PUBLIC FORUM : COMMUNITY COUNCILS COULD CREATE NEW `SENSE OF PLACE'.

The time has come to bring back ``towns.'' Somewhere along the way L.A.'s towns have been lost in our inexorable urban sprawl. We seem to be losing the sense of local pride and identity that once existed. Most of our communities have names, but little else to create any sense of place.

Where are our local governing boards, and where are our town halls? When can we assemble as citizens to deal with local concerns, and how can we hold our town leaders accountable? From time to time our city officials have created committees to advise them on certain issues, but is that enough?

Advisory councils are not a new idea but they are not the same as a governing body. Advisory councils make the community feel more involved and provide much-needed lines of communication. They also provide goodwill for council members come election time. But the disposable suggestions of these ``feel-good'' advisory groups are routinely ignored. Giving advice to a dysfunctional City Council does not satisfy our diverse needs for self-determination.

It is no mystery why people in Sylmar want to annex to San Fernando - or why residents of North Hollywood want to join nearby Burbank. In adjacent cities it takes only a few thousand people to elect a council member - but in Los Angeles each of our 15 council districts tries to cover nearly a quarter of a million people.

Separated by nearly 60 miles of dense urban diversity, the interests and priorities of the fishermen of San Pedro are surely different from those of the horsemen of Sylmar. Why shouldn't each of those communities be allowed to set its own priorities?

The Valley Industry and Commerce Association is not attempting to impose a particular new system, but rather is suggesting that any appointed or elected Charter Reform Commission look for ways to cede power to Los Angeles' local communities. This would require throwing the old 700-page ``power-from-the-top-down'' City Charter out the window.

The new structure could take the form of elected governing boards for each community. These boards could replace the current City Council structure with a network of ``community councils'' or ``town councils.'' These boards could function much like the city councils of Calabasas, San Fernando or Burbank do. They could be empowered to determine what activities and services their communities wished to pay for, and to set local priorities for funding. The city would be limited to dealing with matters of regional concern, such as airport, harbor and major infrastructure.

Will the City Council's appointed, advisory reform commission move in the direction of local control - or will it give in to insiders like City Attorney James Hahn, who defended the status quo, saying that the charter only needs ``a minor tuneup?''

Over 300,000 citizens of Los Angeles have signed petitions supporting an elected charter reform commission. Hahn and the all-powerful City Council seem determined to block the elected commission from appearing on the April 1997 ballot. It is easy to see why the hard-working taxpayers and entrepreneurs of Los Angeles might consider seeking refuge from the council's tyranny by looking to move to a friendlier town.

We are watching to see what the council's hand-picked advisory charter reform commission will come up with - but don't be surprised if one more time the City Council decides to ``let them eat cake.''

- Bob Scott 

Chair, local issues

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Woodland Hills

The plan to replace the Los Angeles City Council with elected community councils may not be the best solution after all. Although many inner-city residents do not know who to turn to for answers to their questions, how effective and how much effort will these delegates (from community councils) put forth?

Breaking cities into smaller jurisdictions adds more to the problems as opposed to solving them. Eventually, there will come a time when different sections will have matters to be dealt with. What would be the result of certain sections being neglected? This form of passing the responsibility is absurd. Therefore, something better has to be produced.

- Nariha Serano

Arleta

With regards to community councils, and their input: They would serve to further alienate the public. How does a community like Winnetka compete with a community like Woodland Hills with its large chamber of commerce? It would be pure folly to think that Winnetka will receive the same recognition. Given today's political climate and the thinking of the public toward politicians, what would be gained - a sounding board, and that is it.

Sure, the communities should receive more than lip service, and their voices should be heard. The community will only gain from vocal and aggressive councils to voice their concerns. I cannot envision that any small community would be given the time of day, due to some of the current thinking in City Hall.

The thinking there is parochial and self-serving, with race the main ingredient. It has been made that way by the powers that be, and the ever-increasing militancy of the minorities. Today we are stagnated.

It would be interesting to see how the different cultures and the ideologies of the many varied nationalities would be forced into a viable working system.

Will Gov. Pete Wilson listen to Chatsworth, Reseda and Lake View Terrace separately, or will he listen to them when they are all in agreement with the proper spokesperson? That thought must be given serious consideration.

- John Adams 

Northridge

As president of VICA, I support the community council idea, but encourage all citizens to submit their ideas on how they think the city should be governed to the charter commission.

America is still an ongoing experiment; democracy is only 220 years old. It certainly requires adjustments to make it better, more responsive, up to date, flexible and fair.

The community council is one way of starting to bring government closer to those whom it governs. There are others who have different ideas. We welcome that. That makes the process stronger; so please participate in the charter reform process. Have your voice directed toward those who are charged with crafting a new document. What better way to start the new millennium in Los Angeles, but with another version of the government delivery system.

VICA's intent is not meant to criticize those currently in office. Their plates are too full; the system is straining under the burden to respond. A new system, if successful, could integrate communities' needs and wishes with state-of-the-art technology and ``customer'' awareness.

Imagine global villages within our metropolitan Los Angeles? Technology can allow us the best of both; a sense of community and a need for global linkages. Let's continue to dream and talk about those dreams and maybe it will come true. No dream, no reality.

- Bonny L. Herman

President

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Woodland Hills

Once again the Daily News is to be congratulated for providing a public forum for the reformation of Los Angeles city government. A citizen-drafted city charter, based on the welcomed input of all interested parties, is the very essence of our democratic system.

Mayor Richard Riordan joins me in encouraging everyone to participate in this and in future forums over the next several months. Our citizen-driven charter reform initiative marks the beginning of this city's crusade to return control of our government back to all of us as citizens of Los Angeles.

And as citizens, we simply wish to exercise that right given us under California's Constitution to elect a citizens charter reform commission made up of interested volunteers who will freely dialogue with all Angelenos who want to be involved and, after two years of listening and debating, suggest to their fellow citizens a new structure of city government in the form of a new charter.

And we, as citizens, seek to do this without the prior permission of those now in city government, elected or appointed, who currently wield most of the power and hold most of the turf and thereby fear what an elected group of citizen volunteers might suggest by way of relocating some of that power and turf.

So, once again, thank you, Daily News.

And let the dialogue begin.

- David W. Fleming

Committee for Citizens' City Charter Reform

Universal City

Re ``Community councils,'' Dec. 1 letter of Mort Diamond:

I wish that Diamond had focused on the issue of community councils in his Dec. 1 letter, instead of making a personal attack on a hard-working and respected community volunteer, and expounding nonfactual information about a nonprofit, nonpartisan, volunteer-based, paid-membership organization.

While I have no intentions of addressing the absurdities of Mr. Diamond's letter, I must nevertheless address some of its many, I hope unintentional, fabrications about the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and its position on the suggested community councils.

VICA is not a public nor quasi-public organization. In my opinion, it is not obliged to conduct public meetings nor develop community consensus. VICA has a dedicated and limited staff, and a cadre of volunteers who work a good portion of their week addressing issues of concern to the VICA membership - people who own or work for small, medium and large businesses. VICA has never portrayed itself as the voice of anyone other than its membership; and then only after subjecting each position to a multistep evaluation by its general membership, boards and officers.

The community council concept was one of many proposals suggested by VICA for consideration by any elected or appointed L.A. charter reform commission. Is there something really wrong with suggesting the ``empowerment of L.A.'s diverse communities to chart their respective courses and control their destinies?'' Is it really wrong to ask people to consider the thought of some decisions at a community level and others at a citywide level?

Folks, VICA is only making suggestions here; ideas to stimulate discussion and thought. While it's flattering that some think that VICA's positions are tantamount to unilaterally amending the City Charter, they are not. VICA is only rightly expressing the adopted positions of its membership, which it should continue to do now and in the future.

- Wendy M. Brogin

Sherman Oaks