Councilman Hal Bernson, who backed the Boland bill, said he is content with the McClintock bill because any secession effort will require a study by the Local Agency Formation Commission, of which he has been a member for 14 years.

However, Bernson said the debate may be moot because he believes the secession movement has lost its steam.

“I don’t know what is going to happen,” he said. “I don’t think there is enough leadership to do anything.”