As Far as VICA Is Concerned, the MTA Has Some Dues to Pay

The price of admission is going up just about everywhere these days. For drastic proof, look no further than the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn.

On Monday, the group’s executive committee decided to allow the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to join VICA, provided that the agency coughed up the membership fee set by the committee. After some deliberation, the panel came up with an amount: $1.3 billion.

Never mind that the sum is an increase of more than 2,000,000% from VICA’s original offer of $550. Or that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, one of VICA’s first members, pays even less than that. Or that private employers of the MTA’s size ordinarily fork over about $4,000 in annual dues. VICA leaders contend that they’ve extended a modest proposal that matches how much Valley residents have paid in transportation taxes since 1980 in exchange for virtually nothing in rapid mass transit.

“You think that’s a little high?” joked VICA President Bonny Herman. She acknowledged that the offer was “just really theater” but said it represents her organization’s frustration over the MTA’s failure to bring new public transportation to the Valley in the face of repeated promises.

In essence, VICA is rescinding its offer of membership, which the coalition and the MTA have discussed since the end of June, Herman said. Part of the reason is also political: VICA has been outspoken in its criticism of the transit authority for years.

“It didn’t seem to make sense to take them in and to bash them later on,” Herman said.

Despite the privileges of membership, the MTA, even with its history of questionable expenditures, probably won’t shell out the $1.3 billion, given its looming budget shortfall. That’s “probably,” since MTA spokesman Ed Scannell on Thursday could find no one in the behemoth agency who knew about the VICA discussions--or could definitively refuse the $1.3-billion offer.

Valley Guy

It wasn’t “Two Days in the Valley,” but at least it was half that. Mayor Richard Riordan ventured over the hill Tuesday to spend an entire day out in the San Fernando Valley, where he did everything from swat baseballs with kids to attend roll call with newly appointed Police Chief Bernard C. Parks.

What gives? According to his press secretary, Noelia Rodriguez, the mayor is simply making good on his campaign promises in the past to include the Valley in the life and times of City Hall.

“We’re just putting his money where his mouth is,” Rodriguez said. “For so long the Valley was ignored. He wants to turn that around.”

It’s a fact that Valley voters helped vault Riordan into the mayor’s office. As a two-term mayor, however, his campaigning is now over. Or is it? Rumors have flown in recent weeks about Republican leaders encouraging Riordan to run for governor next year to succeed Pete Wilson. The Valley would be key to that effort.

But Riordan has stated that he has no interest in the state’s top job, the contest for which could pit him against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat.

“I’d have to hear first of all that she made a decision not to run before he’d even think of considering it,” said Allan Hoffenblum, a veteran GOP political consultant. “The people around [Riordan] are strong Feinstein people, and Feinstein endorsed him for mayor.”

At any rate, Riordan will continue to traipse through the Valley “as often as his schedule allows,” Rodriguez said. His next major visit is scheduled for Sept. 23 for a meeting with West Valley business leaders.

Secession Follies

When it comes to the Valley secession bill, Roseanne Roseannadana had it right: “If it’s not one thing, it’s another.”

Take this week: Just as the secession bill was freed from one form of bureaucratic purgatory, another arm of government chimed in with unexpected opposition.

Neither glitch is considered serious by the bill’s authors, Assembly members Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) and Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks).

Hertzberg said Thursday that he expects the legislation to pass and be signed by the governor--even though it was the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research that came out against the measure this week.

“They’re getting pressure from other cities,’ Hertzberg said. “There’s never been any indication a veto is coming there.”

McClintock Chief of Staff Scott Wilk agreed. “We’re not worried at all,” he said. “It’s a rogue report from some bureaucrat.”

Nancy Patton, deputy director at the Office of Planning and Research, acknowledged that the League of California Cities and individual municipalities are lobbying against the bill.

They are worried that if the bill applies statewide, as it does now, their cities would be vulnerable to secession requests that would weaken their economic base.

This kind of opposition is just what other opponents of the bill hoped to generate when the provision to have it apply statewide was added earlier this year.

Originally, the bill was written for Los Angeles only. It removes the veto power of city councils over requests to separate from one city and form a new one.

Patton explains that while the governor listens to their opinions, their opposition to a bill “doesn’t mean it’s a slam-dunk veto.”

And the bill’s sponsors are countering the opposition with lobbying of their own, so the opinion could be reconsidered, Patton said.

The bill, meanwhile, returns to the front burner in Sacramento next week, when it will be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

That puts it back on course after a glitch developed last week that could have sent it back to another committee for a rehearing on new amendments. The problem will be resolved by dropping the amendments, then adding them back at the Appropriations Committee hearing itself.

The earliest the hearing on the bill could be scheduled is Monday afternoon, but it could be delayed until later in the week by the committee’s schedule.

Because of a backlog of legislation held up by the delay in passing the budget, the secession bill (AB 62) is one of hundreds that will pass through the Appropriations Committee’s hands next week.

*

QUOTABLE: “This is a critical, critical step in making it much more likely that people who are paying rent month after month have a place that is clean, safe and sanitary.”

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, on a new law that gives property owners just 48 hours to fix dangerous conditions.