ALARCON: `PERHAPS WE CAN SUCCEED WITHOUT SECEDING'.

Byline: Richard Alarcon

THE recent action in the state Assembly to make it easier for communitiessuch as the San Fernando Valley to become independent from the city of Los Angeles has fueled a debate in all areas of our city about whether or not it's a good idea for the Valley to become independent and whether the City Council should have veto power over that decision.

Additionally, a motion was recently introduced to review our city's charter and restructure city government. It's an important first step which I support as long as citizens are guaranteed involvement. But, it's not the answer.

Let me state my position on the Boland Bill. I, along with five other council members, voted in support of Assembly member Paula Boland's bill recently when it was before the Los Angeles City Council. The Boland Bill removes the City Council's power to veto a secession effort.

I voted in support of the bill because I do not believe that the City Council, or any city council anywhere in our country, should be able to veto a majority vote in favor of independence. It's a fundamental issue of democracy and self-determination.

However, while I agree that San Fernando Valley residents should have more local control and autonomy as should the rest of the city, I believe there may be alternatives to secession that may very well accomplish the same goal.

As a San Fernando Valley native whose roots date back to before the early 1920's, I agree the Valley has never received its fair share of resources. I know that firsthand as I represent what has been the most ignored part of the Valley, the Northeast area. When I was elected in 1993, I inherited a district with the least number of streetlights, traffic signals, paved streets and sidewalks and parks.

You name those basic services most people take for granted and we most likely had the fewest number. Yet, we had an over-abundance of stuff most communities don't want . . . such as landfills and illegal dumping.

I don't blame the rest of the city entirely for what happened in the Northeast Valley. The blame rests on a combination of things. Yes, it's about the city as a whole having other priorities; yes, it's about poor representation and a lack of vision, and yes, it was also about a community disenfranchised by community apathy. However, we did not have to become independent in order to begin correcting the wrongs of the past.

Since elected, I have worked hard to reverse the deterioration. It is exciting to see the many changes that have occurred in the last three years. Crime is down, hundreds of new streetlights have been installed, 10 new traffic signals, more streets are being swept and paved, a new library will soon be built and Lopez landfill will close on July 1. And the community, once disenfranchised, has been there at every step of the way.

But more could be accomplished if there was more control and decision making authority at the local level. Let's face it: Los Angeles is a big city and there are many competing interests. We must be ever vigilant in ensuring that the Valley gets its fair share. That can very often be a challenge.

But I don't think we're at such an irreversible point that the only option is for the Valley to gain independence from the city, at least not without attempting alternatives that may accomplish the same goals. I, for one, am willing to explore those alternatives.

The charter school model has demonstrated that local control and decision making authority can be achieved within the current Los Angeles Unified School District. With special designation, charter schools keep 95 percent of funds at the local level; governance autonomy and decision making powers remain at the site.

Results have proven charter schools to be very successful. In my district alone, the two charter schools that exist have experienced record student attendance, better test scores, greater parent participation and hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings which has allowed the schools to provide more for its students.

The fundamental principles that establish charter schools might be well-suited for establishing new governance models on a community level throughout Los Angeles.

I recently introduced a motion that will explore alternative methods of governance that may provide local control and decision making authority to communities as an alternative to the San Fernando Valley becoming it's own independent city. It will explore ways to divide resources equitably and allow communities to decide its own priorities. It will explore the creation of Community Improvements Districts, similar to Business Improvement Districts (BIDS), where a community may consider raising revenue that can only be used in that community.

I urge your support in exploring ways to make our government work for us. If there's a way we can have our cake and eat it too, and at the same time achieve the level of respect that the Valley deserves, then I say let's go for it. Perhaps we can succeed without seceding.

MEMO: Councilman Richard Alarcon represents the 7th District

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: Richard Alarcon