Secession Group May Be a House Divided

The release of a sweeping design for San Fernando Valley cityhood has touched off a new round of battles over what shape any new municipality should take if voters opt to break apart Los Angeles.

The blueprint for a new city of 1.3 million people exposed rifts within the separatist movement as supporters squabbled over how to handle a radical restructuring of local government.

The proposal by the Valley VOTE group also revived concerns outside the Valley about the consequences of splitting the police, fire and other departments that provide critical services to city residents. Former U.S. Rep. Bobbi Fiedler of Northridge, one of secession’s most zealous champions, complained that Valley VOTE blew a chance to win wide popular support when it proposed a new city modeled after Los Angeles. It undercuts the rationale for municipal divorce, she said, to create a new city in the mold of one that’s bloated and incompetent.

“There’s no way we really need to have everything Los Angeles has,” she said.

Fiedler took strongest exception to the proposed wholesale transfer of more than a third of the Los Angeles work force to the new city’s payroll.

“There’s no way to know whether, A, we need them, or B, we can afford to hire all of them,” she said. “I think that’s an error in judgment to satisfy a political interest--the employee unions.”

By proposing no big change at the outset, Valley VOTE makes it easier to do the fiscal study that’s legally required before voters may have the opportunity to decide the issue, said Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University. But that could carry a price, he said.

“From a political angle, the whole drive to separate is one based on change,” he said. “Here they are saying no change. So they are undermining their biggest sell.”

“Why have a new city if nothing is going to change?” he said.

Valley VOTE leaders said they want to leave major decisions on the new city’s structure to its first elected mayor and city council.

Walter N. Prince, a member of the 35-member board, who runs a janitorial service in Northridge, said voters “will be the ones who really craft a vision for the new city.”

“The Valley is so damn diverse that I think we’d be making a really egotistical mistake to say, ‘This is what the Valley should be like,’ ” he said. “I imagine you could tinker a few departments around, but why?”

Still, the proposal by Valley VOTE, a loose-knit coalition of mainly neighborhood and business leaders, took stands reflecting the priorities of its members. It promoted tax cuts for residents and term limits for members of a Valley city council.

But the key principle laid out in Valley VOTE’s so-called “vision statement” was greater local control over neighborhoods and “decisions affecting their quality of life.”

Councilman Hal Bernson of Granada Hills said proposing dramatic change from the start would further complicate what’s already a complex study on whether secession would harm residents on either side of the Santa Monica Mountains.

“I think keeping it as simple as possible to start with is smart,” Bernson said.

Los Angeles County’s Local Agency Formation Commission is preparing the state-mandated study on the effect of the Valley’s secession. If the commission finds a breakup is feasible, secession will be put before voters citywide, possibly in 2002.

Valley VOTE’s new secession plan has raised concerns even within the group. One sharp dispute stemmed from the proposal for a part-time city council.

“I think to properly serve 1.3 million residents in the Valley, you need to have a full-time council,” said Valley VOTE board member Carlos Ferreyra.

A part-time council with nominal pay would keep “career politicians” at bay and attract candidates “sincerely interested in servicing their community and neighbors,” according to the secession plan.

A bigger source of discord in the group is the plan for the Valley city to run its own police and fire departments. Ferreyra said he and other board members would prefer to seek competitive bids for police and fire service. The new city could award contracts to the Los Angeles fire and police departments to continue serving the Valley, at least in its early days, he said.

“We have to be realistic,” he said. “On Day 1, we may have to go out and contract.”

One Valley VOTE faction believes the new city could save money by putting key services out to bid. Indeed, Valley VOTE Chairman Richard Close has met with Fire Chief William Bamattre about a possible deal for the Los Angeles Fire Department to keep serving the Valley city.

“Most people in the Valley are very satisfied with the Fire Department,” Close said. “Also, a number of fire stations are on Mulholland Drive, the dividing line. It would not make sense for those stations to respond to calls south of Mulholland but not those north.”

Close said an arrangement could include seats for the Valley city on the Los Angeles Fire Commission.

“My personal view is we should pursue joint operation,” Close said.

Bamattre said he has had talks about a contract to serve the new Valley city, just as his department currently serves the city of San Fernando. He said it would be simple to divide resources if the new Valley city wanted its own Fire Department, but he prefers to serve the Valley on contract.

“I want to continue to provide the service,” Bamattre said, adding the Valley would benefit from the Los Angeles department’s greater resources and strong mutual-aid agreements with other agencies.

Close said he’s more adamant about the Valley having its own police department, but the group could be forced to rethink that position too. Police officials say dividing police services would be difficult, if not impossible.

“There could be negative consequences,” said Cmdr. David Kalish, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department.

In major emergencies such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake or the 1997 North Hollywood bank shootout, the deployment of officers from outside the Valley could be slowed, Kalish said. Moreover, a smaller police force in the Valley would be hard-pressed to match the LAPD’s expertise in fighting terrorism or organized crime, he said. Also, the cost of buying patrol cars, weapons and supplies would be higher for a Valley force, because it would buy smaller quantities than Los Angeles, Kalish added.

Valley VOTE’s demand for a share of police officers equal to its 36% of the Los Angeles population would require a massive reshuffling of personnel. Today, 1,694 of the LAPD’s 9,300 officers work in the Valley. Serving the Valley from downtown are hundreds of others: crime lab staff, fingerprint experts, bomb-squad officers, LAPD managers and more.

Under Valley VOTE’s plan, the Valley’s pro rata share of officers would be 3,371, or double the number now stationed there. The mass exodus of officers to the Valley would raise questions about potential harm to the parts of Los Angeles that would lose officers, officials say. Police are now deployed based not on population, but based on where crime occurs, authorities said.

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas said Valley VOTE’s police plan--and for that matter, its entire proposal--was simplistic.

“I’m not persuaded they have figured out how to sustain a government in the Valley,” he said. Councilman Nate Holden said Los Angeles had no legal obligation to give up any city assets.

“They aren’t getting anything from us,” Holden said.

One of the biggest trouble spots for a breakup is the Department of Water and Power. Valley VOTE proposed sharing control with the city of Los Angeles.

But S. David Freeman, the agency’s general manager, said Los Angeles will fight to keep control over water and power in the Valley.

“I think the law is we have to continue to see that the lights stay on and the water flows,” he said. “But at what price? That’s a different case. I don’t think the city of Los Angeles is required to provide the water at the same price.”