Valley Voters Need to Hear a Case for Staying in Los Angeles

Valley VOTE’s proposed “Vision of a New City” is a step forward in a process that may eventually lead to the breakup of the city of Los Angeles. But the significance of the document, submitted at the request of the Los Angeles Local Agency Formation Commission, lies not so much in proposing the nuts and bolts of a new city government, but rather in attempting to frame the terms of the public debate over secession.

In its blueprint of the new city, Valley VOTE envisions that existing city departments as well as current service and employee levels will be maintained. This strategy seeks to minimize opposition from powerful interests such as city employee unions who might otherwise be inclined to view secession as a threat and align with those opposing a breakup.

Second, the proposal attempts to seize the ideological high ground by portraying a new city with greater local control, better services, lower taxes, less bureaucracy, safe and clean neighborhoods and a business-friendly environment that is also accountable, accessible and responsive. This depiction of the clean, efficient suburban government will likely find a sympathetic audience in many L.A. neighborhoods where these amenities are seen as sorely lacking.

Third, the document markets the purported benefits of smaller government and local control to residents both in the Valley and the remaining city. In doing so, the group is wisely courting the votes it will need to win majority approval of voters in the Valley as well as the entire city.

Valley VOTE’s vision statement once again places the city’s political establishment on the defensive. Clearly, the forces opposed to secession are not exactly political novices. However, they are the same insiders who once dismissed the secession effort as a political ploy with no chance for success.

Undoubtedly, vested interests will criticize Valley VOTE’s proposals as unrealistic and unworkable. They will also raise legitimate questions such as: Can a new Valley city maintain the existing level of services and employees and still have less bureaucracy? Would a part-time council leave more rather than less power with the new city’s bureaucracy? Will contracting out services to the city of L.A. actually decrease accountability to Valley residents? Would a CEO-type mayor enhance or diminish community decision-making in the Valley?

However, in the battle for public opinion, the city’s strategy of dismissing the group as disgruntled political opportunists is no longer viable. In continuing to block secession through mere criticism and obstruction, the political establishment risks appearing arrogant and as belittling legitimate concerns shared by virtually all regions of the city. Particularly in the wake of recent scandals such as Rampart and the Belmont Learning Complex, this tactic will only confirm the city’s image to Valley residents as a large, distant and dysfunctional bureaucracy.

Rather, current and aspiring city leaders need to make a thoughtful and convincing case for why residents are better off as part of a larger entity. This will require going beyond recycling tired cliches proclaiming Los Angeles “better off united rather than divided.” Voters need to hear substantive reasons why remaining part of the city will be in their best interests.

Rhetorically, secessionists have a lot going for them. Promises of local control, lower taxes, better services and a higher quality of life resonate with residents of all cities. If Valley VOTE is able to frame the debate around these issues, and convince voters in the remaining city that they will share the benefits of secession, the group will go a long way toward fulfilling its dream of municipal independence.

If secession movements both in the Valley and elsewhere are to be contained, opponents must respond with sophistication. In doing so, they must not only demonstrate why a new Valley city won’t work, but also why keeping the city intact will.