Kathleen Sullivan's June 21 opinion on this page – "Law aimed at Vernon is likely unconstitutional" – mistakenly claims the Legislature lacks power to disincorporate the failed Southern California city of Vernon.

However, the real question is how to fix this corrupt and irresponsible municipality, not whether to do so.

Vernon is a rotten borough – just like many seats in Britain's 19th-century Parliament with few or no residents, represented by a member of Parliament, often handpicked by a noble landowner. It is a seat of power to be fought over by corrupt insiders, not a real community with an electorate that can hold its government accountable.

Of its 96 residents, all but four live in city-owned housing and owe their jobs to the city. Vernon had no elections from 1979 to 2006 – none. Only 58 votes were cast in the 2006 election, returning all incumbents to office – before one resigned after being convicted of election fraud.

Thus, the real stakeholders in Vernon are not its illegitimate "elected" officials or its few residents, but its landowners, business owners and those who work there. Under the constitutional rule of one-person-one-vote, these stakeholders cannot vote in city elections or serve on its council.

However, if Vernon is disincorporated under Speaker John Pérez's Assembly Bill 46, and a community services district governed by the county Board of Supervisors takes its place under his legislation, AB 781, these stakeholders can sit on its municipal advisory committee and area planning commission – and have a voice in the governance of this enclave without offending our constitution.

Contrary to the claims of Vernon's paid defenders, legislation to disincorporate Vernon is constitutional.

The courts have upheld laws that classify cities by population, even where only one city (often Los Angeles) is in the class.

The claim that the disincorporation bill is a "bill of attainder" (legislative punishment of crime) is simply not credible – AB 46 is about replacing a government structure that cannot work because Vernon has no independent electorate.

The courts are busy dealing with criminal conduct in Vernon, as they have been for decades; the Legislature need not intervene in those cases.

The fact that Vernon adopted a city charter changes nothing. The courts have ruled that charter cities are subject to general laws regarding incorporation, disincorporation and annexation.

Moreover, Vernon's hired guns treat the existence of the city and the validity of its charter as one and the same.

Not so. Under California law, every city begins as a general law city, without a charter. Millions of residents of Los Angeles learned that a charter could not be adopted for the proposed city of the San Fernando Valley until after incorporation (which was rejected at the polls).

Newly elected leaders of Bell are discussing rescission of the charter adopted during disgraced former City Manager Robert Rizzo's tenure. If Bell's voters rescind its charter, the city will still exist.

Moreover, the Legislature has disincorporated at least four cities in our history: Columbia (Tuolumne County, 1870), Dutch Flat (Placer County, 1866), Felton (Santa Cruz County, 1917) and Hornitos (Mariposa County, 1973).

Simply put, nothing in our constitution forbids the Legislature to solve this problem. The Legislature would do well to focus on how to do so, rather than heed the siren songs of those who claim it can't be done.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Michael G. Colantuono is a local government lawyer with more than 20 years experience.

• Read more articles by Michael G. Colantuono