Pros and Cons of L.A. Breakup Are Spelled Out

In arguments that will accompany the November ballot, opponents of breaking up Los Angeles warn that the city faces a “financially risky future” if the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood leave while supporters contend smaller cities would be fiscally viable and more responsive.

The written arguments are expected to be approved today by the county registrar-recorder to be included in the sample ballot pamphlet for the Nov. 5 election, when voters will decide whether the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood should become independent cities.

The concise ballot arguments represent an important opportunity for each side. Though the various campaigns have said they plan to spend a combined $11 million or more on television and mail ads between now and Nov. 5, political scientist Tom Hogen-Esch said many voters may make up their minds based on the ballot arguments, which were limited to 300 words each.

“A lot of voters tend to make up their minds at the last minute, so this is pretty important literature,” said Hogen-Esch, a professor at Cal State Northridge.

The cityhood measures must win a majority vote both in the breakaway areas and in Los Angeles as a whole.

The Valley cityhood argument is signed by Valley Independence Committee Co-Chairs Richard Katz and Laurette Healey, as well as county Supervisor Michael Antonovich, Valley VOTE board member Carlos Ferreyra and Andrew Mardesich, a leader of the harbor area secession drive that failed to make the ballot.

Los Angeles residents would benefit from secession because they would be better represented in smaller council districts, their smaller city would have to operate more efficiently and City Hall would no longer have to worry about Valley issues, the argument says.

Payments to Los Angeles over 20 years to make the city financially whole would be reduced gradually, so “$1.3 billion in Valley taxes stays in the Valley to pay for local services ... ,” the argument says.

“Power and water rates are protected. Taxes will not increase,” it says.

Countering that argument is a statement signed by Mayor James K. Hahn, former Mayor Richard Riordan, businessman and former Lakers star Earvin “Magic” Johnson, county Supervisor Gloria Molina and former Valley Congresswoman Bobbi Fielder.

“Los Angeles is stronger when we are united and weaker when split apart,” it says.

The effects of the 1994 Northridge earthquake would have been “dramatically worse” for the Valley if the area had not been supported by the resources of the entire city, it says.

Regarding finances, the argument for Valley cityhood notes that in studying secession, the Local Agency Formation Commission concluded the new cities would be financially viable without causing fiscal harm to the rest of Los Angeles.

But secession opponents disagree.

According to the anti-secession argument, a Valley city would have to pay “additional annual fees” for 20 years to make Los Angeles financially whole.

Further, an independent study found secession could cost the rest of Los Angeles $3.9 billion over that period, “resulting in tax increases and cuts to essential services,” the argument says.

The breakup is also “likely to result in higher water and electric costs for everyone,” it says.

Like its Valley counterpart, the argument against Hollywood cityhood warns of financial risks but adds that secession could “destroy Hollywood’s revival.”

It was signed by City Council members Tom LaBonge and Eric Garcetti and honorary Hollywood Mayor Johnny Grant.

The supporting argument promises a revitalized Hollywood, an end to runaway film production and cleaner, safer streets.