Mayor Stands by L.A., Wherever That Is

When debate roared over Proposition 187, the California ballot measure to address illegal immigration, Mayor Richard Riordan declined to state his opinion. For him to take a stand on this divisive issue, the mayor not-so-boldly declared, would serve to further divide the people of the great city of Los Angeles. His job, he said, was to bring Angelenos together.

This rationale has proven handy in ducking tough issues. Riordan has invoked it again in explaining his neutrality on the initiative to abolish race- and gender-based preferences in state hiring and contracts.

But now comes Assemblywoman Paula Boland’s measure that quite literally is aimed at dividing the people of Los Angeles. And Riordan, incredibly, wants to duck this one, too.

“I’m not going to oppose the bill or support it,” he told The Times’ Jean Merl on Friday after making a series of contradictory statements. “I’m not going to lobby for it or against it.” This, from a mayor who touts the city’s marketing slogan “Together, we’re the best.”

If you appreciate politics for its entertainment value, nothing has been more comical lately than the mayor’s feckless flip-flops. In this circus, he’s supposed to be the ringmaster. But last week, Boland’s bit of political magic gave him all the grace of a clown imitating a contortionist.

And to think how easily this embarrassment could have been avoided. But Riordan, reluctant to offend anyone, never learned the lesson of the greatest Republican who ever lived, the tall, bearded man who said you can’t fool all the people all the time and, come to think of it, a house divided against itself will not stand.

When Boland, a Granada Hills Republican, introduced her bill to make it easier for the San Fernando Valley to secede from the city of Los Angeles, Riordan wanted it both ways. On one hand, he adamantly declared that secession was a bad idea, both for the Valley and the rest of the city. And he’s right about that.

Any serious attempt would amount to an expensive, distracting, time-consuming, litigious and, yes, divisive undertaking. There’s ultimately little reason to think secession would drastically affect the average family’s quality of life, unless the Valley could vote to relocate to Maui.

On the other hand, Riordan seems afraid of offending Boland and other true believers, even though he won election by an overwhelming 2-1 margin in the Valley. It’s the details that give Riordan trouble. Without considering the ramifications of the bill’s technical aspects, he unthinkingly bought into the shallow rhetoric that this is a measure about “democracy” and “self-determination.” What red-blooded American isn’t for democracy and self-determination?

Maybe Riordan thought he could avoid taking a stand because Boland’s bill wouldn’t go anywhere. But last Thursday, Boland noticed that several opponents were absent and got her bill passed in the lower house, where Republicans hold a majority. Boland’s bill would allow distinct regions of Los Angeles, not the city as a whole, to vote on secession, and it would lift the City Council’s veto power on such a bid.

It was then that Riordan’s contortions really began. Soon after the Assembly vote, Riordan’s office issued a prepared statement: “The measure should be amended to require that all city voters have the right and opportunity to vote on this matter.” Talking to reporters Friday morning, he again said voters citywide should vote, but stopped short of saying the bill should be amended.

But Friday afternoon, within minutes of declaring his neutrality, Riordan told a TV reporter on camera “I support the bill” because it was about “self-determination.” In a truly tacky gesture, he blamed aides for issuing a fallacious press release. Goodness knows why they might get confused.

All of this led to yet another press release, this one approved by Riordan: “One of the fundamental principles of democracy is that everyone has the right to participate in major decisions affecting their community. I am supportive of the right of Los Angeles residents to choose their own destiny. However, I am personally opposed to the splintering of our great city.”

So Riordan believes in the right of all Los Angeles citizens to vote on any secession bid, right? Wrong. Reached on his car phone, the mayor told Merl: “No, I don’t mean the city as a whole” should get the vote. “I mean the Valley. I think they have that right.” Riordan, Merl reported, said this with a sigh. It was then that he said he wouldn’t lobby for or against the Boland bill, adding: “Frankly, I wish it wasn’t there.”

So, evidently he’s hoping Boland’s bill will just go away--and it might. If it doesn’t die in the state Senate, it should in the courts. Imagine how a court would view an initiative that would divide California into two but would deny a majority of Californians the right to vote on the matter.

Boland’s bill isn’t about democracy. It’s about creating a privilege--and about political posturing. As for “self-determination,” please save that rhetoric for the oppressed people of the world. When I moved to Los Angeles, I personally seceded from San Diego. Paula Boland herself, facing term limits, has moved into another district to run for the Senate. Now that’s self-determination.

Whatever anyone feels about secession, those of us who voted for Riordan, and that includes me, may be both amused and disappointed. I remember why my vote wound up with Riordan. This was post-riot Los Angeles, and elements of then-Councilman Michael Woo’s campaign were making the odious argument that a white guy couldn’t possibly unite Los Angeles. That turned this white guy off.

The more I learned about Riordan--his self-made success, his inner-city philanthropy, his long involvement in civic affairs, his hard-headed business sense--the more it seemed that the Brentwood multimillionaire was the best choice.

Perhaps it’s not polite to compare a successful businessman to a clown imitating a contortionist. Perhaps he’s more like the chief executive officer of a Fortune 500 company presiding over a shareholders’ meeting. There’s a hostile takeover brewing, but they really only want about 40% of the firm. What’s more, they want it worked out so some shareholders vote on the matter, but most don’t.

And the CEO, incredibly, doesn’t know what to say.