A fight for independence: proposed Valley secession and the City of Los Angeles charter reform

by Beth Quimby

Webster¹s Dictionary defines the word secession as ³1: withdrawal into privacy or solitude: RETIREMENT 2 : formal withdrawal from an organization.² 1 A certain section within the City of Los Angeles, known as the San Fernando Valley, is in the process of acquiring signatures to begin a study about a proposed secession from the City. Valley VOTE (Voters Organized Toward Empowerment) is the primary group collecting signatures from registered voters in the San Fernando Valley area. The California Legislature approved a 3-month extension on 24 August 1998, granting Valley VOTE the much needed time to collect more signatures. The organization was short of its projected goal by approximately 60,000 signatures. ³Under state law, Valley VOTE must collect signatures from 25% of the 540,000 registered voters in the Valley to trigger a study that could lead to a vote on the creation on a new, independent valley city.² Initially, the California State Budget was planning to ³...allocate $340,000 to pay for the Valley Cityhood Study by LAFCO.² Unfortunately, as of 22 August 1998, Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the appropriation at the last minute, much to the chagrin of Valley secession supporters. The most pressing issue surrounding the study will be its economic impact on Los Angeles and the new city. Richard Close, chairman of Valley VOTE, ³...doubts that taxes would jump if the Valley broke away to become an independent city. City government would be smaller, more efficient and its leaders would be more accountable to taxpayers on spending decisions.² This is an ideal argument in favor of secession. It is important to note that Valley VOTE is soliciting signatures to begin a study only. Los Angeles¹ County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would conduct the study, ³which is estimated to cost about $1 million,² to explore the financial impact on the City of Los Angeles. The study would weigh out the options of many economic factors: new government officials, public transportation, police and fire and sanitation departments and other city services. Many new cities have successfully seceded from Los Angeles. West Hollywood, Burbank and Vernon are just a few. The petition for Valley VOTE comes at a time when the City is beginning to undergo its Charter Reform. The problem appears to be that Los Angeles is just too big to provide each area with the proper services it needs. These services are as follows: adequate police protection and response time, fire, sanitation, and road services. Some valley residents believe these services are neglected because of the size of the City. According to Valley VOTE¹s website, ³Los Angels is so large that you can fit St. Louis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Manhattan all within its city boundaries.² Furthermore, they go on to state that ³Los Angeles as a state would rank 25th in population.² Irit McMahon, a former resident of North Hollywood, now residing in Woodland Hills, would agree with Valley VOTE¹s claim. She is in favor of the San Fernando Valley¹s seceding from Los Angeles. While living in North Hollywood, Ms. McMahon needed police assistance and called the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). She was informed that officers were very busy elsewhere and her response time would be rather lengthy. She also spoke of the road conditions. ³At a certain section of Cahuenga Boulevard, one can physically see the difference from one city to the next.² The east side belongs to the city of Burbank, while the west side belongs to North Hollywood, a division of the Greater Los Angeles Area. ³The Burbank side is paved, the garbage picked up, and the street is well maintained. The North Hollywood side has not been paved in years, the trash collects on the side of the road, and the overall maintenance is visibly poorer.² She speculates if a person was blindfolded and driven through street of Burbank and North Hollywood, the individual familiar with both areas would recognize when you left one city and entered the next. This is simply because of the dramatic difference in the road maintenance and upkeep. Like Ms. McMahon, many Valley residents feel the need for some action to be taken to address these and many other issues in which Valley VOTE is purposing. One recent event that hampered the petitioners' chance of reaching their goal occurred at the Van Nuys Airport, California, prior to the California Senate¹s approving the extension on behalf of Valley VOTE and its petition drive. In July 1998, petitioners for Valley VOTE were denied access to the Van Nuys Air Show and were unlawfully kept from obtaining signatures of those attending the show. According to Valley VOTE, this was a violation of their civil rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed suit on behalf of Valley VOTE. ³While the air show has been the most publicized incident involving volunteers who were interfered with by the City, there have been numerous other incidents. That is why the ACLU this week filed suit in Federal Court asking for a permanent injunction to prevent the City from interfering with this and future petition drives.² It should be noted that on Wednesday, 23 September 1998, The Los Angeles Times reported ³Airport Board to Pay $50,000 to Settle Secession Petitioners¹ Suit.² The City Attorney apologized to Valley VOTE employees, and they quickly accepted the Airport¹s offer to end discussion of this incident. The goal here is to focus on the bill at hand and not the wrongdoing of the Airport. ³We decided the best course of action was to quickly settle this and to avoid a lengthy battle, said Richard Close, chairman of Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment. We¹re going to need the city¹s cooperation and assistance over the next year or so.² The need for city help was possibly the most important factor in settling quickly. For Valley VOTE to have refused the offer may have placed them in an unfavorable light with many supporters. The fact that they still need more signatures, may show people that this initiative is important and not just about money or power in the hands of a few, but the Valley as a whole. Governor Pete Wilson signed yet another extension giving Valley VOTE an additional 90 days to collect signatures. ³The extension was in response to the Van Nuys Airport incident.² This extra time beyond the first extension should ensure Valley VOTE the 135,000 valid signatures they need in order to proceed. Mr. Roger Rose, a valley resident, stated that although he did not know much about the specifics of Valley VOTE¹s bill, he would be in favor of Valley secession. ³The Valley is basically it¹s own city anyhow. The people and the attitude of most already view the valley as separate. Secession would ideally guarantee better services to its residents, and most importantly, better schools for our children.² The main response from various Valley residents is that they are in favor of secession, but do not thoroughly understand the details of the bill. The concerns of most Valley residents are these: better schools, police and fire protection and response time, sanitation and overall city maintenance. The important thing to remember is that this a study and not the final solution for Valley secession. This is a proposal for residents of the San Fernando Valley to see and understand how it would effect them if they were to secede from the City of Los Angeles. There are many opposing forces against Valley cityhood. The Los Angeles Business Advisors (LABA) ³... consists of a select group of CEO¹s from large downtown businesses. Their apparent goal is to fight efforts to disburse power to Los Angeles neighborhoods. They prefer to keep power centralized downtown. LABA has been criticized due to statements they have made that they will seek to kill charter reform if it includes certain reforms that empower neighborhoods.² In retaliation to Valley VOTE¹s accusation, the Los Angeles Times printed an article supporting LABA and stating, ³...LABA tries hard to take on issues that are good for the whole community.² This is to deflect some of the negative press away from LABA regarding the harsh comment pertaining to neighborhood councils. Another organization seeking to keep the Valley within Los Angeles are the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commissions. The Charter Reform Committees, one appointed and one elected, do not want secession to pass. Despite many complaints from San Fernando Valley residents and its business owners, the Charter Committees feel they can provide the attention and services to the Valley that many are seeking. Under the new charter, issues plaguing the Valley would ideally be addressed within the new Los Angeles Charter. Although there is some discrepancy between the two committees, the Valley¹s threat of secession has been a motivating force for them to come to some acceptable and feasible agreement with its residents. I spoke with Jeff Brain, President and CO-Chairman of Valley VOTE, and asked who supported Valley secession and who opposed. ³Mayor Riordan, Senator Richard Polanco, the Los Angeles City Council members, LABA, and the Los Angeles Times are all opposed to secession.² Much has been reported about the Los Angeles Times¹ opposition to Valley secession. According to the Los Angeles Times ³...Valley VOTE¹s board passed a motion urging the LA Times to clarify its role in the LABA [and] deal openly and honestly with this issue.² In the same article, LA Times publisher, Mark Willes who is adamantly opposed to Valley secession says, ³...it would be harmful to the Los Angeles area and he opposes reforming the City Charter to give power to neighborhood councils.² It is obvious that the publisher of the most widely read newspaper in the Los Angeles area has the ability to adversely affect Valley VOTE¹s petition drive with negative press regarding secession. Thanks, in part, go to Governor Wilson¹s extension of the petition drive, Valley VOTE was able to collect its needed signatures. Perhaps the greatest surprise came from Senator Polanco who voted in favor of Valley VOTE¹s extension. ³Although he is opposed to the creation of an independent Valley city, Polanco said he voted for the extension to make amends to Valley VOTE.² Polanco understood the importance of rectifying the Van Nuys Airshow incident, and he acted accordingly. Mr. Brain, who is a business owner in the Valley said his supporters are ³...the homeowners and Valley business groups, the DailyNews, and Howard Jarvis¹ Taxpayer Association.² The DailyNews recently was outed as being the largest financial contributor to Valley VOTE¹s study. ³Valley VOTE¹s biggest donor was the newspaper covering the area.² Some disagree with Mr. Brain¹s claim of the Valley business owners¹ support for secession. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that ³...business leaders eye the concept warily, saying they want more details...Local matters [of land-use decisions] would be handled by the regional boards, but issues with citywide impact still would be handled by the Planning Commission.² Depending on which position one takes regarding secession, it will ultimately come down to finances and its impact on the city as a whole. Latinos are one of the first very vocal ethnic groups to oppose secession. ³Saying they fear the impact of the San Fernando Valley¹s proposed secession on Latinos, several prominent community activists have called a summit - at which leaders of the secession movement are not welcome.² There distrust of the movements leaders coincide with a character in James Ellroy¹s novel, L.A. Confidential. Inez Soto, a Mexican girl gang-rape by Negroes, says ³Correctly means six white people are more important than a Mexican girl...² This statement still rings true in many Latinos minds. The conference held by the Latino organization feels there are ³racial implications to secession.² Another author who would probably agree is Mike Davis. His Ecology of Fear shares in their mistrust of government. In a chapter called ³The Case For Letting Malibu Burn,² Davis feels that Malibu, consisting of mostly wealthy, white individuals receives better public services than the Westlake district in Downtown Los Angeles. The Westlake District consists of tenements buildings and poor immigrants. He hypothesizes that this gross difference of wealth and power is the main reason for the unjustified neglect of basic services to the lower income district. Xavier Flores, forum sponsor of the Mexican American Political Association, says ³...we are very leery about seceding when we see who is leading the march.² At this supposed ³advanced² state in time, fundamentally we are still dealing with the basic issues of race relations and the misuse of power dealt to a select few. Clarification is necessary to understand the relationship between the Los Angeles Charter, its reform, and the petition drive to begin the process of possible Valley secession. The Charter is under reform as a ³reaction to the threat of Valley secession.² The new charter hopes to address the Valley¹s concern via a new program designed to give neighborhoods convenient access to the government. This program is the neighborhood council, and it is this very program that has LABA up in arms against the proposed Charter. The Los Angeles Charter, consisting of over 700 pages, has lost its original meaning. Through a series of single votes, single ideas have been added to it that have diluted the original Charter. It is the Charter Commissions¹ goal to help bring back the coherency and simplicity of the original charter. The argument is that the Charter grew, while the representation of local government dwindled. ³There is one City Council member for about every 230,000 residents. No other city in America has city council members representing that many people. Some claim that this makes it difficult for people to have access to their own government.² A common complaint is the location of Los Angeles¹ government. For a Valley resident to participate in matters effecting Los Angeles as a whole, one must spend a significant amount of time driving downtown without the guarantee that the effort and time would result in success. Because of the extensive number of people a particular council member represents, having any connection or impact upon them would be challenging. Ideally secession from the City of Los Angeles would bring the government closer to the needs of the people it represents. ³The goal of the Charter Reform Commission is to craft a Charter that establishes clear lines of accountability in government while maintaining the flexibility necessary to carry Los Angeles into the future, and to do so with input from all the communities of Los Angeles.² Many people feel this is an ideal that cannot be met. Los Angeles is just too big. No other city in the United States faces the problems that Los Angeles does with council representation and its constituents. The Valley is not the only one feeling the ill effects of too large a governing body; the Westside, Eagle Rock, Westchester, and the San Pedro/Wilmington areas are also contemplating secession. How can our government successfully exemplify the diversity and numbers of those in Los Angeles and expect to meet the needs of all? The geographical size of Los Angeles alone, creates and perpetuates a feeling of disassociation between its leaders and those they represent. The overwhelming sense of neglect and futility most citizens feel at the extensiveness of city government feeds the secession movement. People want fair and accurate representation of the concerns and issues surrounding their lives. No one wants to feel unimportant or disposable. Therefore citizens need a governing body that is in touch with the specifics of their community. This is not to say that every section of the City of Los Angeles should secede. Many areas benefit from Los Angeles as a whole and would not be able to support themselves as a smaller city. Financially, the San Fernando Valley can support itself and would prosper, according to supporters. ³Chafing under what local officials call inadequate attention from a city too large to govern itself, Valley activists are preparing to make a clean break with Los Angeles and set out on their own. If they succeed, they will create America¹s sixth-largest city.² The San Fernando Valley would constitute the sixth-largest city in the country. That statement is a testament to the diversity that lies in this particular section of Los Angeles. To say it does not need special attention and services and that it can be grouped with the city as a whole, undermines Los Angeles and its people. The solution from the Appointed Charter Reform Commission is neighborhood councils. These councils would give Valley residents a stronger voice in how the government views them. It also places more power into the citizens¹ hands. Residents of the San Fernando Valley would have to partake in the city government. A portion of their fate lies in the balance. Their participation in the neighborhood councils would directly affect their voice in the government. If residents are not convinced of neighborhood councils and their effectiveness, they still have a long road ahead of them. Proposed Valley cityhood would not happen for some time. A vote is not expected to take place before the 2000 election, with the majority of Los Angeles residents approving the measure. ³It would be up to LAFCO to decide whether to place secession on the citywide ballot - which could happen as early as 2000,² although they believe a vote will not be until 2002. For those living outside of the Valley, the argument for secession and its impact on the remaining subdivisions would have to benefit them before it would be granted. The people of LA will not Œcut off their nose to spite their face.¹ In order for secession to be a success, it has to appear as if it promotes and elevates everyone. ³Secession supporters say Valley residents don¹t get enough services from the giant city, but opponents, chiefly from Los Angeles¹ urban core, said the bill would harm low- income areas and lead to attempts to jettison poor people from communities.² ³LAFCO won¹t approve a citywide vote until studies prove that any new city is economically viable, and that LA wouldn¹t suffer a net revenue loss.² Under the current Charter, residents are not notified of most plans directly affecting their area until the action is already taken. This blatant overlooking of the people, along with the inaccessible times in which the meetings are open to the public, arouse suspicion and distrust. The current Charter makes it virtually impossible for a concerned resident to have their voice heard. There is too much Œred tape¹ and bureaucracy for an individual to make an impact. The Reform Committee is seeking ways in which to set up and structure a neighborhood council that would represent its people. One major concern of the Reform Committee is the amount of power the neighborhood councils should possess. It is under discussion now as to whether or not the power of these councils should be outlined in the Charter specifically. Another alternative is to outline the general requirements that the councils must undergo and still adhere to the guidelines of the Charter. Still another consideration for neighborhood councils is to directly give them decision-making powers. This may prove to be too risky an option based on a few simple facts: the uncertainty of accurate and fair representation, inexperience of board members regarding neighborhood councils, and ³whether citywide standards of equity would be honored.² Despite the independence of these councils, the City would still be legally responsible for the actions and decisions taken by these groups. Giving them extensive power may not be in the best interest of the neighborhoods. Rather, it may be more beneficial to maintain a watchful eye over those that represent them and not get involved in the legal aspect of decision-making. This would allow them to concentrate on topics at hand and not concern themselves with outside issues. It is the long and bewildering road to government that neighborhood councils seek to eliminate. Providing each resident with an accessible forum in which to voice their concerns should improve public participation in the government. Neighborhood councils would require residents to involve themselves with issues affecting their area. Ideally, the implementation of these councils prevent people from stagnating and blaming the obscurity of City government for problems unsolved. Individuals would be able to take a more active role in government, whether through passive support or active involvement. The Appointed Charter Reform Commission recommends ³at the first stages of a system of neighborhood councils, member should be appointed or self-selected. As the system develops, a plan for electing some or all members might be more appropriate.² They site lack of participation as to why self-selection and appointment is necessary in the beginning stages. The goal is to keep politics from dominating the system immediately, and give individuals a chance to represent themselves. It is vital to remember that the success or failure of neighborhood councils will be directly proportional to public participation. Those who seek Valley secession would be encouraged to channel their frustration with City government into their neighborhood councils, and set the standard for others to follow. After all, the Charter Reform is in reaction to their threat of secession. It would be in their best interest to fully explore the power of these councils. As it stands now, the attitude surrounding the San Fernando Valley is that it is already a separate city. One point the Appointed Charter Reform Commission is attempting to address is the boundaries in which the neighborhood councils would represent. The staff of the Appointed Charter Reform Commission recommends ³...that neighborhood council boundaries conform to identifiable communities² and not district lines. Another topic surrounding neighborhood councils is the timeframe in which these individual councils have to respond to issues directly affecting their neighborhoods. The Charter Reform Committee suggests that depending on the issue at hand, varying response times would be appropriate. Notification prior to decisions affecting their immediate area would be granted to the neighborhood councils. Some emphasize if the City Council does not act within a set timeframe, the neighborhood council¹s recommendation would take affect. This puts pressure on the City Council to examine and research issues affecting these neighborhoods, for they would not be the only decision makers. Failure to act in an appropriate fashion would guarantee their loss of power pertaining to change. This type of decision making process involving neighborhood councils raises policy and legal questions. ³In a city that has yet to utilize a formal system of neighborhood involvement, it is a major leap to invest such bodies with formal decision-making powers before it is known whether those who participate would be representative of the community and whether citywide standards of equity would be honored. The City would bear substantial legal liability for actions of such boards, even if their actions are revisable by higher authorities, because they would become formal decision makers.² It is important to note that other United States cities have implemented successful neighborhood councils, but none of them have decision-making powers. Los Angeles would be the pioneer city if it were to allow the councils the power to make decisions. The issue of neighborhood councils representing communities unrestricted by City Council boundaries weighs heavily on the Charter Reform Commission. A concern is that the purpose of neighborhood councils would be defeated if they had to follow district lines. Certain communities confuse the council boundaries designated by the City. To restrict the formation of neighborhood councils by predetermined and inaccurate lines undermine their very purpose. These limits could make a mockery of those who would benefit from the formation of such councils. A feeling of unity is what neighborhood councils strive to accomplish. The idea behind these councils is to promote a sense of cooperation and collaboration between residents and their government. Los Angeles has the highest ratio of residents to City Council members of any city in the country. It is a staggering 230,000 to 1. The Charter Reform Committee suggests that the number of councilmen be increased from the current 15 to 21. This increase would reduce the representation to 166,00 to 1. ³Commissioner Paula Boland, a zealous advocate for the San Fernando Valley interests, said the larger council would deliver better services to Valley residents.² This supports the idea that an increase in City Council members would provide yet another way for residents to feel closer to city government. The fear is ³... that drastic changes in legislative size can have serious consequences for the institution. An increase that is too dramatic can make the legislative body unwieldy, creating negative effect on governance.² The idea of neighborhood councils is a new for Los Angeles. There is no way to be certain whether or not they will work. The implementation of the councils is up for debate. The structure, size, decision-making powers, and whether or not they should be under ordinance are a few issues facing both the advocates and critics of the proponents of neighborhood councils. The Charter Reform Commission has suggested ³... the concept of a Œreview commission¹, to be convened after a set number of years, to evaluate the progress of the neighborhood participation program.² They recommend a review after five years to check the progress and productivity of the councils. The review committee would consist of members selected by the Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, and the City Controller. As was mentioned earlier in this report, issues surrounding the Valley secession are police, fire and sanitation departments, new city officials, and water supply. The Los Angeles Charter hopes to address these very issues in their neighborhood councils. A list of the issues that neighborhood councils may possibly address are land use and planning, service delivery, public safety, transportation, and budgets (see Appendix A) . Granting the residents of the Valley, along with other areas, the ability to voice their opinions and concerns make them feel a part of the process. Neglect and isolation from city government appears to be the common complaint prompting Valley secession. ³...supporters believe [neighborhood councils] would give neighborhoods control of their own destiny. Opponents see the same proposals and envision gridlock as powerful neighborhood boards shun development and Los Angeles¹ growth grinds to a standstill.² One topic of heated debate surrounding the Valley¹s disdain for City procedures is the issue of mass transit. According to Valley VOTE¹s newsletter the Mass Transit Authority (MTA) has ³...rejected any funding for Mass Transit in the San Fernando Valley² despite having contributed more than a billion dollars to the propositions that fund Mass Transit. Valley residents are angered by this blatant disregard of their needs. Mayor Riordan, who recently has taken a more favorable position of the Valley, feels their disgust and betrayal at city government. It is estimated that the San Fernando Valley represents up to 50% of the City of Los Angeles and to be denied better public transportation adds the needed fuel to Valley VOTE¹s claim that they need to be their own city. No mention was made of the possible new charter, and it does not appear to have as large an impact as initially desired. The most logical answer to most remains secession. Valley VOTE has collected approximately 36% of the 540,000 Valley residents signatures needed to begin a study. Another stumbling block came with the news that they may be hit with a surcharge for the signatures collected. This total may reach as high as $270,000. ³The law governing the LAFCO process allows them to establish a schedule of fees for their services provided the fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service.² Unfortunately, Valley VOTE feels this fee is grossly exaggerated and will challenge them in court if they do not revise this cost. All the obstacles that are placed in the way appear to show that many powerful and wealthy organizations do not wish to see even a study begun for Valley secession. It begins to cast a shadow on these organizations and their intentions. To deny the Valley the same services of mass transportation and reliable public services is a direct slap in the face of Valley residents. It adds more power to Valley VOTE¹s argument that they are being denied the very basic necessities all resident s deserve. As of Midnight, Friday the 27th of November, the petition drive was completed. Valley VOTE will hand in all collected signatures to LAFCO in early December. Both San Pedro/Wilmington and Eagle Rock began a petition drive the latter part of October to begin secession. The amount of signatures needed by these areas pales in comparison to the number required of the Valley. With several areas contemplating secession, it would seem evident that there is a serious problem surrounding city government in Los Angeles. The two commissions working for Charter Reform are busy formulating their best strategies on how to address the very real issues facing this city. As for Valley residents, their hope lies in the form of neighborhood councils, which would allow them the ability to vocalize their needs and concerns and be closer to city government. When Charter Reform comes up for a citywide vote in the Spring of 1999, the responsibility will lie in the residents¹ hands to approve or dismiss this proposal. At the present time there is no solution to the Valley¹s concerns. Unfortunately more questions are raised than answered. Many predictions could be made based on the forthcoming, proposed study by LAFCO and the Charter Reform Commissions¹ revisions of the current charter, including neighborhood councils. What would happen if both the LAFCO study and the Charter Reform Commission¹s plan are accepted? Which plan would override the other, or would they cancel each other out? What would happen if one passed while the other failed? Would Valley residents be satisfied being pioneers for the as yet undetermined effectiveness of neighborhood councils or is secession the only solution they are willing to accept? The worst case scenario is both the study and the plan are rejected. What happens then? Whatever the outcome, certain groups will be dissatisfied with the results. In a telling statement, Mayor Riordan professed his frustration at the lack of compassion and interest from his councilmen by exclaiming ³no wonder they want to secede..to which Supervisor [Yvonne Brathwaite] Burke replied, let them secede.² The more vocal Valley residents stay, the better the chance of actually having an effect on city government. It is time to have a government that works for all residents, and to hold people and organizations accountable for neglecting certain basic rights. This is an exciting and curious time for the City of Los Angeles. Residents have the ability to make changes, and the fate of the city lies in our hands.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Associated Press. ³New laws make Valley split easier,² Woodward Communications, Inc. website, http://www.wcinet.com, 1997.

Bernstein, Sharon. ³Wilson Rejects Funding for Study of Valley Secession,² Los Angeles Times, 22 August 1998, p. A23.

Blair, James. ³Land of ŒValley-Speak¹ To Secede from L.A., for sure,² Christian Science Monitor website, http://www.csmonitor.com.

Brain, Jeff, interviewed by Beth Quimby, Los Angeles, CA, 14 October 1998.

Bustillo, Miguel. ³Secession¹s Impact on Latinos Probed,² Los Angeles Times, 3 December 1998, p. B5.

City of Los Angeles [Appointed] Charter Reform Commission. ³Draft for Public Comment,² 12 August 1998.

City of Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission. ³Deliberations,² 22 April 1998.

_____, ³Deliberations,² 22 July 1998.

_____, ³Discussion Materials,² 19 and 25 November 1997.

Davis, Mike. Ecology of Fear, New York: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 199, pp. 95-147.

Ellroy, James. L.A. Confidential, New York: Warner Books, 1990, p. 152.

Finger, The. ³Valley Daily Whore,² New Times Los Angeles, 20-26 August 1998, p.9.

Kasindorf, Martin. ³Valley wants loose from L.A.,² USA Today, 20 October 1998, p. 3A.

Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission. ³Why change the charter?,² Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission website, http://www.charterreform.org.

Levoy, Jill, and Willon, Phil. ³Airport Board to Pay $50,000 to Settle Secession Petitioners¹ Suit,² Los Angeles Times, 23 September 1998, p. B3.

McMahon, Irit, interviewed by Beth Quimby, Los Angeles, CA, 11 September 1998.

Newton, Jim. ³Charter Panel Backs Vote on Bigger Council,² Los Angeles Times, 20 October 1998, pp. A1 & 24.

_____, ³Charter Reform Panel at Impasse,² Los Angeles Times, 12 October 1998, pp. B1 & 3.

_____. ³Secession Bid Churns Along but has a Way to Go,² Los Angeles Times, 23 August 1998, pp. A1 & 34.

Rose, Roger, interviewed by Beth Quimby, Los Angeles, CA, 16 September 1998.

³Secession,² Webster¹s New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company, , 1979, p. 1035.

Valley VOTE. ³ACLU Files suit against the City of Los Angels on behalf of the Valley,²

Valley VOTE website, http://valleyvote.org, 23 August 1998.

_____, ³Coalition of Valley Businesses and Homeowner Group formed in response to new Downtown Business Group,² Valley VOTE website, http://valleyvote.org, 6 September 1998.

_____, Home page. Valley VOTE website, http://valleyvote.org.

_____, ³MTA snubs San Fernando Valley residents and businesses - Again!,² Valley VOTE website, http://valleyvote.org, 10 November 1998.

_____, ³State Budget provides funding for Valley Cityhood Study,² Valley VOTE website, http://valleyvote.org, 9 August 1998.

_____, ³The San Fernando Valley petition drive may be charged for verifying signatures - True or false?,² Valley VOTE website, http://valleyvote.org, 16 November 1998.

Vasquez, Nicole, interviewed by Beth Quimby, Los Angeles, CA, 2 October 1998.

Willon, Phil. ³Secession Petition Collectors Work Like There¹s No Tomorrow,² Los Angeles Times, 24 August 1998, pp. B1 & 3.

_____, ³Valley Secessionists, 35% Short of Goal, Still Optimistic,² Los Angeles Times, 19 August 1998, p. B4. Wilson, Phil, and Vanzi, Max. ³Secession Backers Get 3-Month Extension,² Los Angeles Times, 25 August 1998, pp. B1 & 3.

_____, ³Senate Passes Bill Extending petition Drive for Secession,² Los Angeles Times, 20 August 1998, p. pp. B1 & 10.