EDITORIAL FOOTBALL FARCE HONESTY NEEDED IN DEBATE OVER TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR AN NFL STADIUM.

USUALLY City Controller Laura Chick is a hawk about saving taxpayers' money, but when it comes to trying to lure an NFL team back into Los Angeles, she's all too willing to waste it.

Chick's office spent $36,000 producing a needless study reporting the obvious: The Staples Center is a net asset for the city of Los Angeles.

We needed a study for this?

Staples is a world-class entertainment venue. It has hosted a national political convention and three NBA championships. No one denies that its presence has been both a cultural and economic boon to Los Angeles.

But was it worth a $71 million subsidy? Was a subsidy ever needed?

The answers are obvious in the capacity crowds paying top dollar for tickets and for food and drinks.

Chick's audit engages none of the real issues in the Staples Center deal or subsidizing of a football stadium.

Instead, she tries to pull a fast one: Staples, her audit concludes, will, over the course of 25 years, bring the city $49.5 million above and beyond the $71 million it invested in the facility. Thus, the investment was a success, and clearly Los Angeles should subsidize a National Football League stadium next.

Not so fast.

True, $49.5 million is a lot of money, but on a $71 million investment, it's a pittance. Were that same money invested at 5 percent over the same 25-year period, it would yield a $169.4 million profit.

Compared with what that money could have earned Los Angeles taxpayers, Staples has cost the public $119.9 million.

For purposes of comparison, how much might the city have earned if it had put big-box stores on the site instead?

There's no way to know, at least not from Chick's bogus ``audit,'' which is much more a P.R. piece for the would-be NFL investors than an honest assessment of what the city stands to gain or lose from putting public money into a football deal.

Even comparing Staples Center with a football stadium is absurd.

Staples, which is home to two NBA teams and a hockey franchise, hosts more than 200 events a year. An NFL team has only eight home games a year - maybe a couple more for exhibitions and playoffs.

The economics of the two venues are completely different. But one thing is safe to assume: If Los Angeles were to invest $71 million in a football stadium, it would almost surely not get a return comparable to that of Staples Center, meager though that is.

Chick's audit represents a classic City Hall ploy to deceive the people rather than reckon with them honestly and straightforwardly.

Clearly City Hall insiders think putting taxpayer money into an NFL stadium is a good idea. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't.

But what's wrong with this kind of tactic is that it creates the same old dishonest public debate that City Hall insiders are so fond of.

For once, we want an open and honest debate. Let's see City Hall insiders explain to Los Angeles residents why it's a good idea, not with deceptions and gimmicks, but in a frank way, one that treats residents as mature adults, not pliable dupes.

There may well be a case to be made for investing public money in an NFL stadium, but this isn't it.