Secessionist Math Runs Into Dead End

After decades of claiming that the San Fernando Valley is a “cash cow” for the rest of the city, secessionists finally have some evidence to prove it.

The central finding of a report by the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, concluded that the Valley indeed pays more in taxes than it receives in services. While finding that the Valley easily has enough taxes to sustain itself as a separate city, the study concluded that a smaller city of Los Angeles could survive only if the Valley pays it $68 million in yearly “alimony.”

The claim that it is exploited for its tax base long has been at the heart of the Valley’s struggle for independence.

In 1961, a group known as the Valleywide Better Government Committee organized the first modern campaign to secede from Los Angeles.

Led by West Valley Chamber of Commerce leaders, the group sought to confirm suspicions that the Valley did not receive its fair share of city services. Its study concluded that the Valley paid 31% of the city’s taxes but only received 21% of city services. (LAFCO did not release comparable percentages.)

In 1975, a group known as Committee Investigating Valley Independent City/County reconstituted the secession movement. Like its predecessor, CIVICC also sought to document the Valley’s fair-share claim, concluding in 1977 that the Valley paid 40% of city taxes but received only 15% of services.

At the time, both studies generated far more heat than light. While the conclusions motivated hard-core supporters, the analyses were widely dismissed as biased, unscientific and self-serving.

When the Valley VOTE group revived secessionist aspirations in 1996, the group lamely offered the CIVICC study as fresh evidence of its exploitation. More recent studies of the fair-share claim either were inconclusive or were also criticized as biased, leaving Valley secessionists without any hard evidence of their assertion.

The recent LAFCO report, an exhaustive analysis by an Orange County-based consulting firm, is significant in that it is the first independent--and ostensibly objective--confirmation of the Valley’s long-standing claims.

After learning of the report’s findings, members of the Valley VOTE board expressed predictable outrage and have tried to capitalize on the study in building support for their effort.

While finally documenting the Valley’s fair-share claim, however, the LAFCO study also creates several pitfalls for secession advocates.

First, because state law requires that secession not inflict fiscal harm to either party, the Valley would have to pay indefinite subsidies to Los Angeles for the privilege of cityhood. Thus independence would not, by itself, increase funding for services in Valley communities. Moreover, if the new Valley city relies on Los Angeles for some of its services, as is proposed, Valley neighborhoods would be left with far less say over service delivery.

Second, the reality is that secession would not solve the Valley’s fair-share dilemma. It would only change the scope of conflict. If secessionists followed their own “fair-share” logic in a new city, wealthy communities, like Sherman Oaks and Encino, would receive better services than poorer areas, such as Pacoima and North Hollywood. In practice, Valley VOTE is unlikely to advocate this approach for fear of losing the support of the Valley’s poorer neighborhoods.

Finally, emphasizing the Valley’s exploitation only reinforces the perception that the movement is a form of middle-class flight. Mayor Richard Riordan already has labeled the campaign an “immoral” effort to abandon the city’s poor. Interest groups opposed to secession undoubtedly will try to hammer home this argument. By squawking about tax and service disparities, Valley VOTE risks playing into its opponents’ hands.

Clearly, the LAFCO report represents a historic milestone in the Valley cityhood campaign because it validates the long-standing claim that Valley taxes subsidize the rest of the city. The irony is that now that secessionists have their evidence, they are better off keeping it to themselves.