EDITORIAL : LOCAL REVENUE MEASURES.

A buck and a half a month for schools here, 56 cents for county parks there, $1.50 a month for city parks, a dollar a month for community colleges - after a while it adds up to a lot of money.

That's one effect of the four local revenue measures on Tuesday's ballot, which would impose new tax levies for a long, long time - between 20 and 30 years for each measure. Voters are being asked to invest in the future - the education, recreation and development of the youth of our communities.

What could be more worthy? Despite the public's discontent with government, nothing is more important than the children and their opportunity to get a good education, enjoy a good life and grow into law-abiding, productive adults.

Yet, taxpayers who must foot the bill have a right and a duty to ask the same hard questions they would ask about any investment: Where does the money go? Is it being spent wisely? What are the safeguards? Is somebody accountable?

Finally, the school board, the city, the county and the colleges are all very different entities and the political situation revolving around each is different and needs to be examined. The Daily News Editorial Board has examined these measures and makes these recommendations:

Proposition BB

This is a bond issue that would provide funds for repair, maintenance and upkeep of facilities in the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the arguments are clear-cut in its favor. The Daily News Editorial Board recommends voting yes.

We have often criticized the administration of the school district, and we harbor no illusions about the elected board's limitations in overseeing such a far-flung system and the intractable central bureaucracy.

In fact, one of the main reasons this bond issue is so sorely needed is the district's insistence on balancing its budget by deferring necessary maintenance year after year after year.

But who will suffer if voters reject Proposition BB? Schoolchildren will be punished, not the bureaucrats or the board members.

Among the projects that will be funded by the bonds are air-conditioning San Fernando Valley schools that are unbearable during hot weather; roof repairs and replacement; installation of new fire alarms; security and intercom systems; technology upgrades for computer classrooms, and a laundry list of other overdue improvements and long-deferred maintenance.

The district has produced a school-by-school ``contract'' of such projects as a means of showing that the money will be spent on schools - and not on administrative bureaucracy or salaries.

Moreover, in recognition of the lack of public confidence in the district's leadership, Proposition BB establishes an independent citizens committee to conduct yearly reviews of expenditures from the $2.4 billion bond issue.

We endorse Proposition BB as a wise investment for better schools.

Proposition A

The Daily News Editorial Board recommends a yes vote on Proposition A, a countywide assessment for parks.

The measure provides $319 million to improve and develop regional and neighborhood parks throughout the county and in every city, including Los Angeles. More than $55 million is earmarked for the San Fernando Valley area. It would be funded through assessments on private property costing the typical homeowner about 56 cents a month.

All that's legally needed for passage is a simple majority, not a two-thirds approval, although we believe the law should be changed to require the larger majority for assessments like this one. (That change will take place if state voters pass Proposition 218.)

But the funding mechanism is not the overriding issue if there clearly is a compelling need for the projects Proposition A would fund. That is the case in this instance.

Proposition A is a worthwhile investment in safer parks, cleaner beaches and accessible recreational facilities.

All the proposed park projects are spelled out in detail in this measure, which also requires an independent audit to be conducted each year to verify how the funds are used.

This measure will result in more and better parks and recreational facilities. That means, among other benefits, greater public safety because of the positive impact on at-risk youths and potential gains against juvenile crime and gangs.

We recommend its passage.

Proposition K

The Daily News Editorial Board recommends a no vote on Proposition K.

Like Proposition A (above), this citywide assessment for parks is in conflict with the spirit of Proposition 13 because it doesn't require a two-thirds vote, only a simple majority. But its problems don't stop there.

``Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,'' Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once wrote. Implicit in those words is the concept of a two-way deal, with taxpayers paying and getting something in return.

When new taxation is proposed like Proposition K, voters have every right to ask themselves if they are satisfied with the overall deal they're getting.

That includes:

Are they getting responsive treatment from this City Council, which appears determined to preserve its powers and privileges in the face of growing populist sentiment for charter and government reform?

Are the people of the Valley getting a fair shake from this council, whose decisions too often appear to be based on distrust of the Valley and prejudice against its residents?

More importantly, can we be sure that all of the money generated by this measure will go to the parks projects it is supposed to?

Unlike the two measures above, there is no independent audit mechanism for ensuring that the funds are being spent appropriately.

We are asked to trust that the City Council will do the right thing.

The president of the Recreation and Parks Commission, Steven Soboroff, says he is confident it will, and we trust him as a man of his word.

But we are not so trusting of the City Council, and that is the crux of our argument against Proposition K.

Our mistrust is shared by many people of good faith and goodwill across the city who believe they are poorly served by local government, and are anxious for reform.

We believe that until meaningful reform occurs, and the breach of trust is healed, it is in the best interest of the public to vote no on Proposition K.

Proposition AA

The tortured history of Proposition AA explains why the Daily News Editorial Board recommends a no vote on this property assessment for the Los Angeles Community College District.

The district's board of trustees imposed this assessment without putting it to a public vote, by creating a special ``landscape and lighting assessment district'' under a relatively obscure state law (and twisting the intent of the law in doing so).

Later, they caved in to behind-the-scenes political pressure and put it on Tuesday's ballot.

But the trustees should have scrapped the whole misguided scheme, and started over to develop a fresh, honest list of priorities - not this warmed-over list of items that are proposed mainly because they happen to qualify under the loosest interpretation of the rules for a landscape and lighting district.

The district has a businesslike new chancellor, Bill Segura, who we hope will lead the district to better days. In the meantime, we recommend a no vote.