Stumbles Hurt Breakup Efforts

Years before their breakup bid hit the ballot, San Fernando Valley secessionists plotted a multi-front revolution that they thought would see neighborhoods from the harbor to the Hollywood Hills fighting to break free from Los Angeles.

If other disgruntled areas joined the Valley in the breakup crusade, the theory went, it would stir enthusiasm citywide for Valley secession. And by election day, separatists would have enough support in different quarters of the city to win independence for all the breakaway areas.

It was a terrible miscalculation -- one that some say may have helped defeat secession in Tuesday’s election.

Instead of kindling grass-roots rebellions throughout the city, a move to push San Pedro and Wilmington cityhood onto the same ballot fizzled and a hasty Hollywood secession plan set off a huge backlash, even among Hollywood voters. Efforts to incite pro-breakup anger in South-Central and Westchester also flopped.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who served on the Local Agency Formation Commission that approved secession for a citywide vote, said the drive to put Hollywood and harbor cityhood plans on the same ballot as Valley independence was the biggest mistake the secessionists made.

“I think Hollywood dragged it down,” Yaroslavsky said. “If Hollywood got creamed everywhere, including the Valley, how could it help the Valley cause?”

In fact, election returns show Hollywood residents voted against the Valley seceding and Valley residents voted against Hollywood becoming its own city.

Part of the problem undoubtedly was the timing. Unlike the Valley, where secession leaders had spent six years cultivating support among business and homeowner groups, Hollywood cityhood was rushed onto the ballot in two years.

The Valley campaign had many leaders and donors, but the Hollywood bid was largely the work of nightclub owner Gene La Pietra, who shoveled more than $2.5 million toward the effort.

On the streets of Hollywood, however, many residents and merchants were taken aback. Several homeowner associations began to protest their neighborhoods’ inclusion in the proposed city.

“This has been a silent, sub rosa takeover, a hostile takeover,” Hollywood bookstore owner Susan Polifronio said.

The Hollywood campaign, which included billboard model Angelyne as a city council candidate, was seen by many people as not serious, even “goofy,” in the words of Yaroslavsky. Some observers said that helped undermine the credibility of Valley secession.

Another piece of the pro-breakup strategy crumbled when harbor cityhood failed to qualify for the ballot in May. Despite repeated attempts to crunch the budget numbers so that the area could stand on its own, LAFCO finally concluded San Pedro and Wilmington did not have an adequate tax base to survive financially.

From the moment they had collected enough voter signatures to launch a cityhood drive in 1998, Valley separatists made no secret of the fact that they hoped to see as many secession drives as possible on the same ballot as theirs.

“My crystal ball says that by the time this is on the ballot, there could be as many as five to 10 areas looking to do the same thing,” Valley secession leader Richard Close said at the time.

Even if the harbor area had landed on Tuesday’s ballot alongside Valley and Hollywood secession, some political observers said, it would have taken a highly coordinated campaign to keep all three campaigns on track and reach out to other communities for votes.

“They would need to figure out how to pool their resources, how to recruit high-level, credible candidates that could carry their message. They never did that,” said John Shallman, a political consultant based in the Valley. “They fooled themselves into believing [secession] was an American revolution, that if they built a city, people would come. But people didn’t come.”

Secessionists also assumed that candidates seeking office in the proposed Valley, Hollywood and harbor cities would generate cash, publicity and votes for the overall movement.

That idea seemed to be a natural in San Pedro, a working-class port neighborhood built by generations of Croatian, Portuguese and Italian fishing families. Harbor secession advocate Andrew Mardesich promoted a vision of Jeffersonian democracy wherein the campaign would attract a hundred candidates whose family connections alone would draw enough votes to win.

But once harbor cityhood failed to make the ballot, the few dozen supporters who had been gearing up for the campaign drifted away.

“The feeling is, ‘Well, we’re not seceding. Ho hum, life goes on,’ ” secessionist Noel Park, a homeowner leader, said after LAFCO rejected the harbor plan.

That left Hollywood. Some political observers -- as well as voters -- said there was more rationale for a Valley city than a Hollywood municipality. As a vast suburb separated from the rest of Los Angeles by a mountain range, the Valley is geographically and somewhat culturally distinct.

A recent Times poll showed that likely voters were highly skeptical of Hollywood secession.

In a follow-up interview, Carol Hungerford of Harbor City said she would support Valley cityhood but not the Hollywood measure.

“It came up so quickly,” said the 45-year-old drama teacher. “Hollywood is so smack in the middle of the city, you know, but the Valley’s off on its own, like the harbor. That seems to make more sense.”

Yaroslavsky and others said the twin breakup proposals appear to have made voters nervous by suggesting their city could unravel along multiple seams all at once.

Secession leader Close said Thursday he has no regrets about helping to get Hollywood onto the ballot.

“I think it benefited us because it brought more attention to the fact that we need to reorganize city government,” Close said, adding that La Pietra’s hefty campaign contributions also helped.

With the collapse of the secessionists’ citywide strategy, support began to shrink back to the movement’s core. Tuesday’s election results show that secession did well only in the West Valley, an affluent, mostly white area where the breakup drive was born.

A misreading of the political map was not the secessionists’ only stumble. Throughout the campaign, they were battered by setback after setback as they tried to make their case that smaller cities would be more responsive to the demands of their residents.

They failed to attract a high-powered field of candidates for the proposed mayoral and city council seats. They were unable to raise the millions of dollars needed to fend off a blizzard of anti-secession television ads.

With little direction or money from the Valley Independence Committee, more than 100 political amateurs running for seats in the proposed Valley city tried to mount homespun campaigns.

“I’m very disappointed in the leadership of the Valley Independence movement,” said Frank Sheftel, a candy maker who ran for the Valley city council. “They did not take advantage of the candidates like they should have. They alienated a lot of people.”

Added candidate Shaunn Cartwright: “I think every one of us wishes we had a voodoo doll of the Valley Independence people.”

Mel Wilson, a Realtor who ran for Valley mayor, said it quickly became clear to him that he was on his own. Valley secession leaders refused to share their database of supporters, telling candidates it was against the law for them to reveal names and phone numbers of people who favored secession, Wilson said.

“It made me have to work harder,” he said with a weary smile. “I stopped relying on them to do things for me.”

In the end, Valley secessionists probably needed candidates such as Wilson -- a respected former city fire commissioner and Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member -- more than he needed them.

Instead, they had a raft of well-meaning but inexperienced people like Don Larson, an artist who ran for a Valley council seat.

“What killed the secession movement is us,” Larson said of the candidates. “Most of us are not qualified. I think it’s embarrassing.... Look, I’m a nice guy, I’m a good guy, but I’m not qualified to run a city.”

Times staff writers Sue Fox and Caitlin Liu contributed to this report.