EDITORIAL : POLICE EXPANSION L.A. NEEDS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY TO ATTRACT BUSINESS, INCREASE TAX REVENUES.

THE political struggle over public safety continues. The Los Angeles Police Commission, focusing on what's likely to be a major issue in the spring municipal elections, called Tuesday for a 21 percent increase in next year's Police Department budget, partly to continue Mayor Richard Riordan's ambitious plan to expand the LAPD.

Police Commissioner Art Mattox claimed that the plan is realistic. Not so, replied Councilman Nate Holden. Holden reflects the views of many council members, who argue that the city cannot afford a buildup on the scale of what Riordan's appointees on the commission want.

Indeed, several council members said even before the commission acted that the city can't afford the proposed buildup (the council reduced the mayor's police hiring plans in this year's budget) because it faces a $150 million budget deficit next year.

Now there's no question that the city faces difficult financial times. Municipal expenditures have been growing at a faster rate than municipal revenues. This is especially true in the case of backbone levies that best reflect the economic health of the city - the property tax, the utility users tax and the sales tax. Those revenues have been relatively flat or, in the case of property taxes, declining.

The brutal fact of life is that city officials cannot plan to spend money to the degree to which they have become accustomed unless the economy improves and thus generates more property, utility and sales taxes.

But businesses these days aren't exactly desperate to move to Los Angeles. Many of them find other cities and even other states are more attractive.

And let's face it. One of the burdens L.A. faces (along with high real estate and labor costs, and a costly, time-consuming and unpredictable regulatory process) in attracting business is crime and the fear of crime.

So in the broader sense, the issue isn't whether L.A. can afford to employ substantially more police (L.A. has fewer police on a per capita basis than most major cities); it's whether it can afford not to if it hopes to improve the local economy and provide more opportunities for its residents.

We aren't advocating that the LAPD be given a blank check. The City Council and the mayor have an obligation to balance the budget and see to it that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely and efficiently.

But fighting crime clearly must be the city's top priority, both in the interests of protecting its residents and improving the business climate. So when it comes to expanding the LAPD, council members should be asking ``why not?'' instead of ``why?''