Valley Latinos Would Suffer in Secession, Panelists Say

Latinos in the San Fernando Valley could lose political clout and struggle paying for pricier government services if the Valley secedes from Los Angeles, panelists at a community forum said Saturday.

With Latinos making up one-third of the Valley’s 1.6 million residents and playing an increasingly pivotal role in the region’s elections, Latino activists’ feelings on secession could prove critical to the fate of the breakaway movement.

In a five-hour forum organized for Latino community leaders to weigh the impact of Valley secession, participants on three panels predicted largely negative consequences for Latino empowerment, the local economy and social services. The forum did not include Valley VOTE, the group pushing for a study and possible vote on breaking away from Los Angeles.

Several panelists strongly suggested that formation of a separate Valley city would dilute Latinos’ political power, and drive up utility rates, hitting lower-income communities such as the northeast Valley the hardest.

“Why this push to secede?” asked panelist Anton Calleia, a top assistant to former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. “To make zoning changes easier? Maybe. To deny minorities their share of political power? Maybe and possibly.”

Thomas Hogen-Esch, a researcher for the elected charter commission, cited his study which noted that based on figures from the 1990 census, a Valley city would be 58% white, compared with the whole of Los Angeles, which was just 37% white.

Valley VOTE leaders have previously criticized conclusions drawn from that study that secession may be a byproduct of racial division.

“Latinos in the Valley would go from an emerging majority to a clear minority,” Hogen-Esch told the audience. “And they would [compromise] relations with other Latinos on the other side of the hill.”

Many of the 50 politicians and activists in attendance said that what they heard at “Exploring Valley Secession: What Does it Mean for Us?” raised more questions than it answered. But they praised the grass-roots forum as the type of independent discussion needed to evaluate the divisive topic. The participants included Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar) and state Sen.-elect Richard Alarcon, a former city councilman.

“Information never hurt anyone,” said Antonio M. Lopez, a Los Angeles Boy Scouts leader. “Only when the people realize the effect of secession on their families and their businesses, maybe they can make an informed decision.”

The forum at San Fernando High School set off a political powder keg earlier this week when Valley VOTE learned it was not among those welcome to participate at the invitational event. With help from paid petitioners, Valley VOTE recently finished gathering 205,000 signatures--far more than the 132,000 required to spur a secession study. The signatures have yet to be verified. If the study shows secession is economically feasible, the issue could be on the ballot as early as 2000.

Organizers said they did not invite Valley VOTE because they were wary of the motives of some of its leaders, and charged that secession appeared to have divisive racial implications. Before they meet with the secession group, the forum’s organizers wanted to discuss the issues themselves. Members of both commissions working to reform the City Charter, as well as an aide to Mayor Richard Riordan, were invited to serve as panelists.

Valley VOTE leaders responded by accusing the forum’s organizers of being beholden to Los Angeles Latino leaders who opposed secession at the expense of the Latino communities they say they represent. Upon learning of the flap, San Fernando Mayor Raul Godinez II announced he would not attend the event, calling it ironic that Latinos, who have complained of being denied access to such forums in the past, would deny others.

But Valley VOTE president Jeff Brain and the forum’s organizers patched up their differences Friday, with the secession group agreeing to honor the independence of the forum.

“We don’t begrudge them for that,” Brain said Friday. “As we get going, there could be some meetings between us. The more this is discussed, the better.”

Nevertheless, some of the panelists Saturday said they were offended by Brain’s earlier remarks and could not ignore them, regardless of the neutral stance adopted by organizers.

“I found his comments paternalistic at best, but racist at worst,” David Diaz, a staff analyst with the elected charter commission, said to great applause from the audience.