Sustainability of a New Valley City

* Re “New Valley City Could Sustain Itself, Study Finds,” March 25.

The Times seems surprised that the San Fernando Valley is being shortchanged by City Hall on funding for local DASH bus lines. The Times points out that the Valley gets only 10% of the $20 million in DASH money allotted to Los Angeles each year, instead of the 35% to which it is entitled. This means the city keeps $5 million that rightfully should be spent on local buses for Valley residents who are dependent on public transportation. Or to put it another way, the city takes $7 million from the Valley’s transportation money pot but provides only $2 million worth of services.

The Times also seems concerned that secessionists might not want to buy water and electricity from the city of Los Angeles, and might not want to cooperate with the rest of the city on important emergency issues. This simply is not a realistic concern. The Valley, Harbor and Hollywood areas have no desire to build their own electric generation and water supply plants, nor to duplicate the facilities that are already in place to treat our sewage. If Los Angeles can provide these utilities, as well as quality police, fire and paramedic services, secessionists will be happy to purchase them at a fair price.

Los Angeles has always been capable of providing quality service. The problem in the Valley is that we don’t get what we pay for. If secession occurs, Los Angeles will be in a new business of selling its services to surrounding communities on a pay-as-you-go basis . . . with the Valley as its biggest and best customer. Let’s hope it can meet the challenge.

WALTER N. PRINCE

Northridge / Porter Ranch

Chamber of Commerce Director

*

The article fails to mention the inherent flaw in the study, and therefore the study is irrelevant and must be updated before it can be deemed credible. The data used in the study were compiled prior to the electricity crisis in California. While there is a mention of a headache in splitting up the Department of Water and Power, the article basically talks about contracting for city services that the new Valley city can’t provide for itself, ignoring the failure of deregulation of electrical power in California.

The DWP is one of the few city-owned utilities in the state. It is exempt from deregulation. The DWP is prohibited by the Los Angeles City Charter from contracting its services to any city outside of the city of Los Angeles. The study assumes that the new city would contract out for electrical service under the success of deregulation, a success that proved to be a failure after the study was written. In the Valley, the incorporated city of San Fernando is forced to use [Southern California Edison Co.] for its power. It already has suffered blackouts, and its citizens will be subject to rate increases. The DWP service areas in the Valley do not have such problems. Why would a study advocate that a new city can sustain itself when the new city would subject itself to questionable power supplies and rate increases? The area already has more than enough power to keep the lights on and rates down. The newly released study that your article reported on should be ignored until an updated report that takes into account the failure of electrical deregulation is made available.

JEFF GREENFIELD

Woodland Hills

*

A preview of the major study on Valley cityhood [indicated] that the new Valley city comprising some 1.3 million Angelenos in some 222 square miles north of Mulholland Drive would be forced to rely on the very city they are desperately trying to escape for major services by contract. Let me see if I got this straight: The Valley residents are unhappy with the extent and quality of city of Los Angeles services, so they secede and form a new city that the study shows cannot service its new citizens without contracting with the very city they seceded from. One need not be a genius to conclude that if the services need fixing (I agree on at least two counts: street maintenance and refuse collection), then elect the individuals who can deliver superior services.

Secession is an expensive operation, to say nothing of the double overhead cost of running two cities instead of one. Let us spend the money on improving the services--not on secession and overhead.

DRO AMIRIAN

Studio City

*

It’s scary to know that those who are “championing” secession and would claim leadership positions in the newly formed city are so stupid that they didn’t recognize from the start the magnitude of the costs and logistics of creating and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to operate a city. They remind me of the youth of the ‘60s and ‘70s who had the luxury to protest while Mom and Dad paid the rent.

To use DASH as an example is silly; what about water, power, fire, police, refuse, street maintenance, parks, building and safety, health, and on and on and on? To scream for independence and then contract with Los Angeles for these necessary services is like the adult child who never leaves home.

And we spent how much money on the study?

STEPHANY YABLOW

Sherman Oaks