Initially, the break up may sound like a good idea. That is what advocates of smaller government and more local control have to say. Wrong. If the San Fernando Valley secedes from Los Angeles, they will probably get more than what they bargained for, especially in more administration and on the contrary less in public services. Yes, and that does include transit! It could also mean more taxes for valley residents. I agree with Mayor Hahn the potential chaos this may cause. School districts, 911 services, parks and libraries, water and power, trash pick-ups, street maintenance, and public transportation, your METRO bus and rail services will be affected by the break-up.

For transit, this could mean contracting out. Also, for bus and rail service that will be out side of Los Angeles, it will mean higher fares, surcharges, and additional transfers. More fueding will go on between the bureaucrats which will ultimately mean service disruptions and longer times to complete construction of facilities for new services as well as over who will own what and who runs it. Buildings, buses, trains, tracks, maintenance facilities, and contracted out services may have to all be rewritten. Before that is done, the administrative arm has to be set up, and that could be the worst part, especially if backers for the break-up are seeking a power grab. Little do they realize that they are creating MORE government, not less!

Mayor Hahn has said the new community in the valley, whatever name is chosen, will have to pay a succesion fee to the City of Los Angeles for several years. If that is the case, valley supporters might as well throw money to the wind, because that is what it boils down to. He compared it like alimony money for a divorce.

As for transit, suppose a transit agency is set up for the valley . First, the adminstrative authority has to be set up. Second, funding sources have to be found Third, it has to be determined what the purpose of the service will be. Fourth, the people will probably have to vote on it, which could very well determine if transit service will live or die. It's a for sure victory for NIMBY's and naysayers, while solving the problem will only take longer.

What if the valley said they will run buses but no rail? What happens to the Metrorail Redline subway to N. Hollywood? What about the vanpool/carpool services? If a person commutes between Los Angeles and the valley and uses the service, who has the say so on fares, schedules, which vehicles can use diamond lanes on the streets and freeways? Some transit agencies may not be able to use them outside their jursdictions. What about transit police? You could also have duplicating services overlapping each other. This could bring about restrictions on uses of such things as passes or inter-agency transfers.

County services such as the Metrolink commuter trains probably would not be affected. But you could still have a neglect of maintenance and security at some of the individual stations or key transfer points between buses and trains. What if the valley said "we're not going to deal with any other city, county, or state agencies" and tried to run their system alone? Again, more administrative problems, court lawsuits, and transit users will lose as money will be diverted away from providing the transit services to settle administrative differences.

The smart vote is to reject this break up, as it will drive up costs of government as a new city hall, new emergency services units, a new school district administrator, new utility services, and even a new transit district will all have to be set up, and the capital costs for start up are not cheap! Equipment, buildings, and employees will have to be split up to some degree. If some equipment is antiquainted or in bad shape, the valley is likely to get the short end of the stick as far as who will get the better share of the fleet of buses for example; that could translate to route cuts and frequency reductions in service. The same could go for the employees; those with good morale and records will likely be retained, while the valley could be stuck with employees who are not exactly top-notch for starting a new agency.

Instead of breaking off for sucession, the valley should encourage the city council to draw district lines throughout the city fairly, making sure that the valley gets it proper share of representation on the council proportion to its population. This would enhance a return for the value of all the taxes that they pay. Another thing that could help the valley, and It something that our late founder Pat Moser and I strongly supported, and that was to expand the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors from five seats to nine seats. That would help give the valley more clout that it needs on the county level. Putting four more seats on the county board of supervisors would be far less in cost than to create a whole new city hall of a mayor, council, school boards, police and fire chiefs, etc. It is unfair that a couple of county supervisors have to represent half of people in another area when there has been so much diversity in grwoth in the area over an extended period of time.

Rejection of this break-up would be the smart thing to do, especially with so many transit projects in the works already. Tax codes would all have to be worked out and monies withheld for an indefinite period of time until a city constitution and by-laws written along with court lawsuits waiting to be setttled.If not, valley transit riders could be at the end-of-the-line of improvements for a long time to come.