Harbor Secession Won’t Be on November Ballot

A three-year campaign to split the harbor area off from Los Angeles ran aground Wednesday when a commission voted to keep the secession plan off the Nov. 5 ballot and study whether fiscal problems in the proposal can be fixed in time for the 2004 election.

The unanimous decision by the Local Agency Formation Commission could have implications for similar cityhood bids by the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood. Secession backers in those regions had hoped that a breakaway measure for the harbor area would help all three proposals win on the same citywide ballot.

LAFCO put the Valley secession plan on the ballot last week, and is set to decide Wednesday whether to approve the Hollywood proposal for the fall election. Commissioners said Wednesday that the panel was likely to decide in favor of a Hollywood vote.

“I have a feeling something will be on the ballot,” said LAFCO Chairman Henri Pellissier.

“It looks promising,” said Commissioner Beatrice Proo.

The battle over Los Angeles’ future is shaping up as a two-front fight, with the biggest prize by far being the Valley, population 1.35 million. About 160,000 people live in Hollywood. Together, the two areas account for about 40% of the city’s residents and half its land.

Wednesday’s decision spared Mayor James K. Hahn, who lives in San Pedro, the uncomfortable prospect of having to stump against secession by his own neighborhood. A harbor ballot measure would have proposed a city comprised of San Pedro and Wilmington, with 141,000 residents.

“It would have hurt the [citywide] anti-secession campaign,” political consultant Harvey Englander said. “Fighting a three-front battle is almost impossible. Fighting a two-front battle is easier.”

All the secession bids grew out of petition drives that gathered the signatures of 25% of the registered voters in each region. The harbor petitions were submitted to LAFCO in 1999. Secession sentiments in the area, however, have been simmering for decades.

Harbor cityhood supporters would not have to circulate more petitions to pursue an election in 2004. State law requires that secession elections be held only in even-numbered years, when statewide contests are on the ballot and promise a higher voter turnout..

To win, each secession plan must capture a majority of voters in the breakaway area and a majority citywide.

While secessionists said they would appeal the commission’s decision, LAFCO members offered little hope that the proposal could be revived before 2004, if at all.

“It’s not ready for prime time. It’s not ready for November 2002,” said county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a LAFCO member. “I’m not sure they would be ready for prime time in 2004 either.”

LAFCO Executive Director Larry Calemine concluded May 11 that a harbor city would not have enough revenue to provide services on a par with those delivered by Los Angeles. Under state law, a secession measure that would create a city with such fiscal troubles cannot go on the ballot.

Calemine’s study found that the harbor area generates $52 million less in tax revenue than Los Angeles spends on city services there. As a result, a new city would have to significantly cut services or raise taxes to balance its budget, he said.

The harbor secessionists revised their proposal with the aim of reversing Calemine’s determination. They proposed boundary changes that would have added some tax-generating industrial areas to a new city. They also said a harbor municipality could save money by contracting for police protection with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, instead of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Calemine told LAFCO on Wednesday that he could not complete an analysis of the secessionists’ altered plan in time to get the measure on the ballot this year. “It’s impossible,” he said.

The secessionists said they will press on for an election, even if their appeal fails next week.

“It’s disappointing because I’d like to see us go in November,” said Andrew Rafkin, president of the Harbor Study Foundation. “But it is more encouraging to have a delay than to have it all shot down and lose three years of work.”

Hahn said the idea of harbor cityhood should be dropped.

“So far, every analysis has shown that the harbor area would not be able to survive on its own and more studies will only come to the same conclusion,” Hahn said. “Continuing to study harbor secession is a waste of taxpayers’ money.”

Some harbor area business people also urged LAFCO to reject the cityhood proposal outright as infeasible. James Cross, past president of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce, said that leaving open the possibility of a 2004 election prolongs uncertainty that could slow business growth in the area.

Also Wednesday, Calemine said a Hollywood city would have to pay the rest of Los Angeles $21.3 million the first year to cover revenue lost in the split, with the amount decreasing annually until the payments end in 20 years.

Despite that so-called alimony burden, Calemine said, an independent Hollywood would have a reserve fund of 10% of its $183-million annual budget within three years. Calemine proposed that a Hollywood city, if voters approve it, would begin operations on July 1, 2003.

More than a dozen Los Feliz residents asked LAFCO to exclude their 250-home neighborhood from the proposed Hollywood city. The commission asked Calemine to determine whether that would harm the secession plan.

*

Times staff writer Matea Gold contributed to this article.