Northridge Community Council 9-11-02 Update |
We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning Northridge Community Council events and projects affecting it. Please make copies of this update for your neighbors and ask your neighbors to join our E-mail list . Please forward this E-mail to your private E-mail lists.
See CSUN Streets | Secession Debates | Our meeting next Wednesday September 18th | Borough plan | Tax dollars as a weapon in the battle of secession
CSUN is asking for L.A. City to vacate 7 segments of streets, now currently controlled by Los Angeles within CSUN property. The issue has been placed on hold by the LA Department of Transportation who intends to issue a new recommendation letter within three to four weeks.
We have asked them to provide a copy of the letter for the community, and intend to place it on next month's agenda. Here is a link to their construction map
http://www-admn.csun.edu/facplan/conmap8_29.doc
A debate will be at the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (Balboa and Plummer) on 10-1-02 at 7 pm. The flyer shows the Northridge Community Council as the sponsor. This isn't us, but the Baker-Coleman group who thinks nothing of using our name. But, the debate is a good idea and we urge you to attend.
Another debate will be at the Saint Peters Armenian Church at Sherman Way and Louise on 10-25-02. Walter Prince will be speaking before this group.
The MTA will make a brief presentation on the North-South bus way.
The primary meeting will be a candidate’s forum for the first Council district with the new city. The Northridge Committee Council’s area is in both District 1 and 3. We are having the candidates for District 1 (portions of Northridge, North Hills and Granada Hills) speak at this meeting, and for District 3 (portions of Northridge, Chatsworth and Porter ranch) at the next meeting.
We intend to use the following format:
Each candidate will have two minutes to present an overview of their positions.
Then each candidate will be asked to answer the following questions regarding what they intend to do if elected:
1. Public safety issues
2. Traffic issues
3. Education (we know that the new city council does not control LAUSD but has considerable influence in deciding the future of LAUSD or it’s breakup)
4. Will they sign a pledge to not have illegal signs posted. Go here for the sign law:
http://www.sf-valley.org/election/lacode.htm
5. Why they are running for office and their position on secession.
If you have other questions you feel we should ask the candidates please e-mail them to us. If there is time, we will ask for questions from the audience and I'm sure the candidates will stay around to answer personal questions after the meeting. For information go to :
http://www.sf-valley.org/election/Index.htm
Please come and bring your friends to this important meeting. Please make copies of this update for your neighbors and ask your neighbors to join our E-mails. Please forward this E-mail to your private E-mail lists.
Here is a little interesting history, Lucente claims that LA City, if we do not secede, has has control over local schools. The LA City Council lobbied against the breakup of LA Unified Schools.
As a Borough plan has been killed by the city council, the only choice left is secession. Lucente also sits on the DONE commission and voted against town hall formats and stated that stakeholders have no right to vote on issues in the powerless LA City Neighborhood councils.
Daily News 5-30-02
In your May 24 editorial "Testing City Hall" you assert that Councilwoman Wendy Greuel's plan for a borough system in Los Angeles "only sets up a commission." While a commission is part of Greuel's proposal, the characterization that the plan lacks substance is simply inaccurate. The Greuel plan calls for binding structural reform that shifts power away from City Hall to local communities. The implementing commission has specific marching orders: give neighborhoods power over local budgets, land use and service delivery (including libraries, parks, street maintenance, traffic improvements, etc.), plus greater oversight of public schools, a key issue not addressed by secession.
It also builds upon the process of neighborhood councils currently under way throughout the Valley and all of Los Angeles and speaks to important issues of residents like the 2,300 member households of the Studio City Residents Association.
As you acknowledged, the Greuel plan clearly states that the status quo is inadequate. I have great faith in voters throughout the city to debate the borough alternative along with secession and ultimately decide which option truly empowers neighborhoods.
Tony Lucente President Studio City Residents Association
http://dailynews.com/opinions/articles/0502/14/edi01.asp
A Los Angeles City Council committee is giving San Fernando Valley residents 120 million more reasons to think seriously about secession.
Last week, the council's Finance and Budget Committee toyed with the idea of reducing or deferring some $120 million in city spending, pending a Valley secession vote that is likely to take place on Nov. 5.
The proposed cuts and deferrals would include $58.6 million for ongoing programs and $60 million in construction projects such as libraries, parks, asbestos removal from city buildings and completion of work on the Van Nuys Civic Center. Even equipment purchases for city firefighters and police officers could be deferred.
The stated purpose of the proposal is "to give the city some reserves in preparation for secession" -- a prudent, noble-sounding claim.
And a completely dishonest one at that.
Whether the Valley should secede from Los Angeles remains an open question that can't be answered fairly until the Local Agency Formation Commission spells out the terms for a breakup. But if there's one thing we do know about secession, it's this:
The city of Los Angeles would in no way suffer financially as a result of Valley independence.
State law guarantees that in the event of secession, L.A. will be kept financially whole. That's why LAFCO has conducted extensive studies on the fiscal impact of a breakup on the remaining city. And that's why an independent Valley could expect to pay $127 million in annual alimony payments to the remaining L.A.
So if City Hall's budget makers have nothing to fear from secession, why are they frantically sounding the alarms and making threats about slashing programs?
The answer is a cheap, dirty-but-often-successful form of politics that city leaders have long practiced: Scare tactics.
For secession to succeed, it needs to win not only the approval of Valley residents but also a majority of votes throughout the city, including the Valley. L.A. leaders, no doubt, realize that grim forecasts of economic woe -- even if unfounded -- might be sufficient to scare a fair number of Angelenos living outside the Valley into voting no.
The doom-and-gloom might also intimidate some Vals, too.
It's a safe bet that any city funding for the Valley that's deferred until Nov. 5 would be canceled outright if secession were to pass. What the Finance and Budget Committee is proposing is a repugnant form of political hostage-taking -- vote down secession or you'll never see your tax money again.
To his credit, Mayor James Hahn has said through a spokesman that he won't support making any spending contingent on a secession vote. But elsewhere in City Hall, the idea seems to have currency, and as L.A. leaders struggle to make the city budget look balanced, ripping off the Valley might seem a tempting answer.
It wouldn't be the first time. That's the sort of bullying that drove Valley residents to seek secession in the first place.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. **If you friends want to be added to our E-mail list to be notified by E-mail about meetings and issues please send an E-mail with Northridge Council as the subject. We share our e-mail list with no one. Charles Brink, Webmaster. If you want to have your name removed from the list just reply with remove as subject.Update Index |