History Reveals Hurdles for Secessionists

With the process of breaking up the nation’s second-largest city, unprecedented in both size and scope, it is widely assumed that Los Angeles is navigating uncharted waters. Recent events appear to confirm this.

Originally set for Dec. 1, it now seems that the Local Agency Formation Commission’s initial fiscal report on secession by the San Fernando Valley and the Harbor area won’t be ready until late March at the earliest. Complicating matters further, funding problems may delay the study of Hollywood’s secession.

If unforeseen problems are resolved, however, and LAFCO concludes that secession can be accomplished without fiscal hardship, L.A. residents may vote on the matter as soon as November 2002.

While recent events illustrate the inherent unpredictability of the process, the fate of numerous efforts in the past to secede from California counties may offer insight into the future of the city of Los Angeles.

In 1974, a change in state law (AB 4271) led to a rash of proposals to secede from California counties. As with a 1997 law (AB 62) that breathed life into municipal secession movements, AB 4271 required majority voter approval in the seceding area as well as the entire county--a far more lenient standard than before.

The new law led to an initial series of county secession attempts between 1975 and 1978, a period of widespread discontent over rising property taxes and population increases in California.

As with current secession efforts, proponents complained of poor services, inadequate political representation and the need for local control over tax and development issues.

The first of such efforts came in 1976, when secessionists attempted to break off the northwest corner of Los Angeles County to form Canyon County. The new county would have included the unincorporated communities of Saugus, Agua Dulce, Newhall, Valencia, Val Verde, Canyon Country, Acton and Gorman. Secessionists placed a second Canyon County proposal on the 1978 ballot.

In 1977, a proposal to carve South Bay County out of El Segundo, Palos Verdes Estates, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach was placed before L.A. County voters. During the same election, voters were also asked to approve a plan to form Peninsula County out of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates.

Between 1978 and 1988, county secession proposals also made it to the ballot in Santa Barbara, Fresno, El Dorado and San Bernardino counties.

The experience of county secession efforts in California suggests several things. The good news for proponents is that, in almost every case, a majority of voters in the seceding area approved the plan. In the proposed South Bay and Peninsula counties, voters gave the measures 77% approval. Both Canyon County measures, as well as a 1988 plan to carve Mojave County out of San Bernardino County, also received well above 50% approval.

The bad news for secessionists is that although supporters almost always won a majority in the seceding area, none of the eight proposals succeeded. In all but one of the eight ballot measures, secessionists failed to win more than 36% of the total votes.

While these results may be disheartening for secessionist groups, proponents can still point to a unique set of circumstances that may offer hope.

Unlike each of the county secession proposals, the city of L.A. may face three simultaneous efforts. If voters in the San Fernando Valley, the Harbor area and Hollywood vote heavily in favor of secession for their area as well as the others, it may be enough to tip the election in their favor.

Thus, a key factor in whether potential secession measures are passed lies in the ability of the various secession groups to organize support for each other’s efforts.

Another key element is whether secessionists will be able to convince voters in other areas that they too will benefit from smaller government. As with many of the county secession measures, Los Angeles city voters may be wary that breakaway proponents are orchestrating a secession of the successful.

They may also fear that secession will permanently diminish the city’s political and economic influence.

Finally, it is not clear whether residents feel more of a sense of attachment to their city than to their county. If they do, this may present yet another hurdle for secessionists.

Clearly, there are many unknowns as the path toward votes on secession wind toward fruition. Results of recent attempts to secede from California counties reveal that winning the required dual majority poses a major obstacle. The fact that these movements have already surmounted long odds, however, may suggest that this is indeed a whole new ballgame.