City Backs a Non-Primary Secession Vote

The Los Angeles City Council waded into a controversy Tuesday over the timing of a prospective vote on proposed cityhood for the San Fernando Valley.

With most members already on record against a breakup of Los Angeles, the council unanimously took a stand against holding a cityhood election at the same time as a low-turnout city primary.

Officials have been working for several years toward a November 2002 election, should cityhood be scheduled for a vote. Recent delays, however, have put that schedule in doubt. If the deadline for a cityhood election is missed, the question would be whether to delay a vote two years or six months.

While the council Tuesday urged two years, the group studying secession--the Local Agency Formation Commission--is set today to weigh a suggestion by director Larry Calemine that a six-month delay, to April 2003, be considered as the backup.

In the last comparable April city primary, the turnout was 18%, compared with 67% in the last November general election.

“On a matter as important as this, there should be a significant turnout,” Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski said.

Jeff Brain, head of the secession group Valley VOTE, said the council’s action amounts to delaying tactics. “The more they drag their feet, the more it will work against them,” he said. “Do you think any bond measures will pass while this is hanging over their heads?”

Some officials believe Valley cityhood would have a greater chance of passing with a light turnout because Valley voters are more likely to go to the polls. An April 2003 vote would require an act of the Legislature.

Council members said breaking up Los Angeles is too important an issue to be decided by less than one-fifth of the voters in a city primary. “It’s a big deal, and I think the public would want it to be considered by the greatest number of people,” said Councilman Jack Weiss, who, like Miscikowski, represents a district that stretches between the Valley and West Los Angeles.

Also Tuesday, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a LAFCO member, asked the county counsel for a legal opinion on whether Los Angeles can be required to compensate a new Valley city for its taxpayers’ investment in libraries, police stations and other assets outside the Valley.

Yaroslavsky’s request came a day after the county counsel said Los Angeles cannot be forced to give up ownership of city assets in the Valley without compensation.

The supervisor had asked whether LAFCO could then require Los Angeles to compensate a new Valley city “for the investment made by Valley city taxpayers in parks, libraries, fire stations and other physical assets which are located south of Mulholland Drive and which will therefore remain within . . . Los Angeles.”