PALMDALE, LANCASTER FEASIBLE OR NOT? RUNNER WANTS DISCUSSION ON MERGING PALMDALE, LANCASTER.

Byline: Jim Skeen Staff Writer

PALMDALE - Assemblyman George Runner believes now is a good time to talk about merging the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale.

A single Antelope Valley city would be a sizable presence - a metropolis of 250,000 people covering more than 200 square miles, the third most populous in Los Angeles County and the 10th most populous in California.

But the idea raises lots of questions.

Would a single city gather in more revenue, revenue that the state seems to ship off to large urban areas in larger doses than suburban areas? Would it translate into better services for its residents?

Or would a single city be an unwieldly bureaucratic mess, like critics accuse Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Unified School District of being? Would it put more distance between residents and the government that serves them?

``I'm not on a crusade for one city. I am on a crusade for having a good discussion,'' said Runner, a former Lancaster mayor. ``Ultimately, it will be the voters that decide.''

Runner believes that there is a potential for a unified city to bring in more state revenue than Lancaster and Palmdale get separately. For example, in the coming March state park bond vote, Runner said a unified city would receive $5 million more than the total of what the two cities are expected to receive.

Based on his experience in the state Legislature, state funding mechanisms tend to favor urban areas over suburban areas, Runner said.

``What I'm looking for is good, hard data to see if it makes sense for the Antelope Valley,'' Runner said. ``I want to see if we get more revenue and if the residents get more services.''

The time is right for the discussion, Runner said, because now both cities are at parity in populations - both right around 125,000 - and in their needs.

``It's easier to to talk about one city when it's a merger, not a takeover,'' Runner said.

A skeptic about the one-city idea is Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford.

The two cities are already of substantial size and are projected to grow rapidly in the coming century. One city would create a metropolis so large that its government would be too far removed from the citizens it serves, Ledford said.

``The political elite loves one city because it gives them more clout,'' Ledford said. ``I don't see it being in the best interest of the citizens.''

Since first broaching the one-city idea at an Antelope Valley Board of Trade meeting this fall, Runner has heard criticism that the plan is aimed primarily at bolstering political careers.

``It doesn't affect my political clout. I represent all the area and Santa Clarita too,'' Runner said. ``For the Antelope Valley residents there is a greater political clout with one voice.''

As for one city being unwieldy, Runner doesn't think that would happen with a city of 250,000. Political representation could come closer to the citizens if the city was divided into districts, with council members elected from each district rather than from the city at large, as is done now.

``The question is what size works best for local government,'' Runner said. ``There could be some economy of scale.''

Lancaster Mayor Frank Roberts said the concept would be worth looking into but that he hasn't heard any great cry from residents to pursue a single city.

``If my constituency base says it's a good thing, then I'll do everything I can to make it happen, but I'm not hearing that yet,'' Roberts said.

Communities have joined together in the past. In 1976, the unincorporated areas of La Canada and Flintridge opted to incorporate as a single city to give citizens more control over planning issues and to try to protect against encroachment from nearby Pasadena and Glendale.