Making Threat of Secession Useful

As noted here before, we oppose splitting the San Fernando Valley from the rest of Los Angeles. It’s a radical move with few apparent benefits. We have also opposed state bills seeking to remove the City Council’s veto power to such a split. But we might reconsider our stance on the bills--if those efforts force local elected officials to take seriously the task of fixing Los Angeles’ outdated charter.

A proposal by state Senate Majority Leader Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) would eliminate the City Council’s power to veto secession proposals by communities such as the Valley. Unlike similar bills already before the Legislature, though, Lockyer’s proposal would also allow the entire city to vote on a split and require a study of its effects. We think that’s a far more democratic approach than a similar proposal sponsored by Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), whose resurrection of predecessor Paula Boland’s bill would permit voting only by the neighborhood wanting to secede.

There is some indication that advocates of removing the City Council veto would support Lockyer’s ideas if push came to shove. Although we disagree with the goal, we can’t help but support the effect Lockyer’s bill might have: waking the City Council and mayor to the notion that residents are fed up with politics as usual and want real reform.

Fixing the 71-year-old city charter is no guarantee that government will work any better, but it’s a course with a lot more promise than stalking off and creating a bunch of new cities. If the threat of secession is what it takes to focus the council and the mayor on working together to heal the city, then maybe the threat serves some useful purpose.