Valley Secession and Secessionists

* The Times seems to miss the point and get only part of the story when talking of San Fernando Valley secession (“Political Briefing,” Sept. 19). First, the split is not new and second the feeling for the movement is exaggerated.

When Mayor [Richard] Riordan financed his Charter Reform Commission, the two leaders in Sherman Oaks split. Richard Close endorsed Matt Epstein, who ran against Jeff Brain. They campaigned as the ones who could save us from those terrible people on the other side of the hill. Despite well-funded campaigns, they were both clobbered by Irwin Chemerinsky, who presented a reasonable and intelligent program to reform the charter. Incidentally, this may be the only vote between secessionists and those who merely wanted to make things work better.

The secessionists have used the media very well, but there is much less to it than meets the eye.

EMIL LAWTON

Sherman Oaks

* [Valley] VOTE shouldn’t be too concerned with the “new” San Fernando Valley Secession Board. After all, it has two “old” bosses on it--Bobbi Fiedler and Paula Boland. I wonder what ax they have to grind?

STAN GORDON

Canoga Park

* Re “Valley Secession Backers Take Heed,” Sept. 21.

Your arrogance and / or chutzpah is absolutely unbelievable. I don’t know where you got the Joseph Conrad quote, but obviously it was taken out of context to suit your agenda. . . .

Just because you have decided against the Valley seceding from the city of Los Angeles, I don’t think you should go around threatening the citizens using words like “take heed.” Further, you used the words, “it warns those. . . . “

Maybe citizens of Los Angeles / the San Fernando Valley should start boycotting your newspaper. You want freedom of the press, but you don’t want freedom for those citizens who want a city of their own.

HOWARD A. SAMUELS

Northridge

* The bill to break up California cities is on the governor’s desk. I hope he vetoes it. (“Wilson to Pen Last Chapter of ‘Textbook’ Secession Bill,” Sept. 14.) Although this bill appears to be a victory for local democracy, I have serious concerns that it’s actually a time bomb that could wind up costing taxpayers millions.

Every new city will have to add more politicians, build government buildings, establish councils, elect mayors while creating new fire, police and health departments.

How does a set of new cities help the average taxpayer? It doesn’t. Instead, taxpayers will lose as they watch taxes rise to accommodate new bureaucracies. Every city faces problems. Let’s deal with them as a state or through our current city structure, not by adding extra cities.

WILLIAM S. LAMBERT

Tarzana