EDITORIAL WHAT ABOUT US? WHAT'S GOOD FOR DOWNTOWN IS GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

NOW that the City Council has agreed to rain up to $1.7 billion in additional subsidies on downtown Los Angeles, let's see if it's willing to sprinkle at least as much generosity on the rest of the city.

Whether they like it or not, the council's members have set a new standard for city policy.

At the heart of the 879-acre redevelopment zone that city leaders are bestowing upon downtown Los Angeles is a worthwhile, albeit distorted, notion of regional autonomy. Billionaires, downtown land owners and developers will be trusted with local land-use questions, as well as decisions affecting how locally generated property-tax revenues will be spent for the next generation.

Never mind, for the moment, that there are some serious defects in the model, like the fact that the City Council rushed through the plan's approval with almost no public discussion.

Forget about the outrageous possibility of the billionaire owner of an NFL franchise that hires millionaire athletes being paid for the privilege to make millions more in Los Angeles selling tickets that most people can't afford.

And don't let the fact that downtown will, as a result of redevelopment, require an even greater share of city services, without paying. In fact, the rest of the city will be bled to meet those needs.

Aside from the council's typical political giveaways and double-talk is its tacit admission that community redevelopment is best left at the community level.

And if well-connected billionaires, land owners and developers can be trusted with that sort of decision-making power and billions of taxpayer dollars, then certainly the city's neighborhoods and communities deserve the same privilege.

Right or wrong?

Perhaps unwittingly, city leaders have conceded, if not in deed then in word, that the long-standing claims of the San Fernando Valley, Hollywood and San Pedro and most other neighborhoods for more autonomy are valid.

But it remains to be seen if they have the integrity and the intellectual consistency to make their implicit new policy an explicit reality.

While not all of Los Angeles could qualify for redevelopment status, all of it - every neighborhood and every community - deserves a greater say in how its affairs are managed and to keep a large share of the tax dollars it generates through community improvements. It's the lack of such a voice that has driven half of the city to seek secession.

If the City Council is sincere about local control, and if it's serious about staving off the secession movements, then it should realize that the best way to hold L.A. together is by sharing power - and money.

Rather than fighting secession, City Hall should provide an alternative, specifically, a decentralized borough system that would appear on the November ballot alongside secession. Give voters a choice.

Average Angelenos simply want the same rights and respect enjoyed by downtown's power-brokers. That's not too much to ask for.

Or is it?