EDITORIAL : CITY BUDGET BRAWL IT BOILS DOWN TO MORE PUBLIC SAFETY - OR BUSINESS AS USUAL.

A budget fight is raging at Los Angeles City Hall between the status quo and a mayor intent on reforms to achieve the public's priorities.

So far, the City Council - which holds most of the power under the city's weak-mayor system of government - has refused to go along with Mayor Richard Riordan's bold plan to add 710 more police officers in the next year without raising taxes.

Instead, the council voted 8-7 to cut the expansion to 450 officers, which leaves money for the council to spend on nice but less essential programs (like more park rangers, crossing guards and libraries).

It also lets the council avoid some hard choices on city staff downsizing - politically difficult decisions, but ones that could result in greater efficiency and lower costs to help pay for Riordan's proposed Police Department expansion without new taxes.

The mayor has shown real leadership on this issue. He makes persuasive arguments about the need to expand the police force. He has spelled out realistic ways to pay for additional officers without raising taxes.

And Riordan has been consistent. Public safety has been one of his top priorities since 1993, when he campaigned successfully on that platform and won the mayoral election. If that mandate wasn't clear enough, just last week a statewide survey reported that Los Angeles County residents believe crime prevention is a top priority, along with education reform.

Meanwhile, the council appears unable or unwilling to keep pace with Riordan in finding ways to cut costs and make sure the government sticks to essential services.

Instead, the council appears to be marching in the opposite direction, voting last week to examine options for a November election to raise taxes if the voters feel so strongly in favor of Riordan's police build-up.

The fight over the budget also has a lot to do with politics and what's wrong with L.A. - the narrow cliques of special-interest groups, including public-employee unions, that hold too much sway.

The cliques are trying to protect the status quo at the expense of an overtaxed, underserved and, most importantly, underprotected citizenry.

Riordan's priorities, on the other hand, better reflect the needs and desires of city residents.

We do have some concerns about Riordan's upbeat revenue projections from the harbor, airport and Department of Water and Power. But if these revenues come up short and cuts are needed, they should come at the expense of other services, not public safety.

Let's have a wide-open discussion. This is an important issue to residents and organizations in the San Fernando Valley and throughout the city. The public's participation in the debate can make a difference.