Attack on VOTE Targets All Study Supporters

Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment, or VOTE, has thus far refrained from responding to the onslaught of Los Angeles Times editorials against the residents of the San Fernando Valley and their effort to have a study completed on the facts regarding Valley cityhood. However, over time these editorials have become less and less about the issue and more about attacks, misinformation, dislike and name-calling. The Times has said it opposes Valley cityhood but the Jan. 8 editorial went too far. Has The Times become so drunken in its opposition to the concept of Valley cityhood that it has lost sight of what is right and wrong?

The Los Angeles County Registrar’s office reported that 4,634 signatures--or 76%--of 6,475 sampled from VOTE’s petition were valid. But this fact did not appear in Times coverage or the editorial. Only due to a penalty based on 24 duplicates did the random sample not pass. Now the county conducts a full count.

The Times says Valley VOTE should follow the law. We have. Show us where we have not! Never before has such a large area and strong grass-roots organization entered this process. If we find arbitrary procedures, laws and actions that inhibit the people’s right to exercise their constitutional rights, we will make no apology about challenging them.

The Times has repeatedly called on Valley VOTE to pay for the verification of signatures, even though the American Civil Liberties Union, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Initiative and Referendum Institute, constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky and others all say that it is a violation of the state and U.S. constitutions to charge $275,000. It violates free speech and equal protection laws. Even the Local Agency Formation Commission agreed, but it didn’t have the money. Nowhere in the nation are petitioners actually charged for verifying petition signatures. It would deny access to the political process to all but the very wealthy. Yet The Times repeatedly suggests that the Valley should have to pay a $275,000 fee to verify signatures. Is it just because The Times does not agree with the content of the petition? It did not call upon Mayor Richard Riordan to pay to verify his charter reform petition or on Los Angeles County Supervisory Zev Yaroslavsky to reimburse voters for expenses related to his petition calling for the end of subway construction. Is The Times, a newspaper, ironically and dangerously close to supporting selective free speech?

Perhaps The Times fears it can no longer win the debate against Valley cityhood on the facts. We now know we will have water at the same rates--according to a Feb. 5, 1998, letter from City Atty. James Hahn to Riordan. We now know that most likely taxes will go down while services improve--all 87 cities that surround Los Angeles have lower taxes and most have better services. And we now know that the Valley leaving Los Angeles will not deprive Los Angeles financially--state law requires it be revenue neutral. Perhaps that is why it appears The Times’ strategy has become to attack Valley VOTE as if it were a handful of individuals.

*

Valley VOTE is serving as a vehicle for the people of the Valley who want their voices heard. It is a coalition of virtually every Valley homeowner group and business group, plus the 202,514 people who signed the petition calling for a study of Valley cityhood. To attack Valley VOTE is to attack all who support the study. We hold open meetings, distribute newsletters twice a month, and our committees and board are open to those who want to participate. The only thing we haven’t done is hand over a list of our contributors who fear retribution. When Bert Boeckmann and David Fleming funded a poll to measure public sentiment on cityhood, some City Council members asked that they be removed from their city commissions. The City Council canceled the city contracts of individuals who helped Riordan’s charter reform campaign. Since I’ve been involved, all my past campaigns have been audited by the city. And just last week, charter commissioners reported that they were being threatened with the loss of their jobs if they didn’t vote a certain way.

*

Since 1976, state law has protected organizations like Valley VOTE involved in the LAFCO process. State law appropriately states that we do not have to turn over the list of contributors, partially because they understand the precarious nature of what we are involved in, and the potential for retribution by those in power looking to maintain that status quo. With their permission, all the major Valley VOTE contributors have already been disclosed. Perhaps the Times should focus its attention on correcting a system in Los Angeles in which retribution is routine and acceptable, so residents don’t have to be fearful in the first place.

All the Valley wants is a study of the facts. Why does The Times oppose this? What is there to hide?