Signatures Show Depth of Discontent

The county registrar has confirmed that more than 25% of registered voters in the San Fernando Valley have signed the petition calling for a study of Valley cityhood.

The Initiative and Referendum Institute in Washington, D.C., indicates that this is the highest percentage of registered voters ever to sign a petition in a major metropolitan area.

It’s time Los Angeles leaders acknowledge the depth of discontent Valley residents feel with their level of services and representation, and provide real solutions to the Valley’s concerns.

The next step in the process is a study to be completed by the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO. All the questions people have about taxes, what kind of government there would be, how the city’s assets and liabilities would be divided and how services such as police, fire, etc. would be provided will be answered as the study process moves forward.

To date, there has been much confusion about the process and how some issues will be handled. But as the process moves forward and the more people learn about the issues, the more open they tell me they are to a new Valley city.

One major misconception is that Valley cityhood is a move by the more affluent communities. Yet an analysis of signatures on the petition circulated by Valley VOTE (Voters Organized Toward Empowerment) found that less affluent communities and more ethnically diverse areas supported the petition drive the most.

Another myth is that the Valley would lose federal or state funds intended to help the Valley’s disadvantaged. Yet only a small percentage of these funds, once they hit City Hall, ever flow through to the Valley as it is.

Some say that Valley cityhood would deprive Los Angeles’ poorer communities of revenue. This is another myth. State law requires LAFCO to make Valley cityhood revenue-neutral.

Some have suggested that the Valley’s taxes would go up and services down. But there are 87 small cities in L.A. County that surround the city of Los Angeles and virtually all of them have lower taxes.

Last year, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. endorsed the LAFCO study, stating that it “will allow residents throughout Los Angeles to learn how their taxes are being spent . . . . The LAFCO study will open the books for all to see. Even if secession never occurs the facts that discovered as a result of the study will provide a gold mine of information for Los Angeles residents.”

Already the LAFCO scoping report, intended to identify the issues the commission would need to study, has identified some the city would rather keep under wraps. For instance, the city of Los Angeles does not have a complete inventory of its assets. How can residents of a city that doesn’t even know what it owns be assured that their tax dollars are spent efficiently?

The scoping report also indicates that the Department of Water and Power is $7.4 billion in debt and plans to cut 2,000 positions from its staff. It says that if the Valley created its own utility company, it might be able to provide services more cheaply than the DWP, but adds that such an endeavor would be enormously complicated. We were shocked, therefore, when the DWP’s general manager recently threatened Valley residents with higher water rates if we secede, at the same time that LAFCO members were encouraging the Valley to remain part of the DWP.

If LAFCO determines that the Valley can sustain itself while making cityhood revenue-neutral, the commission will likely put the matter to a vote and let the people decide. Voters throughout the city will vote, and it must win a majority within the Valley and a majority of voters citywide.

Valley VOTE is committed to moving the LAFCO study forward. Based on the results, Valley VOTE and Valley residents will make an informed decision whether freedom from Los Angeles is the right choice for the San Fernando Valley.