Splitting Up Secession Questions Makes Sense to Some Politics by Jacqueline Fox “Breakup foes lose vote fight” That’s the headline in the May 9 issue of the Daily News. The day before, Jeff Daar, co-chairman of the anti-secession group One Los Angeles, asked the Local Agency Formation Commission to consider holding separate elections for secession and new Valley city council and mayoral races. Daar and his group want the election on secession to be held Nov. 5, provided an initiative on the issue is approved May 22, and, if it passes, hold council and mayoral elections in March to coincide with Los Angeles City Council races. LAFCO’s recommending the elections be held simultaneously. Daar says the “fight” is far from over and that he plans to give LAFCO numbers supplied by the city of Los Angeles that would show how much simultaneous elections would cost compared to separate ones. “It could be very, very significant,” Daar said. “I don’t have numbers for you now, but I’ve heard estimates and this is a serious fiscal issue for the city.” Daar’s concerned that, under LAFCO guidelines, the city of Los Angeles and the new Valley city would have to share election costs if secession passes and the council races are held at the same time. If it fails, the burden would lie squarely on the county’s shoulders. But why make the county pay for an election on an issue that, if rejected, would render the Valley council elections null and void, but cost taxpayers anyway? “We have not concluded that this is a dead issue by any means,” said Daar, an attorney with the Los Angeles firm Daar & Newman. “Whatever the costs are, they should be considered, particularly when the city and county may have to pay part of those costs.” LAFCO, says Daar, didn’t exactly “reject” his request, as intimated by the Daily News headline. It simply tabled it much in the same fashion it tables a lot of issues brought up by public speakers: with a round of head nodding, shoulder shrugging and then a move on to another topic. “There was no vote on this,” said Daar. “We are still going to lobby for LAFCO to conclude that they do have the discretion for themselves when to hold the elections.” Daar makes a strong case for separate elections. And if the city and Mayor James Hahn were listening carefully, they would get behind him faster than you can say “alimony.” Why? If voters approve the initiative Nov. 5, the city would only be required to pay for a portion of that election and be free and clear of other costs. The tab for council and mayoral races would be picked up by the new Valley city. Helllllooooooo? City officials, Mayor Hahn, if you’re listening now, wouldn’t these be some of those stranded costs you’ve been talking about for weeks now but can’t seem to get LAFCO to take seriously? It seems to Daar, and to this reporter, that, faced with a budget shortfall and waning popularity among voters on both sides of hill, Hahn would have had those figures in a gold binder ready for LAFCO months ago. “There’d be no obligation by the city of Los Angeles to cover races for a separate city,” said Daar. “That would save the city money and you’d think someone would care, but no one has ever checked the numbers out.” While he was at it, Daar also told LAFCO members that, in their draft resolution for a ballot initiative, it states that, if secession passes and LAFCO were to be challenged on it in court, the applicants (Valley VOTE) would foot the bill for the agency’s legal defense. “The new Valley city is never likely to comply with that obligation, but also, at a minimum LAFCO should require the applicants to demonstrate they can pay for it,” said Daar. “If they want the applicant to defend them, they need to make sure they are actually able to do so. Otherwise, it’s meaningless.” LAFCO’s response, according to Daar: “You know how they do things.” Katz Is Out, Cordaro’s In Remember James “Jamie” Cordaro? He’s the guy that managed to snag roughly 10 percent of the votes in the Dec. 11 Second District city council election, the one that forced Wendy Greuel and Tony Cardenas into a surprise March 5 runoff for the East Valley seat. Well, if you didn’t know him before, maybe now you will. Cordaro said he will be a candidate for what would be the new Valley city’s 10th district city council seat, should an initiative on secession be approved. “I fully intend to run,” said Cordaro, who owns All Phase Electrical Systems in Van Nuys. There you have it: the first Valley resident with the chutzpah to declare himself a candidate for a seat on a city council that doesn’t yet exist. And, for anyone who is still not convinced, those rumors about former Assemblyman Richard Katz running for mayor of the new Valley city are dead in the water. “I’m saying flat out that I have no intention of running,” Katz told the Business Journal recently. Next? Jacqueline Fox is politics reporter for the San Fernando Valley Business Journal. She can be reached at [email protected]. Lockheed Martin Fined Lockheed Martin Corp. was fined $1.38 million by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for improperly operating its water cleanup system in Burbank. Under the terms of a 1992 federal consent decree, Lockheed’s Burbank unit was ordered to pump 9,000 gallons per minute from the local aquifer to help purge water supplies of toxic solvents. EPA said Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Md., did not comply with the agreement because it failed to operate the plant at full capacity between June 2000 and July 2001. Lockheed’s former Burbank production complex has been identified by state and federal environmental officials as a major source of solvents that have polluted ground water in Burbank and forced the city to shut municipal water wells. The area was designated for cleanup in 1986 under the federal Superfund program, which requires those responsible for pollution to pay for the removal of toxic materials. Environmental officials say ground water in the Burbank area is contaminated with TCE and PCE, two types of toxic solvents from past aerospace manufacturing operations.
