Secessionists’ Hostages

It’s no surprise that San Fernando Valley and Harbor area secessionists have come out against a police bond measure that will be on the March 2002 ballot. Valley secessionists helped defeat similar attempts to replace and upgrade outdated Los Angeles Police Department buildings twice in the past 10 years. Saying passage would complicate cityhood efforts, they tried to defeat last year’s bond measure for fire stations and animal shelters. Voters that time had the good sense to pass the measure anyway.

In opposing the police bond, the secessionists try to turn a setback to their advantage by stirring up outrage over a pair of recent legal opinions. “According to Mayor [James K.] Hahn and the City Council, we the people pay for all city assets but own nothing,” Richard Close, chairman of the secession group Valley VOTE, wrote for the city’s official ballot pamphlet. “The city now asks us to pay for more buildings that we will not own!”

Some clarification is in order. It is the opinion of the city attorney and also of the county counsel who advises the government agency overseeing the secession process that breakaway cities would own no assets but their streets. Based on the attorneys’ interpretation of state laws governing secession, Los Angeles could not be forced to give up assets.

City officials have been meeting with Valley secession leaders to negotiate how to divide assets should secession become a reality. The question could ultimately be decided in court, which would not be so surprising considering that no separation this complicated has been attempted before.

Secessionists want to halt maintenance on the house while they squabble over the furniture. Valley secession, assuming it qualifies for a vote, may go on the November 2002 ballot, but if that deadline is missed, the next window would be 2004. According to studies so far, the Harbor proposal looks unlikely to meet state requirements to qualify for a public vote. And--this is a possibility secessionists apparently have not even considered--voters could very well say no to a split.

For Close and other secession leaders to oppose passage of any bonds until secession is decided is akin to city officials saying they won’t build anything in the Valley until residents declare whether they’re in or out. Valley residents wouldn’t stand for that kind of highhandedness if it came from City Hall. It is no different coming from secessionists.