Let’s Accent the Positives on Retaining the Valley in L.A.

The advocates of one Los Angeles have allowed the campaign for a separate San Fernando Valley city to define the terms of debate. On those rare occasions when one-city forces have fired back, it’s generally been in defensive, negative terms.

But there are many positive reasons why Los Angeles voters--and Valley voters in particular--should support staying together:

* The Valley could gain political muscle anyway through redistricting.

The Valley comprises slightly more than one-third of the city’s population. But the commission recommending new City Council district boundaries is poised to create five all-Valley seats on that 15-member body and probably two more districts with Valley constituencies.

That’s just one seat away from a council majority and more than enough to override a mayoral veto.

* Local controls mandated by the new Los Angeles City Charter are taking effect.

For example, neighborhood councils are slowly emerging. Yes, their input is only advisory for now. But if the work of these councils in my former district is any indication, they hold great promise as catalysts for quality of life improvements on neighborhood streets and as watchdog organizations holding elected officials accountable. Similarly, through area planning commissions, local panels made up of residents from affected neighborhoods have begun making land-use decisions at a local level.

* Size is influence.

As the nation’s second-largest city, Los Angeles enjoys clout in Washington and Sacramento. It’s no secret that the impressive federal and state responses to disasters like the 1992 civil unrest and the 1994 Northridge earthquake were directly tied to Los Angeles’ size and the influence it wields. Mayor James Hahn’s successes in Washington and Sacramento demonstrate that this axiom still holds.

* When it comes to vital services, owning provides more control than renting.

Valley residents have a major impact on city policy, accounting for one-third of the commissioners governing decision-making in key city departments. Secession blueprints, though, typically envision Valley residents renting key services, such as fire and police, from the existing city.

As customers rather than owners, Valley residents would lose their say in how these agencies, including the police and fire departments, are run.

* Nothing inherent in secession puts more police on the street or trims more trees.

In fact, secession plans contemplate essentially the same public staff doing these jobs as now, with few if any additional resources and arguably less Valley-based control.

* Smaller is neither small nor necessarily better.

Secessionists like to compare the Valley to Burbank and argue that smaller cities are more accessible and efficient. But the Valley would become the nation’s sixth-largest city.

Besides, truly small may be better for some purposes but not for others: Los Angeles residents not only benefit from size when seeking federal or state aid but also, for example, from economies of scale in some kinds of services and programs.

* Our sources of water and energy are dependable.

California’s recent energy crisis and the constant struggles over water supply remind us of the stability Los Angeles enjoys as one city--and of the uncertainties in splitting apart.

* Civic pride matters.

L.A. residents have a lot to be proud of and for all our self-criticism, we know it. Our resilience, our place as a worldwide testing ground for how diverse peoples can come together and the civic patriotism and common connections we express when the chips are down--as during the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake--all display the raw material from which we can build a great city.