Panel Shows Many Sides of Secession

A diverse panel of speakers who gathered in Sylmar on Saturday to discuss the Valley’s proposed breakaway from the city were able to agree on this much: Secession is a complicated thing.

The symposium at Mission College offered a glimpse at what secession might, or might not, mean from the perspective of academics, politicians and religious leaders, as well as secession supporters and opponents.

The Local Agency Formation Commission voted last week to place the secession issue on the November ballot. The secession drive was born out of complaints by Valley residents about lack of services and political underrepresentation.

If the Valley breaks away, it will become a city of 1.35 million, represented by 14 council members and an elected mayor.

The symposium, which drew about 70 people, featured six panelists, each given eight minutes to explain his or her studies and years of research.

Xandra Kayden, a spokeswoman for the League of Women Voters, opened the symposium by saying the San Fernando Valley was annexed by the city in 1915 to gain access to water, and “there’s been talk of secession ever since.”

Relying on a league report, she said the viability of secession is unclear because of a fluctuating economy, the unprecedented size of the proposed breakaway city and uncertainty about its ability to raise money.

“No one’s ever done this before,” she said. “It’s not clear that a smaller city will be any better at providing services than a bigger one.”

Deputy Mayor Felipe Fuentes, a Van Nuys resident, said the greatest concern of Los Angeles is “revenue neutrality,” a requirement under state law that the city not be financially harmed by secession.

“I don’t think [secession supporters] have really taken the time to look at what happens to the rest of the city,” Fuentes said. “When you lop off one-third of a city, you don’t necessarily lose one-third of the workload.”

Political science professor Tom Hogen-Esch, who has studied secession, said that of the “many complex issues” surrounding the concept, one of the most intriguing is the makeup of secession supporters.

“It’s an interesting and odd coalition of pro-growth business interests and slow-growth homeowners’ groups,” he said.

“They share a similar vision of what the Valley should look like, and they want to protect it from undesirable forms of development,” he added.

From a religious perspective, the question of secession should be answered by asking how it would affect the “poor, weak and marginalized,” said Tim Johnston, a representative of the Council of Religious Leaders.

“Morally and theologically, secession supporters haven’t demonstrated that the cure will be better than the problem,” he said.

Leafing through a thick stack of newspaper clippings about gang violence, Oscar Mendoza, an executive board member of the pro-secession group Valley VOTE, said Valley residents “have waited 87 years” in vain for the city to provide adequate services.

“Do we want our children to continue to be killed by gang violence?” he asked.

Community activist Irene Tovar said there are no guarantees secession would not worsen city services and advised voters to focus on how they might be directly affected.

“If your family member needs CPR, are [secession supporters] going to give it to them? They want you to hope that we will have jobs, firefighters and street cleaners,” she said. “Camelot never existed. Let’s get real.”

Audience members, mostly residents of the northeast Valley, said the discussion was helpful.

“They should have more of these; it was very informative,” said Ben Espinoza, who said he has lived in the Valley for more than 70 years and opposes secession.

Gustavo Villa, 21, a political science student at Mission College, also approved of the idea of more discussion but recommended bilingual sessions.