VOTE Should Pay Its Way

In the end, the most important signature in the petition drive pushing a study of San Fernando Valley secession came from Gov. Pete Wilson. The governor last week signed legislation granting Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment, or VOTE, an additional three months to gather the 135,000 signatures it needs to force a study of the breakup of Los Angeles--assuring the drive’s success.

As bruising as the first phase of VOTE’s campaign was, the next promises to be even more contentious, even more full of hyperbole and even more destructive to the civic spirit of Los Angeles. Why? Because now the folly comes with a price tag that no one wants to pay. VOTE’s demand that the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, examine the feasibility of Valley cityhood does not come cheap. Officials estimate that the study would cost at least $1 million--and probably much more after the lawyers get involved.

No one knows who would pick up the tab. LAFCO, a state-mandated agency funded by the county and city, doesn’t have the money. At $1 million, the study would cost more than three times LAFCO’s annual budget of $322,000. County and city officials don’t think they should have to cough up money to support VOTE’s agenda. And less than a week before granting VOTE an extra three months to collect signatures, Wilson vetoed $340,000 in state money that would have defrayed the costs.

Finally, VOTE leaders say they should not be held responsible for the costs. Their reasoning: When other communities such as Calabasas and Santa Clarita incorporated, LAFCO picked up the relatively minor study costs. But those were far less complicated. And, as VOTE leaders themselves point out when it suits them, the simultaneous detachment and incorporation of a region the size of the Valley has never been done before. None of the laws on the books deals specifically with the kind of mass municipal defection envisioned by VOTE.

The funding vetoed by Wilson would have provided some clarity because the legislation would have required the city and county to come up with the rest. Absent that, this newspaper does not believe the public should have to bear the entire cost of VOTE’s study. LAFCO director Larry Calemine has said in the past that the petitioners should be responsible for all costs. Technically and legally, VOTE is not a petitioner--a convenience it uses to dodge responsibility. In reality, though, this is VOTE’s campaign. The group and its financial supporters should be prepared to pay the bulk of the expenses, with contributions of 25% each from the city and county.

Without a trace of irony, VOTE leaders compare themselves to the Founding Fathers of the United States. Yet unlike the men who boldly signed their names to the Declaration of Independence, VOTE leaders refuse to release the names of who pays its bills beyond a few key donors--including Galpin Ford owner Herbert Boeckmann, attorney David Fleming and the Daily News, VOTE’s single largest contributor. Before the public is asked to pay for anything, it should know who’s asking. And why.

VOTE leaders claim their drive is only about getting the facts. But that’s a lot like visiting a divorce lawyer to calculate a financial statement. A LAFCO feasibility study is the first step toward breaking the city in half. All the study must do is show that the Valley could support itself financially without harming the rest of the city. The key word: feasible. “Feasible” in politics is like “reasonable” in law--it’s open to interpretation and negotiation. The LAFCO study process is an inherently political process. Even without a multimillion-dollar study, we can say safely that a Valley city is feasible financially.

Whether it’s wise is another matter. This newspaper opposes secession. Secessionists point out that the Valley sends more sales tax dollars downtown than it gets back, that the Valley has fewer police officers per 1,000 people than other parts of the city, that government is unresponsive to the needs of neighborhoods. Where does this tit-for-tat end? Should other parts of the city bring out the calculator to complain about how much more electricity the Valley uses on hot days? Or should other parts of the city start complaining about the vastly superior open space and tax-supported parkland available in the Valley?

And there’s not any part of Los Angeles that wouldn’t rightly assert that its local government is unresponsive. Fixing that is the goal of two commissions--one elected, one appointed--working to reform the city’s charter.

The things that make residents most angry never pop up in a LAFCO study, which deals strictly with the financial aspects. Answers to questions such as how a new city would be governed go unanswered by LAFCO studies. Yet charter reform attempts to answer them. Rather than participate fully in a democratic redrawing of the charter to strengthen Los Angeles, secessionists want residents to drop the dream of a great city and follow the Pied Piper to a blurry vision of the future. Why should the rest of us pay for that?