2 Sides Likely to Square Off During Study of Valley Secession

The unprecedented study of the economic consequences of breaking up Los Angeles that will take place now that San Fernando Valley voters have petitioned to pursue municipal divorce may sound like a dry, humdrum accounting of city assets and liabilities.

In fact, it promises to be more like a politically charged trial--one in which Valley secessionists and their expert consultants square off against Los Angeles bureaucrats and elected officials, disputing facts as well as policy in an effort to influence the final verdict.

“It’s like a divorce between husband and wife,” said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who heads a committee that will draft the details of the study. “You get the vacation home. I get the camper. And we’ll let a judge decide who gets custody of the children.”

Valley VOTE, the group of business and homeowner leaders driving the secession campaign, will first be required to present its vision for turning the Valley into the nation’s sixth-largest city. Los Angeles officials will then have a chance to offer a rebuttal, raising objections to the details of the breakup plan.

Secession leaders say they are leaning toward asking only for the city assets north of Mulholland Drive, and shared control of the Department of Water and Power, the nation’s largest publicly owned utility.

Presiding over the process will be the region’s Local Agency Formation Commission, a nine-member panel that usually handles minuscule municipal boundary shifts. Panel members--who include City Councilman Hal Bernson and county Supervisors Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke--will initially attempt to play the role of arbitrator.

But if that approach fails--as is widely expected by many of those involved--the panel will exercise its legal authority and act as judge, ruling in favor of one side or the other.

To make the ballot, secessionists must prove that an independent Valley city can be economically viable, and that the breakup can take place without hurting either side financially. Any split would have to be revenue neutral, significantly complicating the decision and potentially requiring municipal alimony payments from one side to the other.

Because the study is expected to last as long as two years, secession is not likely to appear on the ballot until 2002 at the earliest. It requires a majority vote not only of the Valley, but also of Los Angeles as a whole, which could theoretically occur without majority support from the remainder of the city due to historically high Valley turnout in city elections.

Before the study can take place, however, the Local Agency Formation Commission must find a way to pay for it. Valley VOTE leaders say that it would be unconstitutional for their group to shoulder the burden and have proposed that city, county, state and federal governments share the cost, expected to run to several million dollars.

But Councilman Richard Alatorre, head of the council’s Budget and Finance Committee, and panel Vice Chairwoman Rita Walters said they oppose city funding of the study; Councilmen Joel Wachs and Rudy Svorinich Jr. said Tuesday that they would support money for a secession study.

At the county level, secessionists may now have the necessary three votes from the Board of Supervisors after Burke said she would be willing to consider a funding request. Yaroslavsky and Supervisor Mike Antonovich have previously expressed support.

At the state level, Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) said he will ask the Legislature to pay a portion of the study’s costs. Other state leaders, including Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), have told him they are open to the proposal, Hertzberg said.