|
“WHAT CITY ARE YOU FROM?”
(II SAMUEL 15:2) –
THE MORAL AND THEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS
OF SECESSION
A STATEMENT BY
THE COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS
OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
APRIL 22, 2002
But seek the welfare of the city…and pray to the Lord on its behalf,
for in its prosperity you will prosper.
--Jeremiah 29:7
If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is
honored,
all rejoice together with it.
--I Corinthians 12:26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Los Angeles clearly does not work for millions of its residents.
Disparities in wealth and income and inadequacies in basic services are
fundamental challenges for the leadership of this City and have become the
seedbed for the secession movements.
Although fundamental inequities persist across the City of Los Angeles,
neither the status quo nor the proposed break up of the City is the answer.
While there are numerous and persistent problems facing Los Angeles, the
burden of proof is clearly on the advocates of secession to demonstrate how
secession will significantly improve the lot of those who are most impacted
by the current disparities.
It is not sufficient to document the many ways in which the current City
system is in disrepair. For secession to be justified, proponents must
demonstrate that this most serious of remedies will radically alter the
status quo by significantly improving the lives of residents in the new City
while not adversely affecting those left behind.
The conclusion of the members of the Council of Religious Leaders of Greater
Los Angeles is that secession proponents have failed to meet this most basic
test.
While we believe that in limited instances secession could be justified, in
the cases at hand, proponents have not argued convincingly that the cure
would be dramatically better than the current situation. In addition,
proponents have not sufficiently demonstrated that other intermediate
solutions have been exhausted thoroughly thereby warranting secession as the
last resort.
We believe that all people of Los Angeles yearn for a truly global city
where people of all faiths, ethnicities, races and incomes can enjoy fairly
and fully the benefits of urban life. We long for a society in which
differences are not merely tolerated but embraced, in which diversity is not
an obstacle but an opportunity. We believe that Los Angeles can become a
city in which economic, educational, and physical fulfillment are more fully
realized and in which health care, nutrition, transportation and housing
needs are adequately met.
While this is our goal, secession will not be the means of achieving those
ideals.
BACKGROUND
As members of the Council of Religious Leaders of Greater Los Angeles, we
represent different faith traditions that share the common purpose of
promoting the spiritual welfare of our members. In stating this, we are
keenly aware that the spiritual welfare of people is intimately connected
with the social, economic, and political well-being of the community. It is
in this light that we have undertaken a study of the issue of secession.
Over the last year, a Working Group appointed by the Council of Religious
Leaders met to study secession proposals developed by residents of the San
Fernando Valley, Hollywood, and the Harbor area.
In convening this Working Group, the Council of Religious Leaders recognized
that numerous studies and reports would be commissioned by various entities
to examine the economic, political, and social impacts of secession.
Therefore, the mandate of the Working Group was explicitly to study the
moral and theological dimensions of secession.
As part of its research, members of the Working Group met with proponents
and opponents of secession, as well as researchers, political analysts,
elected officials, religious leaders, ethicists, and community service
providers. The purpose of these dialogues and listening sessions was to gain
a broad understanding of the issues involved, to identify the key arguments
of both proponents and opponents, and to situate the specific debate about
secession for these three communities in the broader context of what is best
for the region.
THE KEY QUESTION
As religious leaders, our reflection on these issues is guided by the hope
that the City of Los Angeles will more closely fulfill the mission for which
“the good city” exists. The sacred texts of our respective faith traditions
provide insight into how God intended human beings to live. From the
earliest days of civilization, cities were established as centers of refuge,
comfort and community (Genesis 4:17). In fact, at the gates of ancient
cities justice was dispensed.
In this sense, the ideal of the “good city” is determined by those
characteristics that promote the common good. In other words, a key function
of the “good city” is to create an environment in which all people are able
to flourish and realize their full human potential.
In this regard, the “good city”:
- Promotes the empowerment and participation of all its members in the
social, political, and economic life in the community;
- Protects the rights all its members--particularly the poor and the
most vulnerable;
- Provides for the safety and well-being of all its residents;
- Pursues a culture of solidarity where diverse interests can be
reconciled in order to promote the common good;
- Fosters an environment in which the spiritual and religious dimensions
of life can be nurtured;
- Strives to create a sense of community, social cohesiveness, and
mutual cooperation.
In the Jewish and Christian traditions, the ultimate test for a righteous
society is its treatment of the poor and most vulnerable members. According
to our traditions, God shows preferential concern for the poor and
marginalized. As members of one human family, we are called to mirror that
concern in practical ways through our policies and actions.
It is in this spirit that we echo the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Devote
yourself to justice, aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan;
defend the cause of the widow” (1:17).
Therefore, from a moral and theological perspective, the key question we ask
with regards to secession is how it will impact the poor, the weak, and the
marginalized.
More specifically, will secession:
- Enhance the ability of residents to participate in the social, civic,
and economic life of their communities?
- Create a more effective system of political representation for poor
and low-income residents and for racial and ethnic communities?
- Provide more resources for poor and low-income residents?
The Roots of the Secession Movements
Secession proposals from the San Fernando Valley, Hollywood, and the Harbor
have grown out of an experience that the City of Los Angeles is too big, too
bureaucratic, and too unresponsive to satisfactorily meet the needs of all
of its residents. Secession proponents believe this has resulted in:
- An erosion of local control and participation;
- The loss of neighborhood identity;
- The inability to access resources for basic services, much less job
development, housing or poverty alleviation;
- Geographic isolation and disconnection; and
- Political discontent with a distant and unresponsive government.
For the Valley, Hollywood, and Harbor secession advocates, the geographic
isolation of these communities from downtown Los Angeles creates not only a
symbolic separation from the rest of the City but a very real political
disconnection as well. Representatives of each of these communities
expressed the belief that the ability to address local needs has been muted
by the size of the City as it translates into a lack of response to local
concerns.
In addition, each area has its own indigenous theme that propels its
proponents toward secession:
The Valley combines its sense of political isolation with a strong awareness
of its own regional integrity.
Hollywood feels ignored and overlooked in the midst of the sprawling
megalopolis that surrounds it.
The Harbor not only feels far away from City Hall; it resents its behemoth
core, the Port of Los Angeles, over which it has no control.
Common Concerns
Just as these concerns reflect the sentiments of secession proponents, there
were common threads which connected both advocates and opponents of
secession. Both secession proponents and opponents, in their own words,
articulated a similar set of values that underpinned their argument for or
against secession. These values can be summarized under the following
headings:
- The Common Good: Both secession proponents and opponents
express a genuine desire to improve the quality of life in the communities
that comprise the City of Los Angeles.
- Subsidiarity: All sides place a premium on increasing local
decision-making power and empowering residents to participate more
effectively in local government.
- Distributive Justice: All sides spoke of the necessity to
ensure that resources and services are distributed justly.
- Concern for Poor and Low-Income Communities: Both proponents
and opponents identify concern for poor people as a key consideration.
CONCLUSION
When, and if, secession proposals are placed before the voters of the City
of Los Angeles, the fundamental question voters will need to address is
clear:
- Is secession the solution?
- Will secession effectively remedy the grievances asserted by
advocates?
- If the City of Los Angeles is divided into one or more new cities,
will the new municipal entities serve the citizens more effectively?
- Will secession resolve key issues in a way that makes better the lives
of all residents of the new and the remaining cities?
In response to these questions, the members of the Council of Religious
Leaders have come to the following conclusions:
Secession advocates have failed to provide convincing evidence that
secession-- the creation of large new urban areas out of the present
mega-urban center--will correct the problems and challenges that currently
exist in the City of Los Angeles.
The proponents of secession have not advanced with any specificity their
programs or policies that will address issues of low-income housing, health
care for the uninsured, homelessness, job-training, or job development.
There is no evidence that the poor and disenfranchised of new cities and of
the remaining city will be better off after secession.
Secession proponents have not addressed how secession will enable progress
towards healing the racial, ethnic, and class rifts of Los Angeles.
We offer these reflections, questions, and challenges to all people of the
region and, in particular, to the residents of the City of Los Angeles.
While voters in the City of Los Angeles will be the ones to cast ballots on
secession initiatives, the outcomes will have a much broader and lasting
effect.
We encourage all people of good will to reflect, discuss, and pray about
these issues in order to strengthen our resolve to improve the lives of all
people of this great city…but in a particular way, the poor, the weak, and
the vulnerable.
APPENDIX 1:
THE COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS
OF GREATER LOS ANGELES:
A BRIEF HISTORY
The Council of Religious Leaders (CRL) is composed of the heads of middle
judicatories in the Greater Los Angeles area. Its members are denominational
executives who have broad theological and administrative responsibilities
for their respective dioceses, archdioceses, synods and regions.
The origins of the CRL date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when a
small group, including Rabbi Edgar Magnin, Roman Catholic Cardinal Timothy
Manning, and Episcopal Bishop Robert Rusack and others, began to meet on a
periodic basis.
Later in the 1980s with the appointment of Episcopal Bishop Frederick Borsch
and the elevation of Cardinal Roger Mahony, the CRL evolved into a formal
coalition which consisted of, among others, Archbishop Vatche Hovsepian of
the Armenian Orthodox Church, Rabbi Lennard Thal of the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations, Bishop Paul Egertson of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, Methodist Bishop Roy Sano, and Bishop E. Lynn Brown of
the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.
Today the CRL meets monthly for discussions of matters of common interest
and for considerations of issues affecting the Los Angeles region and its
citizens’ spiritual well-being.
APPENDIX 2:
COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS
OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
The Reverend Jon Bruno
Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
(Pasadena)*
The Reverend Samuel Chetti
American Baptist Churches of Los Angeles
(Pasadena)*
Rabbi Mark S. Diamond
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
(Encino)*
Rabbi Alan Henkin
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
(Northridge)*
The Reverend Gene Hipskind
Church of the Brethren
(La Verne)*
Archbishop Vatche Hovsepian
Diocese of the Armenian Orthodox Church
(Toluca Lake)*
The Reverend Dr. John N. Langfitt
Presbyterian Church (USA) Synod of Southern California and Hawaii
(Encino)*
Cardinal Roger Mahony
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles
(Los Angeles)*
Bishop Dean Nelson
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(San Pedro)*
Dr. Daniel Romero
Dr. Jane Heckles
United Church of Christ
(Los Angeles)*
(Claremont)*
The Reverend Don Shelton
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Bishop Mary Ann Swenson
United Methodist Church
*Indicates city of residence
APPENDIX 3:
MEETINGS HELD BY
THE SECESSION WORKING GROUP
2001-2002
May 17, 2001
Topic: Analysis of Secession Proposals and Position of Mayor of Los Angeles
Participants:
- Ellen Sandt, David Hirano, and Olivia Aceves-Vallelunga: Office of
Administrative Research, City of Los Angeles
- William Violante: Deputy Mayor for Mayor Richard Riordan, City of Los
Angeles
May 23, 2001
Topic: Valley Secession Proponents
Participants: Representatives of Valley Vote
- Jeff Brain;
- Richard Katz;
- Reverend Ron Culmer,
- Reverend Scott Bauer,
- Reverend Barry Smedberg,
- Benny Bernal,
- Reverend Zedar Broadous,
- Ellen Michiel.
June 7, 2001
Topic: Harbor and Hollywood Secession Proponents
Participants:
- Andrew Mardesich, Harbor Study Foundation
- Fahres T. Wehbe, Founder, Hollywood Schoolhouse
June 19, 2001
Topic: Discussion with Political Analysts
Participants:
- Xandra Kayden, League of Women Voters
- Marlene Adler Marks, Jewish Journal
September 5, 2001
Topic: Discussion with Ethicists
Participants:
- John Cobb, Claremont School of Theology
- Reverend John Coleman, S.J., Loyola Marymount University
- John Crossley, University of Southern CaliforniaRabbi
- Arthur Gross Schaefer, Loyola Marymount University
September 25, 2001
Topic: Discussion with Labor Representatives
Participants:
- Representatives of SEIU Local 347:
- Luis Escontrias
- Teresa Sanchez
- Jason Elias
- Robert F. Hunt
October 30, 2001
Topic: San Fernando Valley Site Visit
- Tour organized by Valley Vote
- Meeting with Advocate for low-income communities:
- Beth Osthimer, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services
- David Lash, Bet Tzedek
- Meeting with Elected Officials
- Councilman Alex Padilla
- Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski
November 19, 2001
Topic: Demographic implications of secession
Participants:
- Rafe Sonenshein, California State University, Fullerton
- Tom Hogen-Esch, California State University, Northridge
- Paul Goodwin, Goodwin-Simon Strategic Research
APPENDIX 4:
SECESSION WORKING GROUP
Fran Burnford, Ph.D., AIM
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(Van Nuys)*
Thomas A. Chabolla
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles
(Inglewood)*
Walter Clarke
American Baptist Churches of Los Angeles
(Arleta)*
Reverend Jim Conn
United Methodist Church
(Santa Monica)*
Ron Degges
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
(Burbank)*
Rabbi Mark S. Diamond
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
(Encino)*
Rabbi Alan Henkin
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
(Northridge)*
Polly Johnson
Synod of Southern California & Hawaii
Presbyterian Church of USA
(Long Beach)*
Fr. Arshag Khatchadourian
Diocese of the Armenian Orthodox Church
(Hawthorne)*
Canon Lydia Lopez
Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
(Pasadena)*
Rev. Madison Shockley
Southern California/Nevada Conference-United Church of Christ
(Los Angeles)*
*Indicates city of residence
|
