why hasn't the San Fernando Valley been able to separate from LA? (Los Angeles: sales)

[rob3gdd]

I heard that the sfv has for years tried to separate from LA. Is this true? And if so do the sfv residence want it? What's the reason for it? I would like to know more because I can't find anything on it.

[SandyCo]

San Fernando Valley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to "Independence Movements". Valley secession came up for a vote almost ten years ago, and was voted down, because voters in the entire City of Los Angeles voted on the measure. It would have been an awkward split, anyway, because of utility issues (would The Valley have leased electricity and water from The L.A. Dept. of Water & Power, etc.?), and so on.

And here is a report written on the same subject:

http://www.csun.edu/~csbs/department..._of_Defeat.pdf

I have no idea how accurate any of this info is. I was living in Sherman Oaks then, and I'm pretty sure I voted "yes". Unfortunately, a lot of the revenue earned by The Valley isn't used here. One shining example is our subway system. We have a stub in North Hollywood; don't get me started on The Orange Line busway!

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

don't get me started on The Orange Line busway!

Why not start another sales tax increase to replace the Orange Line with a Red Line extension? Say .25% with ALL of the money going to the Red Line.

Could a ballot measure like this pass?

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by wrcousert

Why not start another sales tax increase to replace the Orange Line with a Red Line extension? Say .25% with ALL of the money going to the Red Line.

Could a ballot measure like this pass?

Residents vote in every tax so I don't see why not.

I'm sure Woodland Hills and West Hills residents would love it as their property values would skyrocket. Considering its got the best LAUSD schools and the only real hinderance to the area is the commute, negating the commute would make the area even more desireable than it already is.

[Samoi137]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

Residents vote in every tax so I don't see why not.

I'm sure Woodland Hills and West Hills residents would love it as their property values would skyrocket. Considering its got the best LAUSD schools and the only real hinderance to the area is the commute, negating the commute would make the area even more desireable than it already is.

Residents vote for every tax? Really??!

[Samoi137]

Forming a new city, with a new government, new services, new taxing authority, materials, staff, etc., etc. is very expensive. Promoters of secessions usually say it will save money in the long run, but that long run could be a ways off,especially for such a large diverse area as the SF Valley. I don't recall what would have happened to the already-independent cities of San Fernando and Burbank. Where would the new city's headqarters have been? What if sections within the new city felt slighted themselves? The new city would still have been part of L.A. County, so some control by folks in downtown L.A. would have remained.

The legislator who recently prooted a new state, splitting off more conservative counties, mainly but not entirely (as I recall) in central and eastern parts of the state didn't seem to talk much of the costs of that either. Was the last new state formed from existing states West Virginia?

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by Samoi137

Residents vote for every tax? Really??!

What is the last city of LA proposition raising taxes that lost?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Samoi137

Forming a new city, with a new government, new services, new taxing authority, materials, staff, etc., etc. is very expensive. Promoters of secessions usually say it will save money in the long run, but that long run could be a ways off,especially for such a large diverse area as the SF Valley. I don't recall what would have happened to the already-independent cities of San Fernando and Burbank. Where would the new city's headqarters have been? What if sections within the new city felt slighted themselves? The new city would still have been part of L.A. County, so some control by folks in downtown L.A. would have remained.

It also would have remained part of LAUSD, which is a separate entity from L.A. City.(Which is why when Villaraigosa tried to have the city take over LAUSD, the city of West Hollywood said that if LAUSD was taken over by L.A. City than WeHo would've joined the Beverly Hills school district.)

(In retrospect, seceding from LAUSD might have garnered more success at the ballot box than seceding from LA City. )

Nothing would have happened to San Fernando, Burbank, and Calabasas. They would have continued to be separate cities.

The Valley City would have not been another Burbank, due to its size - it would've had a population as large as San Francisco's. The efficiency and closer attention of smaller cities would be absent. It would have meant a whole new bureaucracy.

[SalParadise]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

Unfortunately, a lot of the revenue earned by The Valley isn't used here. One shining example is our subway system. We have a stub in North Hollywood; don't get me started on The Orange Line busway!

To be fair, the entire reason there is even a subway at all in the San Fernadno Valley was then mayor Tom Bradley trying to appease valley voters by extending subway to the valley (as opposed to the Westside when westiside politicians like Henry Waxman killed the subway down wilshire).

The most logical place to build LA's first modern subway was under Wilshire Blvd, not to the SFV. No offense to the SFV as I grew up there. All of our local politicians of that era (1980's to 2000) really blew it big time.

[LAMetroArea747626]

I think the city of San Fernando should annex the entire LA City section of the San Fernando Valley when the valley secedes from Los Angeles next time. That would make more sense to have the valley to join with another city like San Fernando, instead of forming a new city. That way, the valley would be a better place to live.