Promises to Put Secession on Ballot Being Put to the Test

The contention by the state controller that the harbor area would not be financially healthy if it split from Los Angeles puts local elected officials on the spot, raising the possibility that the measure will not make the November ballot despite promises that it would.

Ever since secession became a prominent issue in the mid-1990s, most Southern California politicians have given lip service to the idea that such proposals to break up the city should be put before the voters.

But now, with both Controller Kathleen Connell and the Local Agency Formation Commission raising serious questions about the viability of a harbor-area city, those promises will be put to the test.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles officials continue to fight the proposals at the procedural level. On Tuesday, Mayor James K. Hahn raised formal objections to key terms and conditions being considered for the San Fernando Valley, harbor and Hollywood cityhood proposals. He also sought a six-month delay for the new municipalities to begin operating.

A letter from the mayor, to be acted on today by the Los Angeles City Council, also disputes a finding by the LAFCO executive director that the agency can require the city to charge residents of the new cities the same water and power rates paid by residents of Los Angeles.

“We do not believe that LAFCO has the legal authority to impose a condition related to the setting of utility rates by Los Angeles,” Hahn wrote.

He also said that the new cities should not have extra time to pay for such expensive services as police and fire protection--and that Los Angeles should be allowed to cut them off if they don’t pay promptly.

The city continued to insist that a new Valley city would owe Los Angeles $300 million a year in so-called alimony payments, money meant to replace lost revenue and extra costs incurred if the region breaks away, despite insistence by LAFCO and Connell that such a payment would be excessive.

The council is scheduled to consider two reports by City Administrative Officer William Fujioka that maintain that Valley and harbor cityhood proposals would cause financial harm to the remainder of Los Angeles.

Richard Close, chairman of Valley VOTE, the organization working to put a Valley secession proposal on the ballot, accused the city of trying to thwart the process “by making unreasonable demands.”

Close’s concern goes to the heart of the dilemma facing Hahn and other elected officials as the threat of secession appears more realistic.

LAFCO, which oversees the creation of new cities and evaluates secession proposals, has said it intends to put all three secession measures on the November ballot if they meet state standards.

Hahn, most members of the City Council and several Los Angeles County supervisors have for years favored letting voters decide on secession issues.

During the years when secession seemed a distant possibility, most elected officials refrained from criticizing the idea even if they opposed it, in part to avoid alienating the typically middle-class voters who they believed supported it.

But now, with questions raised about the financial health of a proposed city in the harbor area, some elected officials have started to back away from the idea.

On Tuesday, LAFCO released a report that said it would place the harbor-area secession measure on the ballot only if proponents could prove that they could raise more money than originally projected.

Andrew Mardesich, who chairs the harbor secession effort, said the group had put together a new budget and was working with the commission to show that a harbor city could survive on its own.

Former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) said he still thinks that the harbor-area proposal should go before the voters because petitioners gathered enough signatures to place it on the ballot.

But if the political winds change, and LAFCO members, who are themselves elected officials from a variety of jurisdictions, begin to see that harm could come from putting a wobbly proposal on the ballot, harbor cityhood supporters could lose their backers.

Already, Zev Yaroslavsky, one of two county supervisors on the LAFCO board and a key architect of the board’s position on secession, has said he would not support placing the harbor measure on the ballot if proponents could not convince him that their idea for cityhood could work financially.

Councilwoman and LAFCO board member Cindy Miscikowski, who opposes secession, said Tuesday that the mayor’s letter and accompanying report raise significant concerns that LAFCO must address before deciding whether to put any cityhood proposals on the November ballot.

There could be some political fallout if the measures do not make the ballot. Voters could become angry at officials--particularly Hahn--who seemed to be promising a vote and then pulled their support.

At the same time, there are signs that secession may be picking up new friends.

Councilman Nate Holden, who has objected to breaking up the city, indicated that he may vote against the Hahn letter.

People in his district believe that if some regions break away, his central city area would have more political “juice” in a downsized Los Angeles, he said.