EDITORIAL A GRAND GAMBLE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DESERVES NO FURTHER PUBLIC SUBSIDY.

HERE'S how Martha Welborne, managing director of the Grand Avenue Committee, says her group will come up with portions of the estimated $1.2 billion for massive redevelopment in downtown Los Angeles:

--``We are not sure where the money will come for that.''

--``We are hoping the developers will pay for the rest of it.''

--``We don't know where the money will come from for the park.''

Now there's nothing wrong with planning in stages, let alone a little civic optimism. But when officials working on a quasi-public project say things like ``we don't know where the money will come from'' or `'we are hoping'' the private sector will pick up the tab, the outcome usually means one thing:

The taxpayers and their money will soon be parted.

And, of course, there's no telling how much of that money will be lost. All we know is that, in L.A., initial budget estimates seldom bear any resemblance to the final, much larger price tag.

That's long been the story of downtown redevelopment, the dream of Los Angeles city leaders since the 1930s. With visions of a West Coast Manhattan dancing in their heads, they've spent billions, hoping against hope to make downtown the new hub of Southern California.

And if they can pull it off, more power to them. Downtown, like most of Los Angeles, could use the revitalization. No one objects to making the area a premier destination for tourists and Southland residents alike. The concern is whether city leaders will bleed the rest of L.A. - the places where people already live and play - to do it.

That concern is rooted in a long history.

City leaders have already poured billions into downtown, including $300 million refurbishing City Hall, the L.A Convention Center, subsidies for the Disney Concert Hall and billions upon billions on a subway-light-rail system that goes nowhere except downtown. They've also seceded most of the area from the L.A. tax base by declaring it a massive redevelopment zone, meaning that even though the rest of the city must provide public services to downtown, the rest of L.A. doesn't benefit from downtown property-tax revenues.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles neighborhoods suffer for a lack of cultural venues, park space and police officers. Sidewalks and streets crumble, and gangs terrorize entire communities, thanks to a city leadership that's more concerned with downtown than the rest of the city.

The result is that the vast majority of Angelenos who neither live nor work downtown - and who seldom, if ever go there - bear the cost of a vision that mostly benefits the egos and pocketbooks of billionaires who think themselves visionaries, politician who fancy themselves leaders and the contractors and unions that stand to make a bundle.

So while the plan to make Grand Avenue a ``grand promenade'' - complete with fancy restaurants, apartments and attractions - is a fine one, it needs to be financed through the private sector, and not Los Angeles taxpayers. If, after decades of subsidies and support, downtown can't stand on its own, it never will.