by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 2, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

n May 15, 2002 a little known state agency called the Local Agency Formation Commission [LAFCO], whose subcommittee is headed by veteran L.A. County supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, will make a fateful decision, allowing the San Fernando Valley to divorce Los Angeles on Nov. 5. Joined in 1915 to share L.A.'s Colorado River water, the Valley was part of a legendary urban sprawl, creating affordable neighborhoods with a unique suburban feel. To Angelenos, the Valley provided elbowroom and an upward lifestyle, offering palpable affluence to ordinary people. As it looks now, L.A. voters will decide whether to jettison 230 square miles and 1.35 million residents—attached to Los Angeles by the Santa Monica Mountains. Though missing ocean breezes, the Valley boasts copious sun and endless shopping, especially down its main corridor of Ventura Boulevard. Since the end of World War II, L.A. nurtured the Valley as a suburban alternative for hard working citizens trying to improve their standard of living. Despite its geography, the San Fernando Valley was always an essential part of Los Angeles.

      When Larry J. Calemine, executive officer of LAFCO, announced in a detailed report that the Valley could survive on its own—even after paying $55.8 million in yearly "alimony" to the City of L.A.—the wheels were set in motion for an eventual showdown. "Imagine living in a city that is safer, cleaner and better. Imagine a city with good parks, responsive police and stronger communities. Imagine a city where businesses are thriving and good jobs are growing," mused former state assemblyman Richard Katz and Valley VOTE president Jeff Brain, preaching to the choir in the San Fernando Valley Business Journal—promising utopia but failing to tell the whole story. Before the Valley jumps the gun, it should picture its identity missing a bustling downtown, glorious beaches, uplifting museums and championship sports' franchises. Valley voters should rethink their shrunken image without a fragrant flower mart, fashionable garment district, glittery jewelry center, busy train station, world famous airport and other key L.A. attractions. Valley residents should think twice before swallowing tempting promises made by clever businessmen and wannabe politicians.

      Before venting frustrations, believing fairytales and casting votes, Valley voters should contemplate life without Los Angeles. Few people question the feasibility of a Valley city, but many question the wisdom of splitting up the nation's second largest city. "Imagine a city where your tax dollars are not sent off to downtown L.A., but are used in your own neighborhood. Imagine a city where public officials live in your area, know your issues and know you. Imagine a city that works," wrote Katz and Brain, painting the illusion that a new mayor and city council would somehow wave magic wands. Sending money to downtown L.A. has little to do with how taxes filter into individual communities. Voters in a new Valley city will have no more control over how taxes trickle down to specific neighborhoods. Sending money to Van Nuys offers no guarantee of how it winds up fixing potholes in Tarzana. Living in the same neighborhood or on the same street doesn't assure responsiveness to residents' needs. Only honest elected officials and experienced government can deliver the goods.

      Everyone wants a city that is "safer, cleaner and better," or one that has better public parks, friendlier police and a flourishing business community. But splitting off from L.A. doesn't automatically redeem promises made by zealous secessionists. "The opponents of Valley independence are those who thrive on the status quo . . . They are mobilizing a campaign of fear, misinformation and personal attacks because, when you get down to it, there really isn't any good reason why the Valley shouldn't be its own city," said Katz and Brain, convincing Valley voters that paradise is around the corner. Despite self-serving claims of how L.A. has shortchanged the Valley, defectors cite no proof of how things would improve under new leadership. There's also no real evidence—other than wild accusations—that the Valley hasn't received its fair share of vital city services. Police, fire, emergency services, libraries, parks and recreation, street maintenance, tree trimming, water and power, etc., benefit all residents equally on both sides of the hills.

      Valley VOTE—and those special interest groups favoring secession—have engaged in a relentless six-year long disinformation campaign designed to discredit L.A. and convince voters that a new city would solve all the Valley's problems. In reality, unproven elected officials, newly formed city departments and untested city services, won't fulfill the promises of those pretending that new is better. "Imagine a Valley city that would control its own destiny. Imagine a city of our own," said Katz and Brain, revealing the true motives behind Valley secession: Money and control. No local government should fall into the hands of an elite group, advancing the aims of ambitious businessmen and crafty politicians. When Katz and Brain speak about "a city of our own," they're not referring to expanding control to local neighborhoods and communities. They're talking about collecting $1 billion in taxes and deciding how to spend it. Insiders, friends and special interest groups would no doubt benefit under the new city's management.

      Before voters buy a bill of goods, they should look carefully at how L.A. is already busy meeting their needs. "I am working to improve services in our neighborhoods, fixing our worst intersections, increasing after-school programs and giving Los Angeles residents the opportunity to provide input through our new neighborhood councils," said L.A. Mayor Jim Hahn, urging voters to take a hard look at secession. Before tearing apart one of America's great cities, voters must know that all big cities face serious challenges—including improving education, creating new housing and containing crime. Changing city hall won't overhaul the Los Angeles Unified School District, build more affordable housing or improve law enforcement. Splitting up L.A. won't accomplish the economy of scale promised by Valley VOTE. Smaller isn't necessarily better. There's absolutely no proof that a new city will do a better job providing Valley residents with improved services. Making promises are easy. But robbing the Valley of its rightful place in Los Angeles hurts all residents. Voters need to blow away the smoke and figure out who really stands to gain.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He's director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in corporate consulting and strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.