ValleyVote Update for 4-9-01 |
We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning ValleyVote
See the LAFCO report (Partial HTML http://www.ValleyVote.org/Lacity/IFA1.htm) (Word *.doc http://www.ValleyVote.org/Lacity/ifaocindex.htm ) and (PDF http://lalafco.co.la.ca.us/IFASanFernandoValley.pdf )
By RICHARD KATZ
The greatness of any city is measured not in its size or its shape but in its heart. It is rooted in people's enduring desire to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, their communities, their home.
That's what is driving a campaign for self-determination in the San Fernando Valley, which reached a critical juncture recently with an analysis that shows Valley neighborhoods are being shortchanged in services by the city of Los Angeles, and that forming a new Valley city is fiscally viable.
There still are political hurdles ahead, including naysayers from over the hill who only pay lip service to helping improve our quality of life. Mayor Richard Riordan, for example, criticized Valley cityhood proponents as "downright immoral" and accused us of trying to "abandon the poor people of the city." The mayor then went home to Brentwood, where the word apparently has not yet arrived that the Valley is not the isolated enclave he thinks it is.
As last week's census report clearly indicates, the Valley is every bit as diverse economically, culturally and ethnically as the rest of the city. The people of the Valley are not going anywhere and are not abandoning anyone. We're staying right where we are and taking responsibility for improving our neighborhoods and our quality of life. Rich and poor, all ethnicities, we are organizing together to ensure our success.
Valley residents dream of a city in which their voices and their votes count; where their taxes are spent to protect their neighborhoods, fill their potholes, trim their trees and make parks clean and safe for their children to play in. We dream of a city that doesn't stall for 12 years in implementing voter approval of a new police station in the northeast Valley. [LA City spend the voter approved bonds on other projects instead of the promised police station ]
We're tired of feeling cheated, frustrated, ignored and dismissed by the downtown power brokers, who siphon off our tax money and deny us a fair share of services even as our neighborhoods deteriorate. The Local Agency Formation Commission study confirmed that Valley residents pay more in taxes than they receive in services (a deficit of $700 million in 10 years). It confirmed that less than 25% of the sworn and civilian positions in the Los Angeles Police Department are based in the Valley. And only 18% of the city's disaster preparedness budget is spent in the Valley.
The LAFCO study also confirmed that a Valley city is economically viable, giving hope that Los Angeles and its 3.6 million people spread across 462 square miles might be effectively reorganized into smaller and more manageable cities.
The yearning for a better way of life is not confined to the Valley. Across Los Angeles, people are expressing a desire for more control over what happens in their neighborhoods. People want a strong voice in local zoning and land-use decisions. They want control over their lives and their communities.
Today, each member of the City Council represents more than 250,000 people. In a new Valley city, the ratio would be one council member per 100,000 people, and every resident of Los Angeles, whether in the Valley or not, would have a better representation ratio.
So what's next? Over the next 45 days, Valley VOTE will review the LAFCO report and submit comments in response. Your participation in this process is important; every resident of the Valley should have a voice in the process.
Once the public response period is over, LAFCO will issue a final report and the question of Valley cityhood would be put to voters on the November 2002 ballot. Each of the major candidates for mayor has agreed to support placing the question on the ballot. They may not support the reorganization itself, but they agree with Valley VOTE that the people of the city, not politicians or the bureaucrats, should make this important decision.
This could be the most meaningful vote in Los Angeles on government reform in the modern era. In the end, it's not about jagged lines on a map or whether our mailing address is "Los Angeles" or something else. It's about our city's heart and ensuring that, no matter the name, we feel good about calling it home.
Richard Katz, a Former Democratic Assemblyman From the San Fernando Valley, Is a Board Member of Valley Vote
By XANDRA KAYDEN
The numbers are finally coming in on secession, but they probably won't settle the argument about whether the San Fernando Valley should secede from the city of Los Angeles. Money is only part of the story. A significant part, to be sure, but probably not the most important in the long run. Although there haven't been any polls on this, it is possible that those who most ardently yearn for their own city are those who remember it "when." Or at least remember what it was depicted to be on television and in the movies.
Even knowing that it is now as diverse--or almost as diverse--as the rest of the city, the image of the Valley is one of a homogeneous middle class, happily secure in single-family homes and good local schools. [And what is wrong with that? It is a shame the LA City council and mayor can not improve the rest of the city]
Those who worried that the Valley wasn't getting its fair share and advocated secession as the best alternative now have the opportunity to make their case with the recent release of the Local Agency Formation Commission's initial fiscal analysis. It isn't going to be an easy discussion. The most ardent secessionists bring so much passion to their cause that discussion isn't easy and others just back away. The anti-secessionists don't seem to have a voice, perhaps because there aren't any or, more likely, because aside from the mayor and those running for mayor, political leaders are waiting on their followers. There are few other large institutional perches from which a leader's voice could emerge. But the debate will be joined and, in time, the voters must make up their minds.
The numbers are going to be confusing. Yes, the Valley appears to pay more in some respects, but it gets more in others. [Not so, read the 368 page report for your self Both ValleyVote and LAFCO have it on line] Yes, the Valley could be a viable city, but it would have to pay the city of Los Angeles for the privilege ($68 million a year, according to the preliminary study). More than a quarter of the figures from the fiscal analysis were estimates because the city did not analyze certain revenue. Even so, voters will need to ask questions that go far beyond the numbers.
There are issues about participation and leadership in both the city and the region. There is a more subtle question of culture: changing, urban, peculiarly Californian, yet extraordinarily diverse. How do Valley residents want to live? How will their dreams be changed by a change in the structure of the city? If there is a real debate, these are the primary questions: Why should the Valley secede? Why shouldn't the Valley secede?
On the pro-secession side, these points could be
made: The Valley has seen a decline in city services and feels disenfranchised
because City Hall is far away. With one-third of the city's population, it is
underrepresented on the City Council because too many of its council people also
serve areas on the other side of the Santa Monica Mountains.
Los Angeles is too large and unwieldy. It takes
too much in taxes and fees for what it gives back. Perhaps even more than the
money, there is the desire for control over one's own life: "If we ran our
own city, it would be more efficient and the return to the community would be
greater."
On the anti-secession side, these points might be made: The entire city saw a decline in services through most of the 1990s because of the deep recession and because the Richard Riordan administration took from every department to supplement the budget of the Los Angeles Police Department. The City Council districts could be more coherently drawn, but they are bound by the federal Voting Rights Act. Every part of the city felt it had no access and no one listened, but that's why the City Charter was reformed and neighborhood councils were created (an opportunity not set to begin implementation until July at the earliest).
Why not give the charter a chance? If the city is divided, the new city will have the old employees and will lose as much control as it gains. And it will have an added burden in building its own infrastructure. [Wrong The LAFCO study shows a 3 year surplus of $20,344,904 even after the payments to LA to continue the Valleys subsidy of Downtown]
These are all important points, but there are other issues. The Valley is changing, in part, because the world is changing. Globalization, although admired in many respects, often hurts just because it is about change. There are new neighbors and, above all, there is a new economy that is less understandable and certainly less controllable.
The desire to have control over one's own life is seriously threatened in the 21st century no matter where you live. Would it be better in a smaller city? Would a Valley city be small enough? As it is, the Valley is many times the size of San Francisco or Boston; it is more akin to Miami. It is certainly not a community like Burbank or Santa Monica. Is being part of one of the largest cities in the world an opportunity to embrace the larger world? Cities are remembered by history.
Suburbs are nice places to live but not known for greatness. [We should in a poor place to be great?] In some respects, it may come down to the classic California conundrum: the balance of lifestyle against importance. San Francisco, at least until the technology economy hit, clearly voted for the former. L.A. chose the latter. Valley residents may have to make that choice for themselves, although it will also affect everyone else in the city, irrespective of the costs.
Xandra Kayden Is a Senior Fellow at Ucla's School of Public Policy and Social Research
San Fernando Valley residents have heard a lot of valid concerns about the "how" to split from the city of Los Angeles. But where is the "why" secession should occur?
As The Times' recent editorial asked ("Secession and Solomon, March 29), "What would the Valley gain from a municipal divorce?" Were we lured into assuming we have adopted a separatist mentality just because we voted to explore the hows with the Local Agency Formation Commission? [No, the answer is local control of the Valley by Elected Valley residents]
Los Angeles is one of a precious few cities governed under a charter granted by the state of California and is not under the thumb of the state Legislature like the others. It is puzzling as to why Valley residents would want to give up this cherished and rare right of self-governance. [The new valley city can create it's own charter by a voter approved action].
Do not be railroaded into sacrificing or modifying this unique privilege or be exploited by a handful of unknown promoters with possible hidden agendas. Before we get too embroiled and distracted by the how, let us have some serious debate about the merits of why we should secede.
ARTIS SLIPSAGER Studio City
Valley residents are not the only ones who are experiencing poor service, as documented by Patrick McGreevy: "Valley dwellers say they've experienced lack of city services firsthand."
When the city repaved our streets in the Hollywood Hills, they left a depression in front of our house, which continually fills up with water, mud and debris. This gooey mess is a safety hazard to pedestrians and cars, as well as an eyesore. Also, they did not finish the gutters, which are rough and uneven, and collect leaves, dirt and weeds. We did not have these problems before the repaving, as water and debris naturally flowed across the street and on down the hill.
I have written letters and made numerous phone calls over the past two years, trying to get these problems corrected, and I do not get any response. Maybe it is time for Hollywood to secede too.
ROBERT L. KNOX Hollywood
If cowboy humorist Will Rogers were alive today and asked to comment on LAFCO's recent determination that Valley secession is both revenue neutral and feasible, his reply would be, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure!" The study was weighted down with numerous conflicts of interest. Its end result was predetermined. The only question was the rationalization used to reach that point.
If enacted, Valley secession could look forward to generating a multitude of costly and time-consuming litigations. It might then be renamed "the indigent attorney's social security and old age pension act."
[All LAFCO can do is place the matter before the voters
which requires a majority of the Valley and LA City to approve the new city]
LOUIS ROBINS Van Nuys
Just read a small article in the Daily News about business leaders mulling over the pros and cons of Valley secession. Have them take a good look at Burbank, Glendale and La Canada.
None of the streets in Burbank has potholes. They are all newly paved. The residents enjoy the best police force and Fire Department and a great school system. They take care of their own -- nothing to do with Los Angeles. Secession would be the best thing for the San Fernando Valley. Take a lesson from Burbank.
Jane Wing North Hollywood
Reaction: Valley dwellers say they've experienced lack of city services firsthand.
By PATRICK MCGREEVY, Times Staff Writer
Margaret Guyer didn't need to read the latest 380-page study of city services in the San Fernando Valley to know what it found--that her Sylmar neighborhood and the rest of the Valley's residents are not getting services to match the taxes they pay. Guyer has firsthand experience in trying unsuccessfully to get the city to pick up stray dogs, remove abandoned cars and fix cracked sidewalks to confirm what page after page of the financial report found.
"I don't think I'm getting my fair share of services," said the retired technician. "Every time we have called the dog pound or the tree trimmers or the street repair people, they put us off." Guyer was not surprised that the most comprehensive financial analysis ever done on Los Angeles found that the San Fernando Valley pays $68 million more in taxes than it receives back in the form of city services. The report was released last week by the Local Agency Formation Commission.
Former Assemblyman Richard Katz, a member of the
secession group Valley VOTE, said the financial analysis conducted as part of
the Valley cityhood study backs with facts the complaints that Valley residents
have felt for years.
"What the study does is [it] puts data behind
all the little anecdotes we have heard over the years about the Valley not
getting its fair share," Katz said.
But many Los Angeles leaders said the numbers and
charts paint an incomplete picture of the distribution of city resources.
The raw figures miss the point, they contend. City
Hall often distributes resources not based on the source of revenue, or on
population, but instead bases services on need, they said.
"If it's a question of fixing potholes, you
fix them where that is needed," said Venice-area Councilwoman Ruth Galanter.
The councilwoman is one of the most outspoken critics of the Valley cityhood movement, which triggered the financial study by collecting the signatures of 25% of Valley voters. The study found Wednesday that a Valley city would be financially viable, and even operate with a surplus, after paying Los Angeles $68 million in "alimony" each year to cover the amount of revenue that would be lost if a break occurred.
"This shows how the San Fernando Valley has
been shortchanged, especially the northeast Valley," said Councilman Alex
Padilla of Pacoima.
Valley VOTE Chairman Richard Close and Councilman
Hal Bernson of Granada Hills both pointed to the report's findings on police
services to prove their complaint.
The report found that 24.7% of the LAPD's
employees currently provide services to the Valley, and 27.5% of employees with
field assignments work in the Valley Bureau.
"I have often felt in the past that the Valley is not getting its fair share," Bernson said. "The report showed that with the police alone. We have 24% of the police officers in an area that is nearly 50% of the city." Residents, including Guyer, have sensed that for years. She lives in the LAPD's Foothill Division, which has the longest average emergency response time in the city, 10 1/2 minutes.
County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Valley, said police deployment cannot just be based on where the taxes are generated or where people live. "Public policy does not dictate that every tax dollar is divided up by population," he said. "It's divided by need. Historically, crime problems in other parts of the city have been much more intense."
LAPD Deputy Chief Ronald Bergmann, who heads the Valley Bureau, said he sympathizes with Valley residents who want more police officers. At any time, there are only 150 to 200 officers patrolling the Valley, with a population of 1.3 million. Bergmann said the deployment formula is fair when considering the city as a whole, but the results might be different if the Valley were a separate city.
In another area, the study concluded that the Valley generates 46% of animal license fees in the city--the largest source for the animal services budget and one gauge of the Valley's entitlement to services--but has 33% of the shelters and about 36% of the Animal Regulation Department staff.
Another finding: A Valley city would be entitled to about 35.5% of the special sales tax funds that pay for the DASH shuttle bus system in Los Angeles, but only two of the 27 Dash routes were in the Valley--about 7% of the routes - -according to the 1998-99 budget used by the study. Since then, Valley routes have increased to four, but service still lags in percentage terms from the taxes generated in the Valley.
"It is symptomatic of the fact that given the choice between the needs of the Valley and other needs, the downtown political establishment has always chosen other needs," said Katz, who formerly chaired the Assembly Transportation Committee.
City Transportation Department manager Tom Chang noted that there is a high concentration of businesses and jobs downtown, [Which seems odd when the Valley generates 46% of the LA City' sale taxes] therefore the six DASH lines in the central city are meeting the greatest need. But the report also found that the Valley has 44% of street miles in the city, but that 32.4% of the Street Services Bureau workers assigned geographically serve the Valley, which receives 35.3% of gas-tax funded street repairs.
The Valley has 38.2% of the Building and Safety Department staff and represents about 40.1% of inspections done.
As for the Fire Department, the Valley has 34.2% of the fire stations and about 30.9% of its staff, roughly equivalent to the tax revenue it generates.
Beyond a straight comparison of how resources are allocated, Valley VOTE chairman Close said the Valley cityhood movement is based on the idea that local control over the resources in the future will allow for them to be used more efficiently and effectively. The report, Close said, "confirms that consistently the Valley is not getting what it is paying for. We don't have the political clout to get our fair share." He cited the report's findings that the new Valley city would generate a surplus as proof that it would have enough money to increase police services.
Yaroslavsky agreed that the Valley secession movement is about autonomy. "What you're seeing happening is a desire to get some local control back in God's little acre here that they own, in their little piece of the pie," Yaroslavsky said.
Times staff writer Sue Fox contributed to this story.
See our Website and all the Updates are archived http://www.ValleyVote.org/updates/index.htmlon our site.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. **If you friends want to be added to our E-mail list please send an E-mail with ValleyVote as the subject. We share our e-mail list with no one. Charles Brink Webmaster. If you want to have your name removed from the list just reply with remove as subject |