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.
The people of the San Fernando Valley have won a major victory in the secession study fight: The agency that will decide on a cityhood plan will actually be able to consider what's best for Los Angeles and the Valley. That's not what L.A. City Hall wanted. The politicians who have run this city to the brink of breakup wanted to turn the cityhood issue into a crap shoot.
If City Hall got its way, the secessionists would have gotten one shot at defining the terms of secession and if that didn't work, the game was up.
But that's not what state law says, according to an opinion issued by Los Angeles County Counsel Lloyd Pellman.
The county's Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees the cityhood study, has the authority to decide a broad range of issues, such as water rights, how to divide city assets and explore many different alternative scenarios for how to break up the city, Pellman ruled. The ruling throws the debate on secession wide open. LAFCO is the agency that decides what the deal will be that is presented to voters.
But Pellman found the city's position to be filled with holes. Don't be surprised if the city decides to challenge the decision in court, further wasting money it doesn't have and time the people of the Valley don't have as they seek a government that meets their needs.
The counsel gave LAFCO its mission statement. The agency empowered by state law to study cityhood movements has broad powers to explore how to break up the city in a way that gives the remaining part of Los Angeles and the Valley each enough money to maintain the current level of service.
City Hall had argued the agency could only vote yes or no on a single proposal, thereby preventing all concerned from studying and evaluating all the pertinent points.
The decision reflects common sense. If secession succeeded for the Valley, not every asset would have to be divided. The Valley and L.A. could share the cost of the services as long as the cost was neutral to both parties. If there was any honor at City Hall, negotiators could sit down and work out a deal acceptable to all. But there is a better chance of a peace treaty in the Middle East than a fair deal for the Valley from Los Angeles' elected officials.
Bonds, revenue sharing and lump-sum payments all could be used to settle accounts. Water and other rights could be divided in a way that serves everyone on both sides of the hill. Now, the burden is on LAFCO to wade through all of the options in a nonpolitical way and put an honest deal on the table so voters can decide the issue for themselves.
By Harrison Sheppard, Staff Writer
In a victory for San Fernando Valley secessionists, the Los Angeles County Counsel ruled in documents released Monday that the agency studying cityhood has broad authority in deciding how to break up the city, including dividing water rights.
The decision also allows the Local Agency Formation Commission to draft and choose from a wide range of scenarios, rather than voting yes or no on a single proposal -- which means a greater likelihood of getting secession on the ballot in 2002, according to Valley VOTE leaders.
Los Angeles city officials have argued that LAFCO had to consider one plan from Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment without suggesting alternatives. Some also argued that water rights could not be divided, leaving the Valley facing possible high surcharges for water. But County Counsel Lloyd Pellman ruled LAFCO has authority to decide a broad range of issues, including water rights.
Cityhood study supporters cheered Pellman's ruling, saying LAFCO should have multiple options and broad authority to come up with the best plan. "It gives LAFCO vast discretion to prepare a plan that meets the needs of those people who live north of Mulholland (Drive) as well as those who live south of Mulholland," said Richard Close, chairman of Valley VOTE.
Some city officials -- such as City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who chairs the council's committee on secession -- disagree with Pellman, saying that allowing LAFCO to design other plans takes it out of the role of neutral judge. Miscikowski believes LAFCO should only consider the exact plan put forward by Valley VOTE.
"It would be like if you were a referee and you were asked to provide some sort of judgment on whether or not the ball was out of bounds -- and you were allowed to move the ball in lots of ways that could give different perspectives on whether or not the ball was really out of bounds," said Miscikowski's legislative deputy, Lisa Gritzner. "That's really not fair."
On the water rights issue, Department of Water and Power head S. David Freeman has said in the past that Los Angeles would retain rights to the water if the Valley split off because it owned the rights before the Valley joined Los Angeles. The DWP could still sell water to Valley residents, he said, but at higher rates because of a city ordinance that provides for a surcharge on water sold to noncity residents. Freeman could not be reached for comment Monday.
The study itself is running behind because the process of getting information from the city is taking longer than expected, according to the LAFCO consultant. It will be delayed by at least two months to November, said consultant Craig Hoshijima of Public Financial Management. He said he does not believe the city is intentionally dragging its heels, but rather that "the complex and esoteric nature of the data" has meant more questions that required additional work from city employees.
LAFCO's Executive Officer Larry Calemine said the delay should still allow enough time to get the proposal on the ballot in 2002, depending on how other steps in the process proceed.
I am astounded that the salaries of the Los Angeles City Council keep going up, up and up. That council just had a hefty raise a short while ago and now another. They are overpaid already and keep getting even more money. Our property taxes pay for these raises. I think the Los Angeles City Council members should get the income of about the median average of private industry. Any raises should be with voter approval only.
The members of the Los Angeles City Council never have to feel the pinch of inflation like the rest of us citizens. They stand apart from us. They live their same high lifestyle upon our backs. Oh, if we citizens could just change this humiliating situation!
Ronald R. Rushton North Hollywood
Drat. I was just sitting here trying to figure out how to cash in on the millionaire-reality TV show biz, when a really great idea for a new show hit me. Here's the bit: At the start of each episode we have the audience call in and donate. The goal is to raise $4 million per show. Each week, the donors have no idea what the producers will do with the money.
Some money gets tossed into a lottery (with big-buck sponsors tied in -- buy a soda, get a ticket, etc.). Some projects are real heart grabbers, help for the needy, etc. And some are just "fun money" projects. Like handing over the whole $4 million and letting someone blow it on a gigantic party for themselves.
Then the real "reality" hit me. I've been beat out. The producers are the Los Angeles mayor and City Council.
David Lichtman Northridge
Your editorial "August Surprise" (July 19) correctly called for security during the Democrat Convention next month. However, the Daily News failed to note that this million-dollar-plus taxpayer subsidy comes without reimbursement from the Democratic National Committee or the city of Los Angeles. This violates county policy and amounts to corporate welfare.
In the past, sponsors of the successful World Cup soccer games, faced with security issues involving Interpol, the FBI, CIA, Pasadena police and sheriff's department, paid for these services, just as the Tournament of Roses pays for the services of the sheriff's department for the million people who attend the Rose Parade and the 90,000 who attend the Rose Bowl. In 1984, the Olympic Committee sponsors also paid for security.
Subsidizing the multibillionaires and multimillionaires who are co-chairing the Democratic National Convention with tax dollars is wrong. A pledge was made by them not to use public funds, and now it has been broken.
This action by the board's liberal majority is pandering to special interests at the expense of our own citizens' needs. Just two weeks ago, funding the district attorney's sex abuse unit and the sheriff's gang units were postponed until September due to financial concerns.
Other vital services taking a back seat to this wasteful gift of public funds include filling vacant sheriff's deputies positions, removing guns from convicted felons on probation, purchasing needed aircraft for our fire department and keeping libraries open on weekends.
Michael D. Antonovich Los Angeles County Supervisor
My Lake View Terrace community felt the effects of the North Valley Area Planning Commission at a hearing on July 6. It was not a positive experience. The hearing was on appealing a conditional-use permit to build in our neighborhood.
The mayor says these commissions will ensure residents have greater local control over land use issues. Residents voiced their opposition and many were told to hurry it up. The representative for the group requesting the permit was given as long as he wanted for his presentation. Their appeal was granted — ours was ignored.
These citizens the mayor appointed do not know the laws regarding land use. Their only qualification is that they reside in the North Valley. The new charter is politics as usual, whoever has the most money has control.
Brenda Thornberg, Lake View Terrace
On June 22, I attended a Los Angeles Planning Commission meeting with about 100 other people who wanted to give public input about developments proposed for their communities. The residents who attend these meetings do so because they want the commission to know what will adversely affect them, their lifestyles and their property values. They expect the commissioners to be interested in their concerns and do their best to help out. Wrong.
What the participants got in most instances was a rude, intimidating attitude that said loud and clear: "We really don't care." The community problems are of only minimal concern to the commission. It bows to the wishes of the politicians and their developer friends. The commission is oblivious to the fact that the public seeks a voice, justice, something that says we have a right to care about what happens in our neighborhoods.
If the case is a big one, such as Warner Ridge or Porter Ranch, the commission's only goal is to please the mayor (who appoints commissioners and sent a representative to sit in the front row), the developers and the paid-for council members.
Am I angry and disgusted? You bet. Will I now support secession? Absolutely. And my most fervent hope is that the commissioners stay within the boundaries of Los Angeles, where they can live with the mess they helped create.
SUSAN STEELE Chatsworth
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another . . . a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
So begins our nation's Declaration of Independence, today celebrating its 224th anniversary, announcing to the world why 13 American colonies deserved to be free of the British crown.
With the secessionist spirit alive and well in the Valley, decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which may impel the Valley to seek separation from the city of Los Angeles.
Like "the history of the present King of Great Britain" in 1776, the history of the present Los Angeles City Council "is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations." "To prove this," as Thomas Jefferson put it, "let Facts be submitted to a candid world":
The Council "has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant" -- downtown Los Angeles.
It "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance" -- swarms of overpaid, underworked city employees, no less.
It "has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution" -- collaborating behind closed doors to cut secret deals such as the consent decree now being worked out that would put the LAPD under federal control.
It is guilty of "imposing Taxes on us without our consent" -- unfair sewer rates and the ill-fated brush clearance fee, to name just two.
It "has excited domestic insurrections against us" -- praising the LAPD for doing nothing during the Laker riots, thereby putting the lives and safety of innocent civilians at the hands of a wild mob.
But even King George, for all his faults, never tried to send British toilet water to the colonists' taps, or stick Boston with a Sunshine Canyon landfill. The King's monarchical indulgences never included snorting cocaine in Buckingham Palace, letting the serfs pick up the tab for his Lincoln Navigator, or accepting undeserved pay hikes tied to those of judges.
Yet "in every stage of these oppressions," the Valley has "Petitioned for redress in the most humble terms."
The folly of King George more than 200 years ago does not have to be repeated, but we have seen precious few signs of change at City Hall. The burden of holding this city together is on the city's elected officials, and so far they do not measure up to the task.
The "Spirit of '76" July 4 editorial lists only a few of the valid complaints that exist against the Los Angeles City Council. I am sure that lack of space on the page is the main reason many more were not listed.
But the final sentence says it all for secession: "The burden of holding this city together is on the city's elected officials, and so far they do not measure up to the task."
They continue to insult our intelligence daily.
Theodora Howell West Hills
Why don't we let the L.A. City Council members write in and tell us why they are worth all the money?
David Ponce Chatsworth
By Dominic Berbeo - Staff Writer
If the San Fernando Valley became a city, it would have an elected mayor and council districts of no more than 100,000 people each, under a bill passed by a state Senate panel Wednesday. Assembly Bill 185 passed unanimously in the Senate Local Government Committee and likely will go before the full Senate in August.
Current state law mandates that newly formed cities -- regardless of size -- be governed by a five-member council that rotates members to serve as mayor, a system currently in place in such cities as Burbank, Glendale and San Fernando.
Included in AB 185 is a provision establishing an even-numbered council with 12 or more members, each representing no more than 100,000 residents per district. Los Angeles' 15 council districts now include 200,000 to 250,000 constituents each.
The bill would also apply to any other newly formed city with more than 1 million residents. A mayor would be elected on a citywide basis and serve as a voting member of the council.
Valley activists exploring secession from Los Angeles said the bill is key to establishing city government that is truly responsive to the community. "Clearly the old scheme is not acceptable in a city that would include more than 1.3 million people," said Richard Close, chairman of Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment. "The problem now is that no one can see their council member, and that's one of the main reasons why a new city is necessary."
The bill is an effort to ensure that a new city government is easily accessible, said Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, who authored the legislation. "There's 1.3 million people in the San Fernando Valley. The last thing Valley residents want to see is local representation watered down," Hertzberg said.
Bound by current law and the maximum five elected representatives, Hertzberg said, a new city would be ineffective. "You're going to have worse representation." The new council district boundaries would be created by the Local Agency Formation Commission, the county panel that oversees the creation of new cities. The agency is currently studying the possibility of a Valley secession vote.
In order for a citywide vote, LAFCO must determine that secession would have a limited effect on the finances of the Los Angeles or the new Valley city. Close said that because the bill allows for a council of more than 12 districts, Valley VOTE is still discussing how big the council should be, but that it is leaning toward support for a 12-member council.
If LAFCO authorizes a citywide secession vote, Close said, it could be on the ballot by November 2002. Mayoral and council candidates would also be on the ballot, he said. [A point overlooked is that each councilperson would be elected by district instead of at large as the old law required. Election by district allows the candidate to campaign in his local district instead of each candidate having to campaign over the entire city]
Peter Hidalgo, a spokesman for Mayor Richard Riordan, an opponent of secession, declined to comment on Hertzberg's bill. But he said new neighborhood planning commissions and other features in the city charter revisions that took effect July 1 would give Valley residents much of the local control they have been seeking. [Note the commissions and councils are not elected and serve by appointment of the mayor . They are advisory without any voter control or reasonability. How the political appointees give the residents control as claimed was not addressed]
I personally -- regardless of what Ruth Galanter and other City Council members say or think -- don’t care about the city redeeming itself from the dismal millennium New Year’s Eve party. What I do care about is money for our schools, money to fix potholes and sidewalks, money to help the needy/homeless. If additional funds are needed for the DNC, I suggest they try additional fund raising.
-- Sylvia Hudson-Cloyd, Canoga Park
How do you awaken Rip Van Winkel?
Two weeks and four days ago (June1), someone dumped a load of garbage and house trash in the center of the alley next door to us. After several phone calls by neighbors, the next day a street maintenance person came and moved the trash against our block wall. He said it would be picked up on Tuesday (June 6).
This garbage stinks and it draws flies, and it is still out there.
We have called street maintenance two more times. And we have called Councilwoman Laura Chick's office twice. All these city employees tell us that it will be taken care of right away. What does it take to get these city employees to do their jobs, as they promise?
-- Barney and Mary Lou Kotrbe, Van Nuys
Re " `Alimony' could be owed to L.A." (June 7):
The Los Angeles City Council is greedy and mean-spirited. On Tuesday it voted that "any new city (namely Valley cities) be required to pay the old city." Thank God for council members Hal Bernson, Laura Chick, Joel Wachs and Rudy Svorinich who dissented.
Council, take a serious look at revenue generated in the L.A. metropolitan area. For every dollar Valleyites pay, a paltry 16 (cents) to 17 cents is returned to us. This is supremely unfair. L.A. owes the Valley. We should hire a slick legal mind and sue L.A. for such egregious treatment and for more of our hard-earned capital to be returned to us -- whether we choose to secede or not. [The residents of the Valley also pay most of the salaries and costs of the City's attempts to block secession]
-- N.J. Herron, Van Nuys