We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning ValleyVote
See our Website and all the Updates are archived on our site.
By MICHAEL FINNEGAN
The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved a legal finding [Note the "finding" is by LA City not by LAFCO, a Court, or State law that controls creating a new city] that new cities in the San Fernando Valley or Harbor areas might have to make payments to Los Angeles as the price of secession. The 10-4 vote [The normal Valley vs LA vote] gave the city attorney's office permission to submit the opinion to the county agency that is setting the rules for a potential breakup of Los Angeles.
Council members who opposed the measure said it would force residents of areas leaving Los Angeles to pay for services that they don't get, perpetuating one of the major grievances that prompted the secession movements in the first place. "It basically tells you if you've been wronged, the only way you can do anything about it is to agree to continue to be wronged in the same way," Councilman Joel Wachs said.
But Councilman Nate Holden, who voted to approve the opinion, said it simply upholds the principle under state law that a section of a city or county cannot break off without compensating residents of what's left behind from losses. Holden said it might undercut support for secession. "People will suddenly realize it costs more to separate than stay together." [ It would cost the same to breakup or stay together. It would just mean the Valley would still have to subsidize the remaining parts of LA. The Breakup under LA "finding" would stop any further increase in the amount of money taken from the valley].
Los Angeles County's Local Agency Formation Commission will review the city's opinion as it prepares its own finding on the legal requirement of "revenue neutrality" for secession moves. The agency can put a secession proposal before voters only if it concludes that it won't harm residents in either jurisdiction.
Mayor Richard Riordan and the City Council go to great lengths telling us that our city is wonderful. They will have to repeat it and repeat it because it just isn't so. To the contrary, our city is in a near-disaster mode. Almost everywhere you look there is a tale of government inefficiency or corruption. The situation has reached such epic proportions that the U.S. government is threatening to take over much of our local government management.
First, there is the Los Angeles Unified School District. Millions were spent on a new high school located atop an abandoned oil field, but no one is being held responsible. If that isn't bad enough, we now have learned that the school system needs at least 100 new schools over the next few years, but doesn't have the will to condemn the needed land for those schools. Finally, the test scores show we are not giving the students sufficient knowledge to enable them to at least rank among the average students in America.
Second, there is our Police Department. The chief of police was in charge of internal investigations before obtaining his current position but no one holds him responsible for the Rampart station corruption. What is even more astounding is that many months after this situation has become public knowledge, our district attorney has only recently indicted three people, even though there is evidence that he knew of the corruption long before it came into public view. Laughably, the Police Department wants to investigate itself and have everyone believe the results would be honestly reported.
Third is our lack of public transportation. Los Angeles is the second-largest city in the country, but there is no coherent plan for providing residents with the means to reach any destination but downtown, and that system does not reach most people in suburban locations.
Fourth, our streets and sidewalks are falling apart faster than the city is maintaining them. Even in more affluent neighborhoods such as Woodland Hills, the streets have many serious cracks and potholes and the sidewalks are not safe to walk on due to the broken concrete. In older, poorer neighborhoods, the situation is even worse.
Driving down Soto Avenue in East Los Angeles, the street surface is so badly deteriorated you could easily believe you are in a Third World country.
Is it any wonder that senior citizens that have retired are leaving Los Angeles in ever-growing numbers? The only reason people stay here is because jobs are more plentiful. Even those who are working are looking for opportunities outside Los Angeles, in cities and towns that do a better job of serving their citizens.
Don Evans lives in Canoga Park.
By Alexa Haussler, Staff Writer
Despite the objections of two of its members, a Los Angeles City Council panel decided Friday to forward a city attorney's opinion that secession proponents say could thwart efforts to form a new San Fernando Valley city.
The written opinion, a draft of which was released Thursday, concluded that the Valley may have to pay Los Angeles to make up for the city's "net loss" from secession -- on the assumption that Los Angeles receives more revenue from the Valley than it spends on services in the area.
[This is virtually an admission by LA City that the Valley has been paying downtowns bills for years. The full LAFCO study will confirm the facts. In a 4-18-00 Story in the LA Times "Valley Gets 'Fairer Share," repeats the LA position that the Valley gets is fair share.
"Riordan, a leading opponent of Valley secession, said his budget provides a fair deal for Valley residents. 'More and more it gives the Valley a fairer share of the resources of the city,' " Apparently a fair share is not services equal to the taxes paid."]
The council's five-member Ad Hoc Committee on Secession voted to send the letter to the Local Agency Formation Commission, the county-level agency overseeing a study of the feasibility and effects of Valley cityhood. LAFCO had requested the city's comments on how it is affected by the legal requirement that secession be "revenue neutral" to a newly created city as well as the city that loses territory.
But council members Joel Wachs and Rudy Svorinich disagreed with the finding. "This just seems to me to make the whole thing a mockery," Wachs said. "The whole thing defeats the purpose of why one might want to go through the difficult process to have a whole reorganization."
The draft opinion, contained in a letter signed by Frederick N. Merkin, special assistant city attorney, asserted that one of the statutory prerequisites for secession is that Los Angeles not lose more in revenue than it saves in services. "For the city of Los Angeles, a net loss resulting from an excess of lost revenues over current expenditures would mean a reduction in municipal services for the public served by the city unless other revenue sources can be found," the letter stated.
Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment, the group that pushed for a study of secession, is reviewing the letter, its leaders said. Richard Close, chairman of Valley VOTE, on Thursday characterized the letter as "extortion." "It's saying if you want freedom you are going to have to pay," he said.
The secession study, which is expected to take 18 to 24 months, was forced by a petition drive among Valley voters. The campaign was fueled in part by residents' complaints that their neighborhoods are too often neglected by city government and receive less than their fair share of municipal services and public resources.
LAFCO will receive $2.65 million to pay for the study and other work, including environmental reports, further study on specific issues and legal costs. Agency officials said the main study is expected to cost about $1.4 million.
Consultants have been selected to execute the study, which has been widened to include a secession scenario for a new city in the San Pedro-Wilmington area. A petition drive is under way in Hollywood to include that area in the study as well.
By Harrison Sheppard, Staff Writer
The agency overseeing a Valley secession study wants to know about every trash collection route, parking meter, city employee and 220 other details of Los Angeles government in the first truly comprehensive look at the city's operations.
The county Local Agency Formation Commission issued the request so its consultants can begin studying the financial and other consequences if the San Fernando Valley and Harbor areas broke away from Los Angeles. How the mayor and City Council members -- all opposed to secession -- will respond is now the big question, said Richard Close, chairman of the cityhood study advocacy group Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment.
The data, he said, should give a sense of whether the Valley receives its fair share of services and whether the city as a whole runs its operations efficiently. "This is the subpoena, so to speak, of all financial and other information by the consultants to the city. The issue is: Will the city give them the information they want, which by law they have to, or are they going to fight it?"
Most city officials pledged to cooperate fully, but some questioned whether answering every single question is worth the effort. "How much we can provide fairly reasonably and how much might take a whole heck of a lot of extra energy, time and money to get to the data?" asked Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who chairs the council's ad hoc committee dealing with secession. She said she is concerned about separating the requests into those categories. "Is there a diminishing return to get the data?"
Miscikowski, whose district is split between the Valley and the Westside, said some data may be so difficult to compile that it wouldn't be worth the time of city employees to examine or of secession advocates to wait for it. She added that some of the requests are too specific and invasive to residents, asking for specific addresses where certain city services were provided, while she believes just general statistics could be given.
Other city officials said they were fully dedicated to answering every question as best they can. "We made a commitment to LAFCO and everyone involved that we would get this information out as quickly, accurately and completely as possible," said City Administrative Officer William Fujioka, to whom the request was addressed. "That's an absolute commitment."
Now that the city budget has been compiled, Fujioka said he is telling his staff to make the LAFCO study a top priority. A spokesman for Mayor Richard Riordan also said the mayor's staff would be fully cooperative with the study.
And City Councilman Joel Wachs, who also sits on the council's ad hoc committee on secession, said if it should appear that any city staffers are delaying, "I for one will be riding herd to make sure they don't drag their feet."
LAFCO is seeking information about more than 30 different departments and bureaus. It does, however, leave the semi-autonomous departments -- Water & Power, Airports and the Harbor -- to be questioned at a later time.
Among the information it seeks are lists of every job title or position within city government, all city-owned buildings, all city-leased buildings, all services that are provided based on a specific geographic area, any City Council, state or federal legislation that may affect the services provided or funding of each department and statistics about nearly every type of action by officers at each police station, such as total arrests, narcotics and vice cases by geographic area and air-support calls for fiscal year 1998-99.
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
In a move to appease critics, Mayor Richard Riordan suggested Friday that the city should speed up and open the process to provide information for a study on San Fernando Valley and San Pedro secession.
Riordan, in a joint letter with City Council President John Ferraro, wrote to the Local Agency Formation Commission laying out a proposal to put all information requested -- as well as the questions themselves -- before the public on the city's Web site. "The city believes that the public interest will best be served by endeavoring to make the data-gathering process open and accessible," the letter said. [As of today some 40 days later nothing is posted on their website]
"The city is committed to doing so. This information will not only be useful for LAFCO, its consultants and the applicants, it will also be useful for the newly forming neighborhood councils, elected officials, educational institutions ... and the general public." The proposal was welcomed by LAFCO -- the county agency overseeing the study -- and by officials with Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment, the group that pushed for the study.
"We're encouraged and heartened by the city's willingness to cooperate," LAFCO Executive Director Larry Calemine said. "We look forward to working with the city on this."
Valley VOTE President Jeff Brain said the proposal is in line with its repeated call for an open process. "This is a step that will make residents throughout Los Angeles happy," Brain said. "Everyone wants openness." Valley VOTE Chairman Richard Close said he remains concerned about the city's commitment to a fair process.
"It appears the city will be open and cooperative in transferring the data," Close said. "What does concern me is whether it is in conflict with what the City Council did earlier this week (in adopting a set of procedures on releasing information). We will see if the city does comply with what this letter is proposing."
On Wednesday, the council called for the mayor and council to review all data the city provides for the study -- before the information is sent to LAFCO, its consultant or the public. Critics said the process could significantly delay the study. In their joint letter, Riordan and Ferraro proposed that LAFCO and its consultants submit its requests in writing and those will be placed on the city's Web site -- http://www.ci.la.ca.us/
The responses to those requests also will be on the Web site. If any follow-up is needed, the officials proposed regular meetings, perhaps weekly, to deal with any outstanding issues.
"We believe these steps will provide for a process that is both open and efficient in its use of LAFCO and city staff time," the letter said. In addition to making the information public, Riordan and Ferraro suggested that any questioning of city officials be done at public hearings.
Calemine said he will be meeting with city officials early next week to discuss the procedures as LAFCO's consultant continues to prepare initial requests for information.
By PATRICK MCGREEVY, Times Staff Writer
San Fernando Valley residents would get quicker response from paramedics and firefighters under a budget proposed by Mayor Richard Riordan, but the spending plan does not include money for construction of a long-promised sixth Valley police station.
Riordan, a leading opponent of Valley secession, said his budget provides a fair deal for Valley residents. "More and more it gives the Valley a fairer share of the resources of the city," Riordan said at a briefing with Los Angeles Times reporters and editors.
The $2.9-billion general operating budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 takes advantage of a booming economy to avoid tax increases, and in fact builds up the city's reserve fund while setting aside money to address liability for the Rampart police scandal.
The Valley, especially, stands to benefit from some of the new initiatives in Riordan's budget. The mayor's spending plan includes $1.6 million to split paramedics, who now operate in pairs. Under the new plan, the first response unit would reach Valley emergencies in 6 1/2 minutes instead of the current eight minutes.
Under the budget to be unveiled today, $1.5 million would fund 36 firefighters and paramedics to staff new fire stations in Porter Ranch and Arleta--the only new stations scheduled to open in the city next year. The budget would increase the number of Valley streets to be repaved and sidewalks to be repaired, provides staffing for expanded libraries in Pacoima and Studio City, discounts fees for girls' sports programs and pays for dedicated staffing of the Fire Department's air operations unit at Van Nuys Airport. [which serves the entire city]
Released while a study has begun on a proposed Valley secession from Los Angeles, Riordan's budget also addresses two hot-button political issues in the Valley. His spending plan would have the city absorb the cost of a brush-inspection program that had drawn pointed opposition when the city tried last year to impose new fees. "The [brush] inspection program is in the budget, but it is completely absorbed by the city," said Deputy Mayor Jennifer Roth, a key figure in writing the budget.
The proposal also would delay for five years any increase in the sewer service charges, and phase out a sewer franchise fee charged to the sewer program. The franchise fee has been challenged in court as an illegal tax by residents in North Hollywood. Surrendering the brush-clearance fee and sewer franchise charge would mean the loss of nearly $13 million, but the city's booming economy--which has meant an increase in sales and business tax revenue--allowed the mayor to make up the difference.
After years of making the Los Angeles Police Department a high budget priority, Riordan for next year is turning more attention to fire services. The budget, Roth said, would result in "a tremendous reduction in response times" in the Valley, largely because the plan includes money to begin a pilot program that would spread paramedic resources to more ambulances and fire vehicles. The one-year test program in the Valley has drawn strong opposition from paramedics who contend it would hurt patient care by watering down the expertise of emergency caregivers.
Response times also may be affected by new fire stations opening in Arleta and the developing community of Porter Ranch. Riordan's budget funds 18 firefighters for each station. Providing $1.4 million for 15 dedicated staff members for the Fire Department's air unit in Van Nuys also would reduce response times, because firefighters would not have to be pulled from other Valley fire stations to staff emergency medical flights, officials said.
Riordan said he did not draft the budget with the intent of blunting the Valley secession movement, but said he believes it reflects his policy of addressing the complaints of some Valley leaders that the area has not historically received its fair share of city resources. "Over the last six years, it has taken a little while, but we have gotten them their fair share," Riordan said. "In our budget we did not really have an eye on secession, but we just wanted to do what is fair for the Valley."
The spending blueprint does not include money for construction of a long-promised sixth police station because the project design will not be completed until late 2001, Roth said. "From a scheduling perspective, the money simply wasn't needed this year," she said. "We absolutely were encouraging them to do it [design] as quickly as possible." Roth said purchasing the property, conducting environmental studies and designing the project means construction could not begin until the fall of 2001.
Past delays in the project, initially proposed as part of a 1989 police bond measure, have long frustrated Valley civic leaders, including Richard Close, head of the secession group Valley VOTE. "We've been paying higher property taxes since 1989 because we were promised an additional police station," Close said Monday. "It just shows how mismanaged the city is." Roth said the mayor believes money will be available in the 2001-02 fiscal year for construction of the $17-million police station.
Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved