The Oct. 5 release of the Draft Fiscal Analysis report on Valley secession by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) initially set off a furor of “I-told-ya-so” backslapping among city officials and those opposed to a breakup. With the exception of city streets, the report gave no indication of how city assets trash, police and fire services, to name a few would be divided or whether they even could be, and, for a moment, gave the impression the secession movement was all but dead in the water. Then, on Oct. 11, the night of the first public hearing on a breakup, a letter signed by Mayor James Hahn, City Council President Alex Padilla and Councilwoman/LAFCO board member Cindy Miscikowski invited LAFCO and secession applicants to join them for an initial brainstorming session to discuss the possibility of holding future negotiating sessions. Where that came from is anyone’s guess. But all parties conceded and met in City Council Chambers Oct. 19 for a “kick-off” session. They walked away with Hahn agreeing to work with secession applicants and LAFCO in dividing up assets between L.A. and a new Valley city and even set dates for four subsequent public meetings. So, why the about-face from Hahn and Co.? Sure, they’ve all agreed not to get in the way of democracy and let the voters take up the issue next November. But they have also vowed to keep Los Angeles whole come hell or high water. Perhaps the three did some thinking and came to the conclusion that, just as in the dismantling of a marriage, sometimes it’s better for the children’s sake to avoid acrimonious public displays over things like who gets what, and simply hope for an amicable solution to the bigger problem. Nah. There’s got to be more. Why else would they jeopardize support from the hundreds of city employees who have also vowed to wage a bitter campaign against being told they no longer work for or, in some cases, live in Los Angeles? “The only thing I can think of is someone has made some serious tactical decisions there that we just don’t know about yet,” said former State Assemblyman Richard Katz. No kidding. Hahn also offered the use of City Hall for the negotiating sessions but LAFCO Executive Director Larry J. Calemine nixed that idea. “LAFCO believes that neutral ground would be a more appropriate setting,” Calemine wrote in a letter to city officials thanking them for their co-operation at the kick-off. So instead, the first of the four meetings was held inside a conference room last Thursday at the County Hall of Administration, also home to LAFCO’ and likely just down the hall from Calemine’s office. So much for neutral. The three remaining meetings are scheduled for Nov. 1, 8 and 15. Who Am I? Why Am I Here? Anyone who attended the “Pros & Cons of Valley Cityhood” luncheon sponsored by the Woodland Hills Chamber of Commerce Oct. 17 and walked away more confused than ever about the issue, take comfort: You are not alone. It seemed first of all that a good majority of the 50 or so members who turned up for the “discussion” were more interested in the lemon cake than they were in hearing about things like alimony and the draft fiscal analysis report. So maybe the point was already lost on those folks from the beginning. But for those paying attention, what they got was a bizarre sort of mock-debate involving Valley VOTE president Jeff Brain, local attorney and secessionist John Walker, Julie Butcher, general manager of SEIU Local 347, and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Felipe Fuentes. The panel was given an opportunity to answer a series of prepared questions posed by two members of the chamber’s Governmental Affairs Committee. A total of 10 questions were asked, two of which were answered by all four panel members, the remaining eight split evenly between the opponents (Butcher and Fuentes) and the proponents (Brain and Walker). The problem wasn’t so much the questions, but of whom they were asked. For example: opponents were asked what a realistic transition time for a new Valley city to become completely independent would be, and how services would be provided. Butcher and Fuentes mulled that one over and Butcher eventually agreed to tackle it. But how could Butcher, who oversees some 12,000 union members, most of whom are opposed to a breakup, know the answer to this question, let alone care? The last thing she wants to talk about is a plan to divide up her troops for they are, after all, part of the assets. Which explains her response: “I’ll give you that the city takes a long time and we measure things there in dog years.” Translation: Not sure. Probably a good answer. Then another misguided question directed at the opponents: “What is the current demographics of the Valley, and how will the new city (insure) minorities are going to be properly represented if the Valley becomes its own city?” I swear I saw Fuentes, who took that one on, glance over at Brain for some backup. I won’t even get into how or why Lois Curran-Klein, who heads the chamber committee and drafted the questions, doesn’t know the demographics of the Valley. But in order to give those members who either weren’t snoring at their tables or ducking out the back door something to go home with, shouldn’t she have made sure the right side answered the right questions? Here’s the one I’m still spinning over. All four panel members were asked to give two “positive” reasons why the Valley should split, and two “negative” reasons why it should not become its own city. I guess lawyers are used to those kinds of land mines, so the best answer, from where I sat, came from Walker. “I’ll give you three reasons why not to support it,” said Walker. “If it’s not going to improve services for the Valley; if it can’t be done without hurting Los Angeles, and if it’s not going to give the Valley better access to their local government.” Of course, anyone who has been following along knows the key word there was “if.” Because they also know that, with the exception now of fine-tuning the division of assets and getting approval from LAFCO for a ballot initiative, we’re pretty much past the “if” stage and into the big “how.” Reporter Jacqueline Fox can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].
