L.A., Long Beach lose a round in Alameda Corridor power battle.

David and Goliath have come to the bargaining table, with David having the upper hand, at least as far as a suit regarding the Alameda Corridor is concerned.

David in this case is comprised of four small cities located along the corridor's mute - South Gate, Vernon, Compton and Lynwood.

For Goliath, read the cities of L.A. and Long Beach, along with their respective ports.

The small cities filed suit against the larger ones in January 1995, alleging an ordinance passed by the L.A. City Council in December 1993 violates the city's charter.

Until that time, most corridor decisions were delegated to the 15-member board of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, a joint powers authority between the cities of L.A. and Long Beach established to oversee the corridor's design and construction.

The ordinance transferred most of ACTA's decision-making power, including money spending, from the governing board to its finance committee.

The suit states the ordinance violates the City of L.A.'s charter because the City Council may not delegate to any committee - in this case the ACTA finance committee - the spending or borrowing of money, or the setting of charges or rates. L.A.'s city charter sets the rules for Acta.

The small cities are up in arms because they have plenty of votes on the governing board, which now has little power, but only one collective vote out of seven on the powerful finance committee, said Michael Gagan, a lobbyist and spokesman for the cities. He works for the downtown L.A.-based public relations firm Rose & Kindel.

Thus, they now have little say about Acta's significant decisions.

But the small cities came out ahead in recent motions by a judge in L.A. County Superior Court, where the suit was filed. The Cities of L.A. and Long Beach, along with their respective ports, filed motions attacking the general allegations in the suit, and stating that the cities are not entitled to any legal remedy regarding the matter.

"The judge has indicated he agrees with the (small) cities," Gagan said. However, the suit has yet to go to trial.

Thus, for the past three weeks, representatives from all the parties involved have been in settlement discussions, said Eduardo Olivo, the attorney representing the smaller cities. Olivo is an attorney with the Hacienda Heights-based law firm David B. Brearley.

The small cities want mechanisms put in place so businesses and residences harmed by the corridor's construction can receive prompt payment for their claims, Gagan said.

"We don't want what has happened along Hollywood Boulevard (with Metro Rail) to happen in our cities," he said.

They also want to ensure that residents in the cities will be employed to do some of the construction work, and that the corridor will provide economic benefits to the cities over the long term, Gagan said.

If the cities are able to receive some of these concessions, they may be willing to drop the suit and stay out of the primary decision-making process concerning the corridor, Gagan said.

Spokesmen for both the cities of L.A. and Long Beach and their respective ports declined to comment much on the issue. "Yes, there have been discussions to reach a resolution on the suit," said Yvonne Avila, spokeswoman for the Port of Long Beach, speaking for both the port and the City of Long Beach.

Winston Tyler, senior assistant city attorney, added that the Port and City of L.A. can't discuss details regarding the issue because of the ongoing negotiations.

Mayor speaks out: While the parties involved in the Alameda Corridor project try to settle internal matters, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan has been to Washington to request federal financing so the project can continue to move forward.

Riordan spoke Feb. 27 before the Transportation Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations.

"Today, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach account for over $17 billion in annual tax revenue for the federal government," Riordan stated.

"In the future, the Alameda Corridor is expected to help increase that revenue to over $36 billion in annual tax revenue," he added.

"Without improvements, and in light of increasing international competition, it is unlikely that we will continue to grow and compete effectively in the global marketplace," Riordan stated.

Then came the request: "We specifically seek federal funding to leverage a federally guaranteed loan/line of credit, fully repayable from the fees the Alameda Corridor will generate, to help us construct this essential 'national priority,'" he stated.

The $1.8-billion project is still short more than $700 million in funding, said Acta General Manager Gill Hicks.