Valley Secession Fever

Valley Secession Fever
Vote YES on Measure F & Measure H.

Saturday, September 21, 2002

Hahn lied about the EIDC money his United LA campaign received. The contribution was actually for $25,000--not $10,000 as previously claimed. Hahn's spokesguy tries to weasel out,

Kuwata accounted for the $15,000 discrepancy in how much EIDC contributed by saying, "There was another check.'

While the Daily News notes that the amount being returned by Hahn back to the EIDC is a lot higher than previously claimed, the LA Times makes no mention of it. They make it appear like Hahn's campaign never said that they only received $10,000 instead of $25,000. It can't be because they didn't know since this is what they wrote in an earlier article,

The controversy over the political contributions continued Monday as proponents of Hollywood and San Fernando Valley secession gathered in front of the corporation's Hollywood Boulevard offices to demand additional state and federal investigations of the group's $10,000 contribution to the anti-secession campaign led by Hahn, a film office board member.

posted by B | 9/21/2002 07:40:00 PM

Friday, September 20, 2002

Did you see this on the Valley sky on Thursday? The freaky luminescent cloud that appeared all over Los Angeles Thursday night was the trail of a missile launched from the Vandenberg base in Santa Barbara to a target somewhere in the middle of the Pacific. Neat, huh?

posted by B | 9/20/2002 05:00:00 PM

False terror threat forced the evacuation of LA City Hall.

posted by B | 9/20/2002 04:57:00 PM

FINALLY! Two letter to the LA Times on secession. A Hollywood reader was turned-off by Hollywood secessionist TV ads. Developer Ted Stein on the other hand worried reader Murray Levine of Encino. Levine detests the cronyism of Hahn's office. "Maybe it is time for Valley residents to secede from Los Angeles," he writes.

posted by B | 9/20/2002 04:56:00 PM

Keith Richman and Mel Wilson try to make their case in a room full of United LA contributors with little success. Outnumbered by the crowd and by opposition panelist, both mayoral candidates failed to convince the hostile audience.

Among those in the audience who were unconvinced was George Colvin, a regional manager with the engineering firm Psomas, which moved its office back to Los Angeles from Santa Monica within the past few years.

Colvin said while he realizes there are problems in Los Angeles, he remains unswayed by secessionists' arguments that cityhood would be the way to fix them.

"I think that what's wrong with the city of L.A. is fixable,' Colvin said. "What's wrong is a very small amount compared to the whole.'

The firm moved to Los Angeles because of the business community, he said.

But when asked what he liked about the city's government itself, Colvin paused and then grinned.

"I'll take the Fifth,' he replied.

posted by B | 9/20/2002 03:23:00 PM

LAT Reporter Kristina Sauwerwein profiled a Maine island that successfully split off from the city of Portland, the state's largest. She draws some comparisons between the town of Long Island and the San Fernando Valley. Both are geographically distant from the city and both have a feeling that they are getting screwed by the city. The opposition to secession in Portland mirrors the one here. The same argument that the secessionist are racists and heartless for abandoning the poor of the main city are repeated.

When Long Island split a decade ago, Portland took some action and started addressing neighborhood needs. Now it boasts on its website that it's the "#1 place to raise children" in the US and the most "livable city."

posted by B | 9/20/2002 02:38:00 PM

The ongoing EIDC scandal. This imbroglio needs its own blogger because it's becoming wide and deep. Most aspects of it have the flimsiest ties to secession except that secessionists cried foul when it was found out that EIDC gave out $10,000 to Hahn's United LA. EIDC and Jimmy Hahn maintain that it is a private agency allowed to make donations. DA Steve Cooley doesn't buy it.

Cooley put the elected officials on notice that agreeing to pay for criminal-defense lawyers for executives of the nonprofit agency raises questions about their legal responsibilities.

Cooley said his criminal investigation of executives' expense accounts and the EIDC's contributions to the political campaigns of its directors and the anti-secession movement is based on his belief it is a public agency and thus subject to public corruption laws.

The letter was mailed Tuesday to Mayor James Hahn, City Council members, county supervisors and other EIDC directors and reminds them of their "fiduciary obligation' to make sure public funds are spent legally. It implies he has serious questions about the legality of using EIDC funds to hire lawyers to defend the agency's employees.

Many of the members in EIDC's executive board included Jimmy Hahn and other elected officials.

For those of you who want to follow the scandal from the beginning, the Daily News has links to its earlier stories on 'filmgate.'

posted by B | 9/20/2002 01:22:00 AM

An actual disagreement between mayoral candidates! I think I'll pocket this one. Keith Richman got the ball rolling with borough proposal for the new Valley City. In it, the Valley will have seven boroughs with each having five commissioners representing 40,000 residents. Their powers would include decisions concerning libraries and parks. Some candidates, however, have different plans. Marc Strassman want to breakup the Valley into even smaller cities. Mel Wilson rejects boroughs altogether (but supports neighborhood councils). Benny Bernal, David Hernandez and Henry Divina want to empower neighborhood councils. Pretty radical range of views don't you think?

The underlying message to all their ideas is that the city should be decentralized somehow. Los Angeles taught us a lesson that Soviet-style management would create a sense of powerlessness, resentment. In my view, creating a federation of boroughs is the prefered solution. If modeled after the United States, boroughs and city hall would have clearly defined responsibilities, though, only city hall should levytaxes. The city of San Fernando Valley while smaller than Los Angeles is still 2.5 times larger than San Francisco. It is as varied a city as they come. That's why we want to create a government that recognize our status as a city rather than Los Angeles' suburb and tax base. Boroughs are also an effective means to neutralize secession. Secession flourished in Los Angeles because residents were forced to take the more extreme measure to get more representative government. Leaving LA became a possibility because there were no alternatives and there was nothing to lose. But in a city that already guarantees autonomy, the discontented would think twice about losing that guarantee. Just to be in the safe side, boroughs should have nine commissioners with four appointed to make sure city wishes are heard. Boroughs also signal to residents that the city recognizes the diversity of lifestyles and interests within its borders the way Los Angeles never did.

Neighborhood councils are too particular as an immediate step below a government running the country's sixth-largest city. Maybe neighborhood councils within boroughs. Neighborhood councils also present a problem. Who would have authority over mostly commercial and industrial areas? Would some neighborhood councils would then become extension of company power? Well, anything could be good, anything that is not like LA.

posted by B | 9/20/2002 01:04:00 AM

Thursday, September 19, 2002

Headline from the latest installment of the LA Times' Secession Sketchbook: "Activist Sees New City as Fresh Start for Pets" Cringe, roll your eyes or even vomit at another trivialization of secession. What the headline seems to be saying is "Look! Only a cat lady would vote for this nonsense!" This is from the paper that gave us these golden headlines:

A Valley City? Like, You Mean There Isn't One?

Fer sher.

THE CASE FOR L.A.; To Your Light Sabers, All!

No comment.

While those vapid headlines matched their equally vapid content, this time it is a nice introduction to one of LA's more miserable public services--animal control. Nancy Smith, owner of a "luxury feline boarding facility" as well as editor of the newsletter Valley Pet News, inspired the article when she wrote an editorial connecting her support for Valley independence with her concern for pets.

A New Valley City Brings Hope for Humane Animal Treatment

By Nancy Smith, JD, Editor
"When I updated this site weekly, I used to trek downtown monthly to watch the City of Los Angeles’ Animal Regulation Commission slowly grind the bureaucratic wheel while thousands of pets were killed routinely at the city shelters. After a year, I was disheartened and hopeless.

Because I care about pets, the potential for a new San Fernando Valley city again gives me hope. Clearly, a new city could do no worse than the Los Angeles Animal Services Department. The department is like a car smashed in a bad accident. Valley animal lovers should be glad to walk away with our own lives and give up the idea that the damaged remains of the downtown department can be repaired. Let’s start anew--a new city, a new department and a new opportunity to create a humane approach to pets in our midst.

Our new Valley city can certainly do better than killing nearly 75% of the pets turned into the Los Angeles-run shelters. We can create a new consciousness and set a new standard for the way animals are handled in our new city.

Reporter James Ricci actually defended the city saying that the LA kill rate has dropped to between 51-57 percent. Yet, those numbers are still terrifying when compared to other cities like San Francisco (28%).

There's more than that. When Nancy Smith called the LA Animal Services Department two years ago to have her Cat Center inspected. She's still waiting. The city also fails to make pets presentable for adoption.

"The way you increase adoptions," Smith said as she piloted her California Cat Center van east toward Pasadena, "is to mimic retail, and that place (the East Valley animal shelter), while not hideous and reasonably clean, looks more like a doggy jail than a pet store."

But why secession?

Why do I believe we can do better than downtown Los Angeles? The talent is here. Repeatedly, Valley residents have trekked downtown to testify, often to have cutting edge ideas sent to the black hole of bureaucratic “staff study.”

Valleyites bail out the Los Angeles-run shelters on a daily basis by taking adoptable pets from the shelters just before they are to be killed when their six days in the shelter have expired. Talent, ideas and hard work continually eminate from the Valley: Actors & Others for Animals, Angela’s Rabbit Rescue, The Brittany Foundation, Cats at the Studio, Casa Canine Small Dog Rescue, Cat Crossing, DELTA Rescue, Doberman Rescue, Dog Savers, Friends for Pets Foundation, Kitten Rescue, New Leash on Life, Pacific Coast Dog Rescue, Pet Adoption Fund, Pet Orphan Fund, Pet Rescue Association, Pot Belly Pig Rescue, St. Martin’s Animal Foundation, Southwestern Herpetologists Society, among others, all hail from the Valley.

posted by B | 9/19/2002 11:49:00 PM

City and county officials want to stop Hollywood secession campaign mailers. They object to the use of their images in the mailers implying that they support secession when clearly some of them do not. Some of the images used are of prominent anti-secessionists like Cyndi Miscikowski and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. Hollywood cityhood leaders defend their inclusion as proper; they were making the point that LAFCO overhwelmingly approved of putting Hollywood secession on the ballot and those two were members of the LAFCO agency that approved the breakaway plans.

However, Miscikowski, Burker and three others pictured either abstained or rejected Hollywood secession. H-wood secessionists refused to remove the images in its campaign literature and promised to expand its use.

posted by B | 9/19/2002 08:11:00 PM

A Valley mall gets hit with a terrorist threat.

The Westfield Shopping Town Topanga, formerly called the Topanga Canyon Mall, was evacuated Thursday morning.

Authorities found possibly suspicious containers on the roof of the mall. The material was reportedly discovered above the Nordstroms department store.

A mall security guard called the Los Angeles Police Department at 8:05 a.m. to say he received a call from an anonymous man with a Middle Eastern accent saying chemical agents were being left at several locations in the mall, according to Lt. Horace Frank of LAPD press relations.

The only people in the mall at the time of the evacuation were employees and mall walkers, according to NBC4.

UPDATE: Oh it was all nothing.

posted by B | 9/19/2002 12:50:00 PM

The PDF file of the Rose Institute study can be viewed at the Daily News website. Beware though, it's almost 3 megabytes, about 15 minutes on a 56K modem.

posted by B | 9/19/2002 01:38:00 AM

I really don't want to do this but here goes. It's sad to see a professional make unforgiveably bad mistakes. AS responded to my response to its harangue on the propriety of the Daily News coverage of the Rose Institute study. His original post called me an 'apologist'; totally uncalled for and the insult crossed over the line from another typical forgetabble anti-DN bitching, which I could and often ignore, to something personal. His latest post is a sitting duck with golden feathers--ripe for the plucking.

A Valley Secession Fever screed rants at Secession Watch that the Daily News was right to not mention that its favorite Rose Institute study was paid for by secession leaders.

Is that really what happened?

Daily News headline: Rose Institute analysis funded by Valley group

The Valley CIVIC Foundation contributed $65,000 to the cost of the study, which was also supported by the college.

So he's wrong on that but he LIED when he said I approved of such a thing. Here's what I wrote.

It was proper, no, required that the papers disclose the funding the study received from David Fleming but slapping that forgotten years-old story in the middle of the article will only make it a non-sequitur.

That "forgotten years old story" is in reference to the demand by AS for DN to reveal its funding for study on secession four years ago.

But it describes the men only as "community leaders" -- no mention that they are the sugar daddies of the secession effort, and have been since 1998 when it was revealed that their co-partner in secretly financing the movement was....yes, the Daily News.

I thought that it was ridiculous and will stray away from the story at hand. I mean is AS demanding that the Times mention its "revenue sharing" partnership with the Staples Center three-years ago every report on Lakers home game?

And the Times.

AS would like you to believe that it's "watching" LA Times secession coverage as critically as the DN's. Show me anything on AS coming close to being critical of LAT coverage. In fact, AS is the Times' valiant knight. Consider his defensive reaction to my criticism of the Times' kid-glove treatment of Staples Center developer Ed Roski. I wrote,

Of the $1.9 million raised, $250,000 came from Staples Center developer Majestic Realty Co. So why didn't the Times follow-up on this lead? Oh, I know! Because they got caught in an emabrassing affair a year ago with the Staples Center developers. The developers paid LAT million to use the paper's pages to promote the Center. Who wants to rehash such a scandal?

AS hits back saying that I have no grounds to make such an accusation "with no apparent basis." Only, of course, that the Times received quarter-of-a-million dollars from Staples Center and consequently embroiled in a scandal. Who wants to rehash such a scandal?

In the attempt to seem that Secession Watch is following the rules it applies to the DN, it maintains that Kevin Roderick's work for the LA Times is out in the open on its web page. However, their original criticism of the DN coverage was that it did not mention Fleming's secession ties in the story even though the paper has repeatedly mentioned that about him on earlier articles. AS never mentioned Kevin Roderick's work at the LA Times for its original post. You know like: blah blah blah Daily News bites blah [Full disclosure: Roderick worked as an editor at the LAT]. That sort of a thing. No, we were suppose to find it somewhere in the sidebar. Who's flunking Journalism 101 now? You sure AS attended the class or just audited? Plus, does anyone honestly think that giving it to the Times as equally as what's being dished to DN is not a bridge-burning activity for the ex-ed?

But there is something more irksome to AS supposed neutrality in this affair. The anti-DN, pro-LAT slant is obvious to anyone. It's the arrogance that's impossible to take.

But if there's a more bi-partisan, complete and independent gathering of news and comment on Valley secession than this one, we'd love to see it.

It's like asking which is the best division in the Pope's Army. There are only two of us who would even bother with this thing. I am independent when it comes to reviewing the media coverage. I have never worked either for the Times or the Daily News. Have subscribed to both papers and hated both of their telemarketing techniques. I am not in the profession where I would need them in any capacity. I don't belong to a campaign. I have rejected every offer by candidates to get me involved. Unlike AS, I make the readers aware of my opinion in the disclaimer and in the commentaries. I'm just a college kid looking for a degree and...stuff. I mean I could tell the audience that I'm all "fair and balanced" but that would be misrepresenting wouldn't it? I can't bring myself to tag AS as a hypocrite but poser would do as well.

Secession Watch raised the credibility and fairness issue by promoting it shamelessly. It would've been better left unsaid because from now on the hands-off approach this blog gives AS will be replaced with just an intense parsing of Secession Watch entries.

But let's not boil blood. I never respond to AS on this site unless he instigates because he's not the story. Here's hoping that AS has a nice long vacation and when he comes back, let it be all about secession.

posted by B | 9/19/2002 12:33:00 AM

Wednesday, September 18, 2002

Credit rating agencies are not worried about the effects of secession on LA because they believe it will not pass. That is one opinion on the effects of breakup. Eric Hoffman, a Moody's Investor Service official further added, "there's very little opportunity for the new city to stiff the old." His agency have already made the move to downgrade LA's credit rating because of the impending split. However, all are in agreement that it will be too hard to predict the impact of secession because of the many factors that go into deciding credit-worthiness.

Since the management staff and elected officials of the proposed new city are yet to be determined, the city's fiscal operations, policies, future debt plans, and how conservatively it forecasts are all unknown, she [Amy Doppelt of Fitch] said.

The story can be accessed by paid subscription through the Bond Buyer website.

posted by B | 9/18/2002 01:48:00 PM

Californians think that secession is good for the San Fernando Valley but not for the left-over Los Angeles, according to a new Field Poll. The poll did not ask city voters on how they will vote on secession come November. It's the first poll of its kind gauging the opinions and perception of state voters on the proposed split of its largest city. Los Angeles County voters were also asked for their opinion on secession.

Would splitting the San Fernando Valley off from the
City of Los Angeles be a good thing or a bad thing
for San Fernando Valley residents?
(among registered voters)
Good thing Bad thing No opinion
Statewide 43% 26 31
Region
LA Co. 40% 42 18
Other SoCal 47% 24 29
NorCal 42% 18 40

County voters overwhelmingly believe (61-19) that secession will have negative consequences for the city of Los Angeles. However, most have no opinion on the impact of secession on the state. Those who do believe secession is a good thing for California (28-21). Other Southern California voters say that it will have a positive impact on the state (34-19), in contrast to the opinions of county voters (23-32).

What the poll reveals is that state voters have adapted the Valley-gets-a-raw-deal-from-LA line. Secession leaders should pat themselves in the back for successfully getting that message out to the rest of the state.

*Full poll report here. Media coverage in the SF Chronicle and Sacramento Bee.

posted by B | 9/18/2002 01:21:00 PM

Reading AS secession watch entry today on the Daily News' continuing coverage of the Rose Institute study would've given the impression that they just found out that the DN is for secession.

The Daily News makes the Rose Institute analysis of Los Angeles fiscal performance its top news story AGAIN today -- with the lead quote from FOTDN (Friend of the Daily News) David Fleming. He is portrayed as a neutral study co-sponsor, when in truth he is a top bankroller of the secession cause.

I mean AS doesn't know David Fleming is for secession? Who reads the Daily News and still doesn't know the political leanings of David Fleming? There are stories written about Madonna without mentioning she's a singer and bad actress. It would be questionable if the DN never called Fleming a secession leader. But the DN did give him that appelation in earlier articles.

Here's one from July 28 by staff writer Beth Barrett

"There's no question the group of major contributors is the modern-day version of the old 'Committee of 25,' " said Valley secession leader David Fleming, a longtime attorney with Latham & Watkins and an important power player himself at City Hall.

August 17, Mariel Garza:

Secession leader David Fleming, whose criticism of the cost of the city's pension system is regularly used to fuel the anti-secession frenzy, said workers in a new Valley city might find an even greater financial reward.

and on..... Just use the search button the Daily News website and type in "David Fleming" with the quotes.

But it describes the men only as "community leaders" -- no mention that they are the sugar daddies of the secession effort, and have been since 1998 when it was revealed that their co-partner in secretly financing the movement was....yes, the Daily News.

The Times didn't mention it either. Maybe its because it is irrelevant to the immediate story at hand, which is, before anyone forgets, about Los Angeles not having clout in Washington and Sacramento. It was proper, no, required that the papers disclose the funding the study received from David Fleming but slapping that forgotten years-old story in the middle of the article will only make it a non-sequitur. Yes, the DN is a paper with a mission. We know it's for secession. Unlike the LAT however, it doesn't report under the pretext of neutrality. The same reason why I don't go ape-fuck with LA Weekly's blinkered lefty-ism. The audience know what to expect. No words have been altered, no subject has been misrepresented in this Daily News article. If it seems like secessionists look overrepresented in the story, then you can fault the other side on that.

Deputy Mayor Matt Middlebrook declined to comment on specific findings, saying the mayor's office would like to review the study first.
-From the Times

I took that quote from yesterday's Times to be fair so it doesn't look like I'm using all DN here. But of course, I can only use yesterday's LAT on this because they did not have a followup story today.

What AS never mentions is the proper way to handle the story. They criticize the Daily News for its emphasis on the story but is the Times slim one-off treatment any more appropriate? There is a reason why it should be a BIG story. Just consider the findings:

Los Angeles got only $118 per person in federal funds in fiscal year 1999, $5 less than Glendale and $164 less than Santa Monica, and fares badly in state funding: When the city and its share of county funding were compared with San Francisco, which is both a city and county, Los Angeles got about half as much per capita in funding, even though it is about five times as big.

And again to be fair. From yesterday's LAT:

The study found that despite Los Angeles' population, it garners less state financing per capita than most other large California cities, including San Francisco, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego and San Jose. In Los Angeles County alone, the city ranked 38th out of 88 cities in 1998-99.

Per capita, Los Angeles ranked 8th in the county in attracting federal funds. It received much less than Santa Monica, Hawthorne and Long Beach

This is a problem for all of LA, sidelining the disparity in the disbursements of federal funds between the basin and the Valley. Not only is the city losing out on government funds due to population undercounts, its political leadership is failing to lobby for the city. Are all anti-secessionists suppose to turn their backs on criticism now? The anti-secessionist reaction led by Matt Middlebrook is uninformed and knee-jerk. First word that they hear about the city not actually getting its fair share and they savage the messenger.

Finally, does AS have any evidence that the study was rigged by Fleming and Co.? These are government numbers the Rose Institute is using. If you want to check the veracity of the numbers, they are out there. It's good to have suspicions at first, but, the overreaction betrays the true sympathies of "scrupulously neutral" AS. Why didn't AS make the full disclosure that Kevin Roderick worked for the LA Times? I hear glass houses breaking.

posted by B | 9/18/2002 04:06:00 AM

Los Angeles City Council will meet in Lake View Terrace today at 6:30 PM. Secessionists promised to protest albeit silently while holding placards.

posted by B | 9/18/2002 02:59:00 AM

The reactions to the Rose Institute study pour in from the city's politicians. The particular issue at hand is the lack of clout Los Angeles has in Washington and Sacramento. As usual, the mayor bashed secession as a possible solution but did not offer any plans to coordinate the city's legislative priorites with its representatives. Hahn refuses to debate secessionists head-to-head.

Congressman Berman at least adviced "to look at the study's findings carefully." Councilmen from the basin responded without the usual gloomy talk against secession.

Councilman Eric Garcetti, who chairs the Economic Development and Employment Committee, said the study identifies the need to do better. For instance, the city should have a "grants coordinator' position to get more state and federal money, he said.

"I looked at San Diego and a couple of other cities, and it's a position that pays for itself,' he said.

Councilman Nate Holden said he was surprised by the findings, which challenge "many comments by the leadership of the city (who) tell us that the city is being well managed.'

"The information, if it's accurate, and there's no reason to believe it's not, it's understandable why anyone would say, 'We want to protect (our) best interests.' I think it will give a lot of support to the (secession) movement,' Holden said.

"It appears we're dropping the ball,' he said.

Nate Holden's comments are surprising and maybe an evidence that his sympathy for Valley independence may at least dissuade him from opposing it like his council colleagues. And you just gotta love Garcetti's solution. By adding more bureaucracy he thinks it will correct the problem. If you ever wanted to see typical LA approach to governing, you could do no worse than read Garcetti's 'fix'.

While Holden believes in the veracity of the study, down at La Opinion, vicemayor Matt Middlebrook called the study 'wrong.' Best summary of the mayor's response so far. No point-by-point rebuttal needed because in his gut Middlebrook just has a hunch that it's wrong.

Just so you know, the city's rebuttal to the Rose Institute study is that the city, because of its clout, was able to get billions in federal money following the Northridge earthquake. Here's my take on that.

posted by B | 9/18/2002 02:54:00 AM

Valley NAACP leader and the chairman of the Black Chamber of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley finally joins the independence movement. Rev. Broadous believe that an independent city will help get Valley's poor more aid. He referred to the policy of having poor neighborhoods form one contiguous area before receiving aid. This works to the disadvantage of Northeast Valley residents who are cutoff from the poor of central Los Angeles. Broadous is also encouraged with the mayoral candidacy of African American Mel Wilson because it shows black political clout intact in the new Valley city. The Valley NAACP has 1,000 members and the Rev. is pushing the organization to back him on secession.

Rev. Broadous belong to one of the Valley's most storied families. His father, Hillery Braodous, is a civil rights leader who helped break down many of the Valley's racist housing laws. The Broadous Elementary School was named after him.

posted by B | 9/18/2002 02:25:00 AM

Tuesday, September 17, 2002

Los Angeles is bad for business. It has the region's highest business taxes and generates less sales tax per-capita than smaller poorer cities. A lot less. The city of San Fernando, which has half of LA's per-capita income, generates four times as much sales tax per capita.

The findings came out of the Claremont McKenna's Rose Institute comparing Los Angeles regulations with other county cities. Other conclusions gleaned from the report titled "Los Angeles in Context: A Comparative Analysis of Current and Proposed Cities in Los Angeles County" is the underfunding of redevelopment programs in the Valley by the city.

The San Fernando Valley received the lowest police expenditures per capita in 2000-01, while the city’s southern section — which includes the Harbor Area — received the highest.

Redevelopment spending in Santa Monica, Burbank and Pasadena were much higher per capita in the 1999-00 fiscal year than in Los Angeles.

The city just simply doesn't have any clout to brag about. The study isn't just about Valley but the rest of Los Angeles.

* Los Angeles saw its clout in Sacramento decline steadily in the late 1990s, dropping from 19th out of the county’s 88 cities in 1996 to 38th two years later.

*Los Angeles experienced a decline of 15.25 percent in federal funds per capita between fiscal years 1997 and 1999.

Stephen Frates, leader of the study: "Los Angeles' political representation in Congress is not very effective."

He provides the proof in the finding that Los Angeles suffered a 15% drop in federal funds between 1997-1999. It doesn't do any better in Sacramento.

The study concluded that Los Angeles did even worse when it went after state dollars, ranking 38th out of the county's 88 cities in fiscal 1999 at $81.37 per capita.

By 1999, the city had dipped to where it was receiving less than the county's average in state funding per capita.

In 1999, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, San Jose and San Diego all did better on a per capita basis than the city.

"These per capita distributions of state (financing) clearly indicate that the size of the City of Los Angeles ... has not translated into political power regarding state (financing)," the report said.

Obersvation from the press coverage by the LA Times, Daily News, and Daily Breeze on this report. Los Angeles Times saw it fit to include secessionist funding of the study. (And so did the Daily News). The study cost $60,000 which the Daily Breeze seems to have fully attribute every dime to the secessionists. While the Times says that it was "partly funded" by a secessionist group. Though, the Daily Breeze focused on the actual findings of the study and devoted sufficient column inches considering the paper is not actually in LA but in Torrance. Los Angeles Times practically buried the story. Four-hundred and thirty words is all the two of its secession reporters could come up with. The study proves that Los Angeles does not have influence Washington and Sacramento. This study disproves one of the main arguments against secession. Yet, the city elite continues to lie about the phantom 'clout' we will lose once secession succeeds. It's a citywide problem when Los Angeles does not get its share of the money, especially when it runs two of California's most important real estates: the Harbor and LAX. LAT should've editorialized about this scandalous powerlessness and should've urged the city to retool its lobbying efforts and coordinate its legislative agendas. But the fear of secession down at LAT HQ shrunken the balls of its editors. To them, it stopped being about being anti-secession but antipathy towards anything not seen as unapologetically pro-LA. The Times reaction has become the domestic application of the "Bush Doctrine," and the study is definitely not with "us"--the Times.

Still, you may worry about the validity of any study with outside funding, especially from ones with a biased viewpoint as the secessionists. That didn't stop the Times before for covering in length studies commissioned by well-known anti-secessionists or groups with close ties to the city. Consider its recent Secession Sketchbook installment titled "Valley and the Squeaky Wheel Theory." In it a USC study concluded that the Valley gets shortchanged because it lacks neighborhood organizations to fight for its share when compared to the rest of the city. In the lavish 1,000-word plus article, NOT ONCE did the Times note that the USC department responsible for the study has close ties with the city. It is a research arm of Hahn's prefered muzzle for the Valley, his much-beloved neighborhood councils. It's there on their website! They helped planned neighborhood councils for the city. The 'SC outfit does nothing except concentrate on neighborhood councils.

Another study that got the Times love and attention is UCLA's Eugene Grigsby's finding that secession is "bad for Blacks." The first report came in August 2nd, the pre-pre release of the study. Mind you that at this point the study was only to be revealed in the presence of other black leaders. No one had a copy of it except for Grigsby and his ilk. Yet, the Times spendt more column inches on this super secret report than on the 231-page Rose Institute study. The second incarnation of Grigsby's report appeared on September 10 in connection with County Supe Brathwaite-Burke's declaration of opposition to secession. Guess who commissioned the report? Yvonne Brathwaite-Burke. No eyebrows raised. Reporter McGreevy had the usual secessionist coming against the study's conclusions but no one condemned the impropriety of giving such an obviously rigged report the space it received.

What sets the Rose Institute apart from the two above-mentioned studies is the kind of information it gathered. The numbers they used we're already out there and sourced from non-partisan government information. The questions it answered were as neutral as you can get. How does LA compare to other cities in sales-tax revenue? In federal and state funding? For that all you really need to do is take the money given to Los Angeles and divide it with its population. It's a lot less subjective than the USC study which based its conclusion that the Valley has less neighborhood organizations per zip code than the rest of the city based on responses from 25% of the 1,900 questionaires it sent out.

What does the LA Times stand for anyways? What distinct voice does it have? No one can pin some distinctive trait to the Times besides being the largest paper in the country's second largest city. And that makes it, without a doubt, the most boring daily in the nation.

*Stephen Frates appears in the LA Business Journal criticizing the political donations made by EIDC to Hahn's anti-secession campaign.

posted by B | 9/17/2002 11:11:00 AM

Monday, September 16, 2002

A proposed housing development in Chatsworth has preservationists in an uproar. How many actual homes are planned to be built? Twenty-one. You read that right. Not twenty-one thousand but twenty-one, far short of the 5,800-home Las Lomas project and 3,000-unit Ahmanson Ranch.

The opposition uses two different arguments against the plan. One ties the especially hated developer Ted Stein and his connection with councilman Hal Bernson who is criticized for approving the plan. Ted Stein is tied to the downtown establishment and is an active detractor of secession, hosting a fundraiser that collected half-a-million dollars for Hahn. The other is spearheaded by leading Chatsworth conservationist and Valley council candidate, Jerry England. He sees development, and as far as I can tell, any development as a menace to rural Chatsworth.

Jerry England and Chatsworth residents were relieved after a judge ruled in their favor to stop the plan. Behind closed doors, the city council voted to appeal the decision.

posted by B | 9/16/2002 09:45:00 PM

Hollywood council candidate Joe Shea and New Times columnist Jill Stewart hosted four shows on secession. They can be viewed online as streaming video with Real Player. You can also catch them on Channel 36, the city's public access cable channel. And watch them on DVD in the future. Isn't it amazing how secessionists are using every available media to get their message out. Not one of the anti-secession groups have dedicated frequently updated websites.

posted by B | 9/16/2002 08:53:00 PM

A side note: Just how long has it been since a reader wrote about secession in the Times letters section?

posted by B | 9/16/2002 02:02:00 AM

Some city council members and their staffers will attend a conference discussing secession at USC (booo! For 'SC and the council members) starting this Thursday.

posted by B | 9/16/2002 02:00:00 AM

More details on the Hollywood secession cable advertisements. The ads will appear at Adephia cable serving the Valley and the Hollywood area. One of the ads will emphasize the diversity of the candidates running for Hollywood office. The other features the literal mess the city made out of Hollywood. As of right now, Valley independence leaders have not made any plans to air TV ads. Sucks.

posted by B | 9/16/2002 01:56:00 AM

Sunday, September 15, 2002

Secession fever in the Harbor area subsiding? If this LA Times piece is to be believed, secessionists are screwed. The Harbor area doesn't provide that many votes to decide municipal elections but it provides a symbolic backdrop to the cause. Besides having an active secession movement backed by genuinely pissed-off residents, the Harbor is also the part of LA Jimmy Hahn calls home.

The weakening passion for any secession movement in the Harbor doesn't indicate that residents there bought the city's line. They are just disspirited after LAFCO dashed their hope to join Hollywood and the Valley on the November ballot.

"I'm not as enthusiastic as before," said Mardesich, a San Pedro resident. "People here aren't enthusiastic either. We're stuck with L.A."

posted by B | 9/15/2002 09:45:00 PM