Analysis Offers 1st Look at Proposed Valley City Voters

A new city in the San Fernando Valley would have residents who are more active politically, more skeptical about elected leaders and more fiscally conservative than counterparts south of Mulholland Drive, according to an analysis of a first-of-its-kind report by county elections officials.

Valley voters demonstrated their political might in the Nov. 7 election, making up 48.1% of those who went to the polls in the city, even though the Valley is home to only 38% of Los Angeles’ registered voters.

In some ways, the Valley showed its traditional fiscal conservatism, opposing better retirement benefits for state legislators as well as an expansion of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that was denounced by taxpayer advocates as too costly. But Valley voters also soundly rejected the school voucher proposition and ignored a strong secessionist campaign against bonds for fire safety.

They also strongly backed Democratic candidate Al Gore for president, although not by the same huge margin as the rest of Los Angeles.

Overall, even while the Valley electorate is looking more like the rest of the city, it has some clear differences.

That analysis is based on a report by the office of County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Conny McCormack, requested by The Times, that for the first time details voter activity in just those precincts proposed to be part of a new Valley city.

“This is an opportunity to look at an area that is proposed to become a city and have a snapshot of the voters’ feelings and the voters’ choices,” McCormack said.

Secession Advocates Hold High Hopes

Because the Valley is going through major changes demographically and socially, trying to assess its overall politics is difficult. But Valley leaders and political scientists say an election tells a lot about where the Valley stands as a political entity that secessionists hope will come into its own as the sixth-largest city in the United States as soon as 2002.

That hope is directly tied to the Valley’s ability to influence the election process in Los Angeles.

Voter turnout in the proposed Valley city was 65.5% on Nov. 7, compared with 43.9% in the rest of Los Angeles.

That has major implications for any vote on Valley cityhood, which requires approval by a majority in both the Valley and the city as a whole, according to Richard Close, chairman of the secession advocacy group Valley VOTE.

“Historically, the Valley has proportionately outvoted the rest of the city,” Close said. “That is a critical factor for our ability to get the double majority we need for cityhood.”

Close said he estimates that if a pending Harbor Area secession proposal were on the same ballot, the Valley’s larger turnout would mean cityhood backers would need substantially less than a majority vote in the rest of the city.

A Los Angeles Times poll in March 1999 found that Valley cityhood was supported by 60% of Valley voters and 47% of voters citywide.

Fernando Guerra, head of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University, predicted Valley turnout would likely be greater than it was Nov. 7 if Valley cityhood were on the ballot.

Political scientist Larry Berg, an opponent of Valley cityhood, agreed, saying the stronger Valley turnout in the Nov. 7 election could encourage breakup supporters. But both Guerra and Berg said it would be wrong to assume that most Valley voters will support cityhood.

Once the cost becomes known, many will vote against secession, said Berg, a Valley resident who is the retired founder of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at USC.

As one of the places where the anti-tax Proposition 13 originated, the Valley continues to demonstrate a fiscally conservative streak and a suspicion of elected officials, according to political experts who studied the report.

One example is Proposition 33, which would have extended to state legislators the same pension benefits enjoyed by other civil servants.

The measure was supported by 60.2% of non-Valley residents of Los Angeles and opposed by 39.8%. Among Valley residents, 60.6% opposed it, slightly more than the percentage statewide who defeated it.

Voters Reject Plan to Add Supervisors

Proposition 39, which reduced the vote required to pass school bonds from two-thirds to 55%, also showed a stark contrast. In the proposed Valley city, 50.6% of voters favored the measure. In the rest of the city, 72.7% of the voters favored it. The measure passed with 53.3% of voters statewide in favor.

Valley voters opposed expansion of the county Board of Supervisors from five to nine members by a much larger margin than the rest of the city. Key leaders who represent the Valley, including Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Mike Antonovich, campaigned against Measure A. Opponents said it would provide a more expensive and larger government.

The measure was opposed by 68.9% of voters in the proposed Valley city and 53.9% of voters in the rest of Los Angeles.

“There is a sense that the Valley is a little more conservative fiscally and suspect of the expansion of government,” said Sherman Oaks political consultant John Shallman, who managed Steve Cooley’s successful campaign for district attorney.

Anton Calleia, a Northridge resident who served as a top aide for former Mayor Tom Bradley, said the campaign against expanding the Board of Supervisors played well among Valley voters who are distrustful of making government bigger and more expensive.

Guerra, the Loyola Marymount political scientist, characterized the fiscal conservatism in the Valley as middle-class self-interest.

“They have larger lots and higher assessed values, so they are hit more by tax increases,” Guerra said.

The Valley built its reputation for frugality with its voting record, playing a decisive role in killing the last two police bond measures on the city ballot.

So some anti-secessionists, including Calleia, were pleasantly surprised when 69% of Valley voters supported city Measure F, which provides $532 million in bonds for new fire stations and animal shelters, despite opposition from secession advocates, including Close.

Although voters in the rest of Los Angeles supported the bond measure by a greater margin--82.8% voted yes--Calleia said the Valley backing was encouraging.

“I was very heartened by the fact that the appeals of secessionists to boycott the fire bonds fell on deaf ears and that the measure passed handily in the Valley,” Calleia said.

He said he believes the measure received Valley support in large part because residents still remember the help they received from the Fire Department after the Northridge earthquake.

“In many ways I think it was a ‘thank you’ by the Valley to the Fire Department,” Calleia said. “They cannot be appreciated enough by those of us who were hit by the earthquake.”

Close, who actively opposed Measure F, said secession opponents should not read too much into the Valley support for the fire bond measure.

Fire Station Bond Measure Supported

One of the reasons Valley residents support secession, Close said, is the hunger for more city services, so it is understandable that voters might support a measure to improve fire stations and animal shelters.

Among state ballot measures, Proposition 38, the school voucher measure, produced interesting results in the Valley. Although there is a strong movement to break up the Los Angeles Unified School District, the voucher initiative was trounced, with 71% of voters opposed, the same number as the statewide tally. In the rest of the city, 80% voted against the voucher initiative.

Former state Assemblywoman Paula Boland of Northridge, a co-founder of the Valley campaign to break up the school district, said she was surprised that Valley voters opposed the voucher initiative.

Boland favored it, saying vouchers would give parents more choice, but said it was not well written and voters were apparently swayed by the strong television advertising campaign against it.

Although major demographic shifts, including a large influx of minorities and younger professionals, have made the Valley less conservative than it was 20 years ago, it still is less liberal than the rest of Los Angeles, election returns indicate.

The presidential results are a case in point. Democratic candidate Al Gore received 63.6% of the vote in the proposed Valley city, compared with 81.8% of voters in the rest of the city. Republican candidate George W. Bush received 31.9% of the Valley vote, compared with just 13.3% in the rest of Los Angeles.

Calleia said the vote may be a reflection of voter satisfaction with the economy.

“I think it reflects a middle-class view of things. Things are going well and people don’t want radical changes,” Calleia said.

Although there are clear differences in the politics of Valley voters and those south of Mulholland, some analysts say they do not believe the differences are so great that a political split of the city is inevitable.

“I clearly think there is a distinction, but I don’t think the gap is large enough that there is polarization,” Guerra said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Voting by the Numbers

In a first-of-its-kind report by county election officials, voting results were tallied for the area of the San Fernando Valley proposed to break away from Los Angeles and become its own city. Following is a comparison of voters in the proposed Valley city with voters in the rest of Los Angeles.

Source: Los Angeles County Registrar--Recorder/County Clerk