CITY DROPPED BALL IN COVERING ARENA QUESTIONS.

Byline: Patricia Bell Hearst

I have been closely following the effort to build a new sports arena downtown because I have great concern about the proposal being publicly funded. Since the City Council's Ad Hoc Committee now has completed its review and has recommended the project to the full council - which apparently has no qualms about rubber-stamping a deal framed by the developers, not by the city - I am compelled to outline the key questions which still have not been resolved.

The promoters of the arena have been hyping the deal over the past few weeks as new and improved; however, I would beg to differ.

I recall a hotel-entertainment complex being an integral spark to revitalize the downtown corridor. However, all recent accounts only allude to the possibility of further development of the area surrounding the proposed arena site.

If the taxpayers of Los Angeles are giving the land to the developers, a firm time frame should be established for developing the surrounding property to ensure that the development actually happens. If not, there is no sense in giving land to the promoters if they only intend to sit on it, and use its blighted state as a basis for blackmailing the city into more subsidies.

Also, it is interesting to note that those groups supporting the arena as a way to ``turn the lights on downtown'' also favored the new Convention Center years ago as a way of revitalizing downtown - the very same Convention Center they now claim needs to be revitalized by a new sports arena.

If the city is going to pay part of the ``revitalization'' effort, then the city should retain the land it is being asked to condemn and should be the operator of the parking around the arena. The revenue from the parking lots could be used to partially service the city's debt from the deal.

Further, analyzing the city's ability to pay for part of this proposal brings to mind a major concern which seems to have been lost in the discussion of whether or not there should be an arena downtown: Why does the city have to pay for it? The city of Los Angeles cannot even meet its basic obligations.

The same week the ad hoc committee was giving up the city's hard-line stance in negotiations, the mayor revealed that there is not enough money in the city budget for the additional police officers planned for our safety. It also recently was announced that the Department of Water and Power will need to cut $400 million out of its budget in order to be competitive in a deregulated marketplace.

With all these financial woes, one would think the city would take extra precautions before helping developers build a sports arena.

Despite purported concerns of ensuring ``revenue neutrality'' the city has now indicated a willingness to forge ahead with the process without a firm and binding commitment from the Lakers and Kings to play at the new sports arena.

The city is blindly accepting the optimistic projections of 200 events a year - without an enforceable guarantee from the two most ``anxious'' tenants. Los Angeles is not like Phoenix with a limited amount of event venues.

We have many arenas and auditoriums throughout the Southland which are capable of hosting the events projected to take place in this new arena. Reminiscent of the debate over the Convention Center, or even Disney Concert Hall, arena proponents suggest that the teams will have a ``contractual agreement'' with the venture operating the arena, but no formal assurance with the city. However, we all know it is possible to break a lease, so the words revenue neutral must be a reality, not a slogan.

Finally, this deal has been handled by City Hall in an undemocratic process. The City Council has created the impression that there is overwhelming support for the proposed new downtown arena - when that is not the case. Without the specific plans for the project being made public for citizens to review only broad discussion items can be discussed - and only after it is too late for anyone following the issue to act on or ask about it in a timely manner.

To support or oppose en masse when not informed of any of the details of the proposal undermines the effectiveness of voicing our opinions - much like the downtown interests who spoke repeatedly in favor of the project without knowing any of the specifics.

The City Council on Jan. 15 continued a practice often conducted in City Hall - some council members took time to raise serious concerns about the project, then proceeded to vote in favor of it anyway.

These council members made good arguments for returning to the negotiations, but in the end decided not to do so.

Ordinarily, one could find comfort in the City Council raising these issues, but they voiced these concerns previously in the fall, and they voted to proceed then, too: Why use city-financed replacement housing for local residents when the developers should have that responsibility? Why won't the Kings and Lakers commit to playing at the new arena for an extended period of time? What guarantee do we have that there will be any new jobs created - let alone ones for the people in the neighborhood surrounding the site? What guarantee is there that the city will be able to recover its investment?

I have tried to find out the specific time frame for the process at the City Council now that this vote has been taken, as well as the next steps in the review process for the environmental impact report. However, I have not been able to receive a definitive answer from any agency or elected official at City Hall.

The taxpayers in Los Angeles and the members of the City Council should be asking these questions. Furthermore, they should be answered before the procedural vote which would reaffirm the vote just taken. Regardless, the deal should be placed on the ballot for voter approval.

If the final deal is really as good for the city as the promoters would have us believe, then the voters will know what to do - and the developers should have nothing to worry about.