Breakaway From L.A. A Step Closer

A separate San Fernando Valley city broken off from Los Angeles would be a financially viable entity, according to a report released by the state agency charged with overseeing the Los Angeles secession movement.

The report, which was issued Friday by the Local Agency Formation Commission's executive director, Larry Calemine, sets a proposed effective date for cityhood of July 1, 2003, followed by a one-year transition period.

Both a majority of voters in the new city and in the entire city of Los Angeles would have to vote in favor before cityhood could occur. No date for an election has been scheduled.

However, Calemine's report appears to give a boost to supporters of the movement to break off Los Angeles' sprawling residential section of more than 1 million people and create the nation's sixth-largest city.
It would push Los Angeles back from number two to three, behind New York and Chicago.

"It's a great report for the valley and for Los Angeles," said Jeff Brain, leader of the secession movement. "This is what we've all been working for. This report says it can happen."

Mayor James Hahn, a secession opponent, disagreed, saying the split would mean reduced services for the new city and would harm the remaining neighborhoods of Los Angeles.

"Los Angeles is and will remain one city," he said. "I continue to believe that secession is not a solution ... it means more bureaucracy, more politicians, fewer resources, and fewer services."

The report comes after years of grass-roots campaigning, reports The New York Times.

Valley activism has its roots in white flight in the 1970's, when the area led California's tax revolt and fought to keep children from being bused to integrated schools, the Times says in its Saturday editions.

The struggle is now a nonracial contest over who can provide good government for less — an independent valley or a united city. Hispanics are now the plurality in the valley, as they are in the city as a whole, and they tend to favor secession. Nearly two-thirds of Latinos in a recent Los Angeles Times poll said they thought the valley would do better on its own, compared to 55 percent of valley residents over all, according to The New York Times.

Residents are still debating whether to call the new city Rancho San Fernando, Valley City or just San Fernando Valley, The New York Times says.

The state report said reduced service areas would benefit both cities.

"In the areas of public safety and general administration, the city of Los Angeles would be more likely to benefit financially from a reduction in its service area ... larger cities tend to spend relatively more resources ... than do smaller cities," the report said.

While the report says the San Fernando Valley city would be financially viable, it concludes there would be a negative fiscal impact on the city of Los Angeles that "should be mitigated" by an annual payment of $55.8 million for 20 years.

The new city would also see a decline in tax revenues, which would equal about $31 million. The report suggested the city would be able to recoup most of that by implementing franchise fees for water and electricity that would garner an additional $27 million in revenue.

The report calls the proposed secession "unprecedented in scope," and points out that such movements have been rare, occurring only twice before in the state's history.

The document examines how both the new city and the remainder of Los Angeles would function during the transition period and afterward, including how revenues and services would be allocated and how the two entities should divide assets and liabilities

The report proposes, among other things, an agreement between the two cities that would include the annual mitigation payment, the transfer of local assets to the new city, the retaining of public utilities within Los Angeles and a provision for rate protection for utility customers of the new city.