Wilson Signs Bill That Could Ease Valley Secession

Concluding a two-year, white-knuckle ride in the state Legislature, the popularly named Valley Secession Bill was signed Sunday by Gov. Pete Wilson, giving dissatisfied urbanites in Los Angeles and throughout the state the right to vote on whether they want to form new cities.

“This bill . . . is something that has been sought by the residents of the San Fernando Valley now for I’d say about a quarter of a century,” Wilson said at a signing ceremony in his Capitol office, where he was surrounded by lawmakers from the Valley. “I have a feeling that there will be celebration there.”

Valley supporters of secession have promised to act swiftly. They are poised to launch a petition drive, the first step in the arduous process that could lead to separation from Los Angeles.

Some residents of other areas of Los Angeles--the Harbor area and Venice, to name two--have also expressed interest in forming new cities.

The bill (AB 62) removes city council veto power over so-called detachment petitions submitted by an area of a city. It requires separate majority votes in both the entire city and the area affected, and also requires a finding that both the new and original cities would be financially sound.

Although the impetus for the bill came from the San Fernando Valley, the governor, in deciding whether to sign the legislation, had to wrestle with its impact on all of California, amid strong opposition from cities throughout the state.

Opponents of the bill, including the powerful League of California Cities, argued that the elimination of city councils’ veto power over secession attempts would give rise to a wholesale severing of suburban communities from their urban cores.

Wilson concluded that getting rid of the veto is as valid for the whole state as it is for the Valley and the rest of Los Angeles.

City government, the governor said, must be accountable to the people, and the change in the law represents a “welcome and overdue return to majority rule and citizen self-determination.”

By signing the bill, the state law reverts to what it had been for nearly a century until the city council veto was put into place by the Legislature in 1977 to quell separatist rumblings in San Jose.

The measure becomes law Jan. 1.

*

The governor emphasized that although the new law makes secession possible, it by no means makes it probable.

Noting the many hurdles that must be surmounted before a secession effort can reach the ballot, Wilson said: “This is a bill that permits detachment, but it doesn’t make it easy. . . . There are many, many requirements.”

One of the safeguards is that any municipal split must be revenue-neutral for both the breakaway and remaining parts of the city.

Moreover, any secession requires a dual-majority vote of approval: Voters across the entire city, as well as those in the area seeking to secede, must approve any split by a majority vote.

After that voting provision was added to the bill this year, the Los Angeles City Council supported the legislation. Mayor Richard Riordan voiced support for the bill before the requirement was added.

Although the change in the law only makes it possible to start a secession effort, Valley lawmakers were thrilled to have the bill signed after a two-year effort.

At the least, they say, they have won the leverage needed to make the City Council pay attention to the area’s complaints about being underserved.

Not all of the reaction to the signing of the bill was positive.

An aide to Riordan 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.

And 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.”

Wilson presented signed copies of the bill to former Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland, who started the effort but could not get the bill passed last year, as well as to the bipartisan team that succeeded this year--Assembly members Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) and Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks).

“This is Independence Day come in October,” McClintock said. “It’s common in history for people to lose power to the government. It’s a rare instance when government loses power to the people.”

Hertzberg said the bill had been widely misinterpreted as divisive, when it in fact stands for people “simply searching for a more responsive government.”

“I am not a secessionist,” Hertzberg said, “but if we can’t find in Los Angeles a way to rewrite our city Charter to make our government more responsive, I may become one.”

Boland said she had given up hope after last year’s bruising battle, which pitted her against Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward). His help with the bill this year was in sharp contrast to his successful effort to kill it the first time around. (In a news release, Wilson praised Lockyer for his help in moving the bill through the Senate.)

But Valley residents did not lose hope, Boland said. “They didn’t forget something was wrong. Democracy was taken away from them.”

Wilson’s signing left local Valley activists such as Jeff Brain “elated.”

As co-chairman of a group formed to lobby for the bill, Brain testified frequently in Sacramento as the measure’s fortunes rose and fell--sometimes on the same day.

“This has been a long, hard-fought battle to get this through,” Brain said. “The opposition threw everything they had at us but we prevailed.”

While Valley activists savored the victory, Brain’s co-chairman, Richard Close, was looking forward: “I’m relieved but I recognize that a lot of work lies ahead. This is the start of a process, not the end of a process.”

*

Times staff writer Hugo Martin contributed to this story