SPLITTING FROM L.A. SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR BETTER FUTURE.

Byline: Keith S. Richman Local View

THIS November, Valley voters will have a historic decision to make about their future. Will we form our own government to respond to local needs or will we remain part of a troubled city that juggles many interests?

Last week, a report issued by Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Director Larry Calemine detailed how both a separate Valley city and the remaining city of Los Angeles would be viable entities after a split. Next month, LAFCO will likely put the question of secession on the November ballot.

The LAFCO report shows that the new Valley city's robust economy could meet its own financial obligations and pay $55 million a year in ``alimony'' to the city of Los Angeles. This alimony ensures that secession does not financially impact the remaining city. In fact, the remaining city of Los Angeles would be our nation's third-largest city and the new Valley city would be the sixth.

As outlined, the new city would continue to be served by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at the same rates it charges Los Angeles residents. The new city would assume ownership of Van Nuys airport and most of the existing police and fire stations Valley residents have already paid for with their taxes from previous years. The new city would also take its share of the municipal debt accumulated on its behalf.

Besides these financial matters, a new Valley city would improve local control, giving local leaders and members of our community the final say on many quality-of-life issues. We need responsive government, one that knows our neighborhoods and listens to our concerns.

Often, our San Fernando Valley community feels disenchanted and disenfranchised. Decision-making for the city of Los Angeles is frequently controlled by a small group of downtown interests without real participation by Valley leaders. We deserve better.

To improve our lives and our community, we need to increase the connection between Valley citizens and their municipal government. We need governance at the local level. We need to take control of our own destiny.

A new Valley city would allow local leaders to make important decisions about our neighborhoods, our roads, our transit systems, our parks and our business climate. A Valley city would have a robust economic base and would ensure a higher quality of life for its citizens. A separate city would also give greater voice to our call for improved schools.

Clearly, secession would involve significant change. Thomas Jefferson, an architect of American history, had the following observation about change and government:

``Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. ... We are certainly not advocates for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitution.'' He concluded, ``Institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times.''

When I ran for state Assembly two years ago, I was often asked if I supported secession for the San Fernando Valley. I said that I supported a study of secession and would await the final LAFCO report before making a commitment.

With the LAFCO study confirming a new Valley city would work for both the Valley and the remaining part of Los Angeles, I believe it is time for Valley leaders to commit to working for a new city, for self-determination, for a better future.

A Valley city will require visionary leadership - a strong mayor and a dedicated city council with the broad representation needed to define and bring to life that vision. Establishing a new city is a complex undertaking where leaders only get one chance to do it right.

We must use the months ahead to build the broad support needed to capitalize on this exciting opportunity. Centuries ago, our Founding Fathers pledged ``their lives, fortunes and sacred honors'' to build a better future. Standing on their shoulders, we must simply win an election, not a revolutionary war.

In comparison, it will be a small price to pay for better government and a better future.