In search of white hats. (Comment).

WHAT a mess. The battle of secession is just gearing up and already there are signs of trouble on both sides.

From the opposition camp, the word is lots of confusion and indecision. Should they focus on the Valley? On all Los Angeles? How important are blacks and Latinos? "There's no plan," one well-connected player told me last week. "It's really unbelievable, much worse than you could even have imagined."

A New York Times story last week quotes Kam Kuwata as being "terrified in meeting with certain groups"--an embarrassing reference to Mayor James Hahn's meager support among Latino voters, who, according to the polls, are split over a break up. Hahn has solicited the help of his old mayoral opponent, Antonio Villaraigosa, to get Latinos in the anti-secession camp, but no one seems to know what he'll be doing. Same for former Mayor Richard Riordan, who Hahn also invited to join the effort As Daily News columnist Rick Orlov noted, "It has not been clear who is in charge."

Secessionists aren't having it easy either. Last week, a one-time supporter, Van Nuys Homeowners Association President Don Schultz, decided to switch sides because he fears a new Valley city would break up his community. Other Valley leaders who for months were tilting for secession are now sounding tentative, including former U.S. Rep. Bobbi Fiedler and Studio City attorney David Fleming. Last week, the San Fernando Valley United Chambers of Commerce, long expected to lobby for secession, backed off from taking a stand until at least next month.

In the midst of all this, there's state Assemblyman Robert Hertzberg and City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel talking up the sensible idea of a boroughs system, and it's still possible, though unlikely, that in addition to secession, boroughs will end up on the ballot.

Like I said, a mess.

The good news is that people are talking about the mess. For once, they're actually engaged about a local issue--and it's not just the talking heads on "Which Way, L.A." It's real folks forming reasonably studied opinions. Too bad there's no leadership on either side of the debate to crystallize the issues with passion and understanding.

The secessionist camp is angry and determined but lacking in firepower. Their only hope rests on lots of volunteers, who, grass-roots style, will spread their still-flimsy case: that the Valley gets roundly cheated on public services (not true), that the city is controlled by the unions and a handful of rich guys (if it only were that simple), and that things will be better if only they can make the split (don't hold your breath).

Aside from telegraphing this awfully vague case for such an important decision, secessionists can't present a real vision for the new city because they haven't a clue what a new city will be like. They are selling, in effect, a leap of faith, and if past elections are any indication, voters typically side with the devil they know.

So secession goes down, right? Probably. Anti-secession ads will start hitting the airwaves late summer or early fall, and they'll raise more than enough questions in voters' minds. But don't expect the opposition to acknowledge the city's obvious failings or the reasons why the secession movement has reached this far. The folks running this show don't do vision--they're barely thinking two or three weeks out.

Secession is a bad idea. But the status quo isn't much better. Shouldn't there be a place on the ballot for "none of the above"?

Mark Lacter is editor of the Business Journal.