RIORDAN PARTLY BLAMES VALLEY FOR DEFEAT OF BOND.

Byline: Rick Orlov and Michael Coit Daily News Staff Writers

Shocked by defeat of the $744 million public safety bond issue, Mayor Richard Riordan and other officials partly blamed San Fernando Valley voters Wednesday and sought a new approach again.

Riordan, Police Chief Bernard C. Parks and other officials noted that the bond campaign failed to persuade enough voters in the Valley and citywide to support the proposal, and city missteps further eroded support.

``I am extremely disappointed,'' Riordan said at a City Hall news conference. ``Sixty-two percent will win any other election, but we didn't reach the two-thirds necessary.''

Riordan said he would meet soon with city officials to discuss a possible November 2000 bond issue.

Without elaborating, he attributed the poor showing among Valley voters Tuesday to a ``splinter group of individuals who got some media attention'' opposing the bond plan.

Parks complained that ``it was not helpful at the very end of the campaign to have the secession issue get intertwined with the infrastructure issue of police and fire (facilities).''

The final unofficial results of Tuesday's election show 60.98 percent of voters favored Proposition 1 and 39.01 percent opposed it. The measure needed 66.67 percent approval to pass.

Bill Powers of No Bonds Now, an anti-bond Valley group formed only 10 days before the election, said the bond measure was too large and ill-timed.

``It's a good thing for the city and a good thing for the Valley that it lost,'' he said. ``I think the city would have been shortchanged by this proposal. I'll take credit for that.''

During Tuesday night's ballot counting, Proposition 1 never rose above the critical two-thirds level of approval and plunged from about 64 percent to 60 percent after votes came in from two Valley council districts, the 3rd and 12th.

``They couldn't sell this to the rest of the city either,'' said Richard Close, chairman of Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment, the secession study group.

``I don't think you can blame the Valley entirely, although it appears it did not get the level of support here that it did elsewhere.''

Riordan said public safety agencies remain in need of facilities the bonds would have financed.

``We have to have the infrastructure for the 21st century,'' Riordan said. ``And for capital projects, this is the best way to finance them.''

Parks said the city has to make a better case to the public about the need for new buildings.

``I think part of the problem was we failed to totally convince the Valley of the need for this,'' Parks said. ``If someone would roam around Parker Center, they would see it is a poster child for a new building.''

In the four council districts based entirely in the Valley - the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th - the measure got a simple majority only in the 7th District in the Northeast Valley, where it got 57 percent support.

Jeff Brain, president of Valley VOTE, said part of the problem for the measure in the Valley was the lack of services to the area.

``We would be paying 40 percent of the costs, but getting only about 18 percent of the services,'' Brain said.

``And the city didn't help itself with the mistakes it made with the ballot that cost $344,000 - that's what we're asking them to contribute to the cityhood study - and sending out brush-clearance notices.

``It's like they stubbed their toes when they were asking us to trust them,'' Brain said.

Whether voting for or against the public safety proposition, Valley residents said they were not surprised the measure failed to get enough support.

``I am not delighted with the fact that perhaps it appears this would be denying public safety, and that's one of our high priorities,'' said Tarzana resident Jill Swift, who voted no. ``But I am concerned that . . . the final bond amount is 50 percent higher than the mayor's blue ribbon commission recommended. Fifty percent more is a lot of money.''

Many Valley voters said the proposal was too costly to homeowners and they doubted there was enough accountability to ensure the Valley would get its share of what the measure promised.

Mary Edwards, a Granada Hills community activist who worked at her neighborhood polling place, said many voters grumbled about adding more city debt that might be passed onto the Valley if the region breaks away.

``A lot of them felt if the Valley seceded, they didn't want to incur more debt,'' said Edwards, who voted for it.

Doris MacComb of Northridge said she supports the cityhood effort and no longer trusts Los Angeles officials.

``I really think the voters did the right thing. I think there's plenty of money in L.A. to take care of those things, and I don't think they need to come to the taxpayers for this bond and that bond,'' she said.

Pat Hunter of Granada Hills recalled discussing the measure with her husband, Wayde, before deciding how to vote. ``When I mentioned what it was saying, he said no way. It all seems to be going into L.A. and none of it is really coming this way. Everything seems to go downtown.''

Voters at Edwards' polling place voiced concerns about just such a credibility gap.

Some voters complained about the way previous bond issue money was spent, the $344,000 foul-up in the voter pamphlet on the bond issue this year and the bungled $13 inspection fee for brush clearance earlier this month.

``The tone of it was the problem. It told us this fee that we never knew of before was due,'' said Paul Grein of Studio City, who was angered by the letter but still voted in favor of the bond measure. ``It didn't help. It did not endear them to voters.''

CAPTION(S):

Box

BOX: HOW THE CITY VOTED

This is how voters in each City Council district voted on Proposition 1 on Tuesday's ballot, the $744 million bond issue for police and fire facilities. By law, the measure needed two-thirds approval, or 66.67 percent, to pass.

SOURCE: City of Los Angeles, Daily News