The Drive to Secede

Initiating what could become one of the most significant developments in the city’s history, hundreds of volunteers have begun gathering signatures for a petition drive that could eventually detach the San Fernando Valley from Los Angeles and form it into its own municipality.

Although many of those involved in the petition drive see it as an informational effort, one which initiates a study that will help determine if Valley cityhood is viable, others see it as the beginning of a full-fledged secession movement. One of those is Richard Close, longtime president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. and co-chair of Valley VOTE (Voters Organized Toward Empowerment), the group behind the signature gathering effort. Members of the group generally view the city as unresponsive to the needs of local citizens and say the Valley doesn’t receive its fair share of services.

On the other side of the issue is Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles city councilman whose district encompasses portions of the Valley and Westside. While conceding that there is a growing sense of distance between residents and their elected representatives, Feuer is a supporter of city charter reform and favors that approach over a breakup of the city. The Times recently spoke to both of them about the secession effort.

* * *

Question: As a homeowner association president, have you had personal experiences with an unresponsive city bureaucracy?

Richard Close: It was clear that in the ‘70s and ‘80s, the city was highly responsive to the developers of the city but not responsive to the homeowners and the residents of the city. In the ‘90s it became clear that the city was highly responsive to the municipal labor unions but not responsive to the residential and business community. So City Hall was just out of contact. The cable television channel that broadcasts the City Council meetings was very helpful in that regard.

*

Q: How was television helpful?

Close: It shows the City Council in action. It shows that during meetings they talk on the phone, they talk among themselves, they walk around. No one listens. People take a day off from work to go down to express their point of view on a particular project, and no one listens. It’s the quality of our representation. There are probably three or four people who are extremely good elected officials. But for the most part, the caliber of City Hall is poor.

*

Q: The petition that will initiate detachment proceedings states that an independent Valley would be more efficient. How is that going to happen?

Close: First of all, the petition calls for studies on these issues. Some people involved in Valley VOTE want answers to questions. They’re not necessarily advocating separate cities. Personally, I believe that a separate city will be much more efficient. I look at the amount of layering of governments in the city of Los Angeles, where it appears that everyone’s a manager of someone else. The number of people actually doing the work is minuscule compared to the number of managers of managers of managers of managers. And that’s a function of just size and the power of the municipal unions to control the structure. So there is a more efficient way for the Valley to operate and the Local Agency Formation Commission, in its studies, I believe, will be able to indicate that to be the case.

*

Q: Much has been made about the Valley losing its water rights if it secedes. How will that be resolved?

Close: I think water is the same issue as the streets and the same issue as the police department. If cityhood is enacted by the voters, it’s much like a divorce. The assets of the city, or liabilities of the city, will be divided up between the new city and the old city. One of the assets is the water rights. I would envision that there would be a joint powers agreement or there would be a co-sharing of those rights. Those who oppose the issue will use it as a red herring to cause problems. But ultimately it will be decided favorably.

*

Q: Do you think that if the Valley were incorporated it would have the same kind of clout in Sacramento and Washington as the city of Los Angeles does?

Close: I think there would be more clout. Take the issue of transit dollars. Right now, the city of Los Angeles goes to Washington, as Mayor [Richard] Riordan did recently. And he argues that Los Angeles is the second-largest city in the country and they’re entitled to a certain amount. The problem is that this money comes back, and over the last few years has been principally going to non-Valley areas. Now, once the Valley becomes a city, the sixth-biggest city in the country, its mayor will go back with the mayor of the new Los Angeles, which will be the third-largest. Both mayors will be arguing for dollars, and I believe that both will end up getting more en toto than is coming to the city now. But more importantly, 100% of what comes to the Valley will stay in the Valley.

*

Q: What do you think of the city charter reform efforts?

Close: At the request of Mayor Riordan, I co-signed the ballot measure for the elected charter reform commission. I believe in charter reform. I think the city that remains after the division should have a charter that works. And in the small chance that we’re not successful, I think that we need to have a new charter that affects the Valley positively. Whether we’re going to get anything, I am pessimistic. As has been reported, the elected charter reform commission is dominated by members elected by and endorsed by and supported by municipal unions. They’re interested in high pay, large numbers of employees and the status quo. So I don’t think much is going to come out of that. The appointed commission is dominated by the people who appointed them, which is the City Council whose members also want the status quo and do not want to give up power.

*

Q: What in your mind would constitute meaningful charter reform?

Close: I think the general public is not concerned about how much power the mayor has and how many votes the council has. People who study government are very concerned about it. But to the general public, it’s a nonissue. I think what’s important to them is, can they have meaningful input in their community. The only way they can have it is either to increase the number of City Council members to 50 or 60, which politically won’t happen, or set up elected neighborhood councils, councils with authority. Not advisory. You don’t have to change the charter to set up advisory groups. They’re all over the city. People don’t get involved in them because they know that they have no clout, there’s no ability to implement the decisions. Council people set them up so they can diffuse an issue, and then when everyone has lost sight of the issue, they just do whatever they want. So advisory means nothing. It has to be elected with authority.

*

Q: If they operate as you think they should, could elected neighborhood councils be an alternative to secession?

Close: The only proposal that I’ve seen that would have a meaningful chance of reducing the viability of cityhood is the borough system. A borough system would give the Valley the right to spend the money it raises, to make decisions on land use. It would be a mini-city. We would be able to decide, do we want more police, or do we want more street paving? You make decisions on how to spend the money. That would protect against the money being diverted, although we would have to divert some of it for administrative costs. But most of it would stay in the Valley. But none of the charter commissions are talking about boroughs because both commissions are focused on giving power to downtown.

*

Q: Are you optimistic about your petition drive?

Close: Yes. The poll we conducted was shocking. I understand that it was shocking in City Hall as well. I realized that the general public doesn’t have time to follow these esoteric issues, and that’s why car chases are so popular on TV. Not more than 50% of the public even reads the newspaper, and there are no car chases associated with cityhood. So I thought when the poll numbers came back as to how many people were aware of the issues, it would probably be in the 30% to 40% range. But to get 94%, it was striking. It showed 2-to-1 that the public was in favor of cityhood. It showed that even if taxes were increased, which is not going to happen, a majority of the public was in favor.

*

Q: A Los Angeles Times Poll several years ago showed exactly the opposite, that if taxes were raised, support would fall away.

Close: I think the frustration level has changed, number one. Number two, I think people view it as really something positive, and I guess they’re willing to pay more even though I think they’re going to pay less. Also, I think there’s more of an understanding now that the Valley is not getting its fair share of police, of other services, so the people were insistent on making the change. When there was an analysis of those people who said “no” in the recent poll, the majority said they wanted more information. It’s not because they were opposed to it. I guess the trick in all this will be to sell it to the rest of the city.

*

Q: How will you do that?

Close: We need to get a majority vote in the Valley and a majority of the total city. The Valley secession issue will probably be on the same ballot with other areas voting for detachment. I think there will be a realization that if smaller is better for the Valley, then smaller is better for the rest of the city because they’ll have now 15 council people for a smaller city. So Los Angeles will have the benefits of being a smaller city. Also, I think some people are going to say, “Good riddance,” to the Valley. When it came to opposing the new downtown sports arena, where was the opposition the highest? The Valley. So there’s going to be a conclusion by some people that the city would be better off with the Valley detached.

*

Q: Can a detached San Fernando Valley do a better job of attracting and retaining businesses?

Close: The outrageous tax burden on businesses in Los Angeles, and why businesses are moving outside of the city, are extremely important issues. It’s not as much as an issue in downtown Los Angeles because a lot of businesses must be in downtown Los Angeles, so they’re willing to pay the extremely high business-type taxes that we have. That’s not true in the Valley. The difference between being in North Hollywood or Burbank is substantial. They get better police protection and a cleaner, safer city in Burbank. Why wouldn’t they go to Burbank? Los Angeles has the second-highest business taxes of any city in the state of California. And the Valley cannot justify those taxes. And for those who criticize secession, I say secession is already occurring. The residents are moving out of the Valley, the businesses are moving out of the Valley. We need to make some changes in order to stop it.