Valley Secession

Re “When Rhetoric Detaches From Facts to Back It,” May 16.

I was truly disappointed in Cal State Northridge professor Shirley Svorny’s analysis of the ongoing secession debate. I was looking forward to an objective piece on the rhetoric coming from both sides of the issue. Politicians have in fact made statements based more on emotion than fact. I myself have been guilty of the same. But less than halfway through the article, I realized that she was not going to acknowledge that the pro-secession politicians are as “guilty” as Mayor Richard Riordan and anti-secession politicians of making statements without necessarily having all of the facts. Does she honestly believe that the mayor is the only one on this important issue who is making statements without all the facts?

She then proceeded to draw conclusions about policing and bureaucracy. Again, how was she drawing these conclusions if the LAFCO [Local Agency Formation Commission] study has yet to be completed? On the issue of police, she stated that in the new city, “the Valley portion” would just split off. If it were that simple, then LAFCO’s work is easier than we thought. A more likely outcome is that the LAPD officers in the Valley would be assigned to other city divisions because they have a contract with, and are employed by, Los Angeles, not a new Valley city. And what would be the cost of hiring and training new officers, or contracting with the Sheriff’s Department? I guess these very real questions did not neatly fit into her pro-secession bias.

If her goal was a one-sided, pro-secession rhetorical attack against the mayor and city, then why didn’t she just say so?

SAMUEL LOPEZ JR., Chatsworth

*

Svorny disagrees with Riordan’s assertion that “taxes would increase if the Valley were to detach.” Instinctively one should agree with the mayor’s assertion. Yet Svorny makes a totally unsubstantiated claim that “less overhead and bureaucracy would reduce the costs of providing services.”

To prove that Svorny is making irresponsible statements, I made a simple calculation about increased overhead and bureaucracy, not less, as claimed by the professor. Los Angeles has approximately 50 separate operating departments, such as City Hall, City Council, ambulance, public works, police, fire, etc. The new city very likely would duplicate the Los Angeles government structure. Even assuming greater efficiency on the part of the new city departments, one cannot escape that there would be duplicate department heads with their own staffs. This would undoubtedly lead to duplicate overhead.

If Svorny had asserted that, yes, taxes would increase with a new city but the level of services would be superior to that at present, even I, a staunch opponent to secession, would have to reexamine my position--I am dissatisfied with the preset refuse collection structure, for one.

Let us be honest in our claims and assertions with respect to the planned secession. And let us give the new, pending Los Angeles charter a chance to work.

DRO AMIRIAN, Studio City