Valley Cityhood Study Gives Fuel to Both Sides

A study that found San Fernando Valley cityhood feasible but dauntingly expensive gives secessionists some ammunition for their campaign but also provides support for those who want Los Angeles to stay together, political experts said Wednesday.

The 400-page report, billed as the most extensive analysis ever of local government operations, has provided a feast for the political spin doctors on both sides of the issue. As they digested the document, political consultants and others said the analysis it contains would provide grist to the campaigns that are expected on the issue, should it ever make it to the ballot.

“A document that is fair and balanced will provide fodder for both sides, and I expect that is the case here,” said county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a member of the board that is studying secession.

“This is all a political question,” he said. “It’s window-dressed in financial and budgetary language . . . but ultimately it’s a political question.”

And as a political question, it has something for everyone.

On one hand, secession advocates can point to the study’s conclusion that the Valley pays more in taxes than it receives in services--a central plank in the Valley’s long-standing grievance about its relationship to the rest of Los Angeles.

On the other hand, the report concludes that the breakaway area would have to pay the remaining city $68 million a year for the privilege of independence and would end up having to contract for many of its services with the city it was leaving--undermining some of secession’s rationale.

What’s more, the study is a reminder that many ramifications are difficult to fathom, another potentially powerful argument for those skeptical of the proposed breakup.

Experienced Los Angeles political consultants, including Rick Taylor, said the many questions raised but not answered by the report could help foes of secession build a case that there is too much uncertainty in breaking up Los Angeles.

“They can put doubts in people,” said Taylor, who has managed City Council campaigns. “It’s the fear factor. People fear the unknown.”

For instance, the report, ordered by the Local Agency Formation Commission, concluded that a Valley city would be able to contract with the Department of Water and Power and other city agencies for services, but does not settle the issue of what rates Valley residents would pay.

In addressing the need to shift a large portion of Los Angeles municipal employees to the new Valley city, the report says, “It is reasonable to expect that the city would lose some productivity as part of such a large-scale reorganization.”

In another section, the report says the new Valley city’s costs of contracting for computer systems run by Los Angeles could exceed expectations, which might “require a Valley city to attempt to enhance its revenue generation or reduce other expenditures to meet future budgets.”

Such warnings are likely to be seized on by those who will campaign against secession, said Richard Lichtenstein, another political consultant.

“It is an expensive and difficult proposition,” he said. “Those kinds of questions would certainly chill people and make them think twice.”

Political strategist Bill Carrick said the challenge for Valley cityhood backers is to use the report to show that the breakup would not harm what was left of Los Angeles.

“They have to make a convincing case to voters that they are not going to suffer the loss of services and it is not going to cost them any money,” Carrick said.

Carrick, Lichtenstein and Taylor are not affiliated with either side in the secession debate, though some are associated with candidates who have taken positions on the issue. Carrick, for instance, is the consultant to City Atty. James K. Hahn, a mayoral candidate who opposes secession.

Eventually, Valley secessionists will have to win support for their cause from, not only a majority of Valley voters, but also a majority of voters citywide, as required by law. Secession faces many hurdles before it could be decided by voters, with an election in November 2002 at the earliest.

Within hours of the report’s release Wednesday, the sides for that debate already were forming.

Mayor Richard Riordan, a leading opponent of Valley cityhood, said that though he still needed to scrutinize the document, he remained convinced that a breakup would be “immoral” and would “greatly disadvantage San Fernando Valley residents.”

Julie Butcher, general manager of the Service Employees International Union, Local 347, found herself in rare agreement with Riordan.

The union is expected to join the campaign to keep Los Angeles together, and Butcher said the complications identified by the report about dividing key city assets such as the DWP, Van Nuys Airport and the emergency dispatch system are likely to help in any campaign to convince voters to keep the city together.

“Breaking up is hard to do,” Butcher said. “Staying together is worth it.”

On the other side, Valley VOTE Chairman Richard Close said the report’s findings that cityhood is feasible will help his group convince voters to support a breakup.

“It provides sizable ammunition,” he said.

Close said his cause is also helped by evidence in the report that the Valley has not received some services equal to the taxes and other revenue it pays.