Breaking away? L.A.'s coming vote on independence for the
valley
By Steve Lilienthal
web posted July 8, 2002
An interesting vote will take place in Los Angeles this
November; one that conservative activists in other large states
and communities should take a serious look at. And given the
fact that Americans have just celebrated the anniversary of our
own nation's declaration of independence from a much larger
and distant ruling power, now is a very good time to start paying
attention to this coming referendum battle.
Los Angeles will vote on whether the San Fernando Valley will
be able to secede from it. As the Los Angeles Times has
remarked, voters will be deciding whether L.A. should become
the first big city in the country to divide itself up.
A Los Angeles Times poll that was published last week shows
Valley voters in favor of breaking away from L.A. by a 52 per
cent to 37 per cent margin -- after they heard the pros and cons
of the divorce. However, better not start making plans to visit the
new city of the San Fernando Valley just yet because the poll
also showed that when the rest of L.A.'s voters are counted, the
pro-independence movement comes up short 38 per cent to 47
per cent. Because the whole city votes on secession, the pro-
Valley independence movement has their work cut out for them.
[A similar movement to promote the secession of Hollywood
fares less well in the poll.]
While the anti-Valley independence forces have the upper hand
in the polls at least for now, conservatives owe the independence
drive a close look given their movement's own belief that
government works best when it is smaller and more accountable
to the very citizens it is supposed to serve.
If the Valley were to succeed in its drive for independence,
Valley Independence Campaign Chairman Richard Katz talks of
having the newly created city develop a borough plan to further
decentralize government. The Times poll shows that the driving
force behind the significant independence sentiment involves the
desire by many Valley residents for more responsive
government. For years, the Valley has considered itself short-
changed in services and ignored by downtown L.A.'s power
brokers. This sentiment for more responsive government was
made clear in the Times story on the poll.
One Valley resident and Times poll respondent noted that she
had made complaints to the city about a clogged drain pipe on
her block only to have nothing happen.
"A Valley city would be the sixth-largest city in the country and if
L.A. treats it so shabbily - which they do -- we might as well try
it on our own," said the respondent, a retired high school
teacher.
According to the pro-independence Valley Vote webpage [
] the
Valley has 35 per cent of L.A.'s population and represents half
of its geographic area. Valley Vote says their area of L.A. has
far fewer public libraries and police and fire stations per square
mile than the city of L.A. at-large. Emergency calls for police and
fire services are responded to less quickly in the Valley.
Many -- not all -- supporters of secession doubt that
independence would lead to lower taxes or spending in the
newly created Valley city government. Nor will the vote create a
new school system. The newly created Valley city would still be
part of the Los Angeles Unified School District -- and all of its
problems and bureaucracy. But a new Valley city -- if approved
by the voters -- would at least present voters with a strong
opportunity to exert more control over government policies
involving spending and taxes, and management of services. That,
in itself, would be valuable.
Predictably, the anti-independence movement has been playing
the race card, portraying the independence movement as one in
which white Valley residents want to divorce themselves from
downtown L.A.'s more diverse population.
Nice try, and given the resources of the anti-independence
movement, they may succeed in distorting reality. However, as
East-West News Service correspondent David DeVoss wrote in
The Los Angles Times on June 30th: "...the San Fernando Valley
is anything but a white enclave. More than 158,000 Asians live
here, nearly one-third of them Filipino...In the areas hoping to
secede, the Anglo and Latino populations are roughly equal.
About one-third of the Valley's 1.7 million people are
immigrants..." The L.A. Times poll found that throughout the city,
Latino voters oppose secession -- 45 per cent against to 36 per
cent in favor. However, in the Valley, a majority of Latino voters
support independence. But the pro-Valley independence
movement will have to overcome some tough obstacles.
Already, L.A.'s mayor, Ken Hahn, backed by the downtown
'power' establishment, is campaigning against the breakup, using
the typical fear arguments of impending fiscal doom. As one of
the Hollywood secessionists put it, Hahn will be waging a "24/7"
effort paid for at taxpayer expense.
Organized labor is getting into the act -- predictably against the
independence effort, even though the Times survey found that
current opposition to secession among union household members
falls just below the majority mark and a significant 34 per cent
back breaking away from L.A.
Right now, the pro-Valley independence campaign is more low-
key, relying on coffee parties to generate support, still focusing
more on grassroots efforts. However, they have signed up a
respected campaign strategist in Ben Goddard, known as the
creator of the "Harry and Louise" television spots that helped to
drive a stake through the heart of Bill and Hillary Clinton's health
care plan.
What may end up doing in the drive for Valley independence is
the Times poll's finding that over 60 per cent of the city's voters
are content with how things are right now in L.A. Even if the
independence movement fails, some good -- and the emphasis
should be on the word "some" -- may already be coming out of
their efforts.
The City Council in L.A. has before it a plan that dices up the
current city into boroughs with elected councils in an attempt to
provide more local management and accountability when it
comes to services and even zoning laws. That plan would be a
competitor with the Valley independence movement if council
were to place it on the November ballot. It presents nothing
comparable to the opportunity that full-fledged independence for
the Valley represents in providing a significant number of current
L.A. residents with a truly local government.
If the L.A. City Council fails to give the borough plan the green
light for the November ballot, its leading advocate, state
Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg, talks about then trying to have it
placed on the March 2003 ballot. He may very well have to
because, as The Los Angeles Daily News, noted in a July 3rd
editorial: "Seven of the 15 members [of city council] are
adamantly opposed to the boroughs, some of them boasting they
haven't even bothered to look at the Hertzberg plan."
Valley independence may not be the cure that voters in Los
Angeles opt for this November to overcome the lack of
accountability from the government of a sprawling city with a
population larger than 25 states. But the Valley independence
movement's ability to have their effort be taken seriously should
at least help to promote reforms that can achieve more flexibility
and accountability in state and local government, both in and
outside of southern California. If that proves to be the case, then
the effort by the pro-Valley independence movement will have
been well worth it. And if Katz and company are able to achieve
a surprise victory, then the whole nation will profit from the
courage of L.A. voters to experiment with giving a significant
percentage of their citizenry the independence to achieve greater
local control and accountability.
Steve Lilienthal handles media relations for the Free Congress
Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org).
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com