Measure Puts City Officials on Spot

With the stroke of his pen, Gov. Pete Wilson on Sunday put city officials who represent the San Fernando Valley in the hot seat.

The governor’s signature on a bill that will make a Valley secession easier forced Los Angeles elected officials to do what politicians hate to do: Take sides on a controversial matter.

While a few elected officials stuck by their long-held opposition to a secession, several others were still sitting on the fence, perhaps trying to gauge the political winds before taking a position.

Although Mayor Richard Riordan has shifted positions on the secession bill several times over the past year, an aide said Sunday that the mayor plans to campaign against any secession effort.

“The mayor has consistently said that if this issue became eligible for the ballot he would campaign and lobby against it because he does not think it’s in the best interest for any part of the city to secede,” said Noelia Rodriguez, Riordan’s spokeswoman. The mayor was out of town.

But others are not ready to commit one way or another on secession--at least, not yet.

“My position is that we need more information before we can make a final determination,” said Councilman Richard Alarcon, who represents parts of the northeast Valley. Alarcon is vying for a state Senate seat next year.

Under the bill authored by Assemblymen Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) and Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), Valley secessionists must collect signatures from at least 20% of Valley voters. If that is accomplished, the Local Agency Formation Commission, a county agency that oversees secession matters, would be required to study the feasibility of a secession.

Several Valley council members, such as Alarcon, say they want to see the results of that study before taking a position.

“It’s too early to take a position on secession without the needed information,” said Karen Constine, chief of staff for Councilwoman Laura Chick, who represents parts of the West Valley. “We don’t have any information to determine if this is a good thing or a bad thing.”

Chick was also out of town.

Under the terms of the new law, LAFCO can kill a secession effort if studies show that a breakaway would financially hurt either the new Valley or the rest of Los Angeles.

Such studies could take up to two years to complete, allowing politicians to avoid taking a position until well into the future.

The drive for a secession is not new. Nearly 20 years ago, Valley activists unsuccessfully called for a breakaway from the city of Los Angeles. One of the leaders of that drive was businessman Hal Bernson, who is now a councilman representing the northwest Valley.

Bernson said he still thinks the Valley may be better off as a separate city, but he will wait to see if his constituents agree with him.

“I still feel that the Valley doesn’t get a fair shake,” he said. “But if the majority of the people want to go [and break away] that is what I will call for. If my constituents want to stay with the city, I will support them.”

Richard Close, co-chairman of Valley VOTE, a group that was formed to support the secession bill, said the reluctance of some city leaders to take a position is understandable.

Close helped lead the campaign to adopt Proposition 13, the landmark measure to slash property taxes that was adopted by state voters in 1978. He said politicians who opposed Proposition 13 felt the wrath of voters later.

“This is a recognition that, much like Prop. 13, this is something that is going to politically hurt anyone who jumps in front of it,” he said.

But some are willing to take a position.

Councilman Mike Feuer, whose district stretches from Van Nuys to Westwood, said he is adamantly opposed to secession and believes that city officials can quash the drive by responding to complaints that the Valley is ignored and underserved.

“I think our role is to assure the citizens that we are providing the best services possible,” he said. “I think that if we do that the idea of secession won’t pick up much support.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Secession Bill’s Long Journey

Former Republican Assemblywoman Paula Boland’s efforts to pass a Valley secession bill began more than three years ago. Her bill to eliminate the veto power the City Council had over secession requests was aimed at making it easier for the Valley to break away. In response to an earlier threat of Valley secession, the Legislature in 1977 gave city councils this veto power.

* Feb. 24, 1994: Boland introduces her first secession bill, AB 3370. Boland decides a couple of months later not to pursue the bill and instead focuses on legislation to break up the Los Angeles Unified School District.

* Aug. 2, 1995: Gov. Pete Wilson signs AB 107, sponsored by Boland, which lowers the number of signatures necessary to qualify the school district breakup proposal for the ballot from 386,000 registered voters to 72,000.

* Jan. 10, 1996: Boland revives efforts to ease Valley secession by introducing AB 2043.

* April 17, 1996: Assembly Local Government Committee passes the measure by a 5-0 vote.

* May 7, 1996: The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the Los Angeles City Council recommends the entire council oppose the Boland bill.

* May 9, 1996: Assembly passes AB 2043 by a 41-21 vote, catching the Democrats off guard.

* May 14, 1996: Los Angeles City Council votes 8 to 6 to oppose Boland’s bill.

* June 26, 1996: Bill approved 5 to 2 by the Senate Local Government Committee.

* Aug. 2, 1996: Democratic state Sen. Tom Hayden says he expects the bill, after sitting in the Senate Rules Committee for several weeks, to die in Sacramento and for Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan to personally pay for a petition drive to place a charter reform proposal before voters. A spokesman for Riordan says this “certainly would be one of the options” under consideration by the mayor.

* Aug. 6, 1996: Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer proposes amendments to the bill that would create a blue-ribbon commission to conduct a $1.2-million study of breaking up cities statewide and would require secession votes to be held citywide.

* Aug. 8, 1996: Riordan announces his support for a citizens panel to push charter reform and vows to help bankroll a signature- gathering drive asking voters to approve the panel. In Sacramento, Lockyer offers Boland a choice between sending her bill straight to a floor vote or to the Appropriations Committee for further study.

* Aug. 14, 1996: Boland exercises the option given to her by Lockyer and sends the bill as written to the Senate floor for a vote.

* Aug. 22, 1996: The legislation is narrowly defeated in the Senate. Although the vote was 19 to 18 in favor, the bill required 21 votes to pass. Advocates say they will try to get the measure approved in the future.

* Dec. 3, 1996: Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) and Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) introduce AB 62, which would remove city councils’ veto power over breakaway efforts, thus paving the way for San Fernando Valley secession.

* April 24, 1997: AB 62 passes the Assembly 74 to 1.

* Sept. 8, 1997: Senate passes the bill 23 to 5.

* Oct. 12, 1997: Wilson signs AB 62 into law.