Funding for Police, Transit

Your editorial, “Robbing MTA to Pay Whom?” (Aug. 2) assumes something that’s not accurate. I’m in no way “robbing” the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. You greatly oversimplify and misrepresent when you say I’m proposing to take funds from the MTA to develop police stations for the city of Los Angeles.

In fact, what I am proposing is innovative financing to sustain much needed city infrastructure in this time of great budget restraints, when voters are turned off by bond measures for hundreds of millions of dollars. The task, then, is to find creative ways to make the city work minus the expectation of greater taxes. I am proposing an innovative yet sensible plan with funds that rightfully belong to the city.

The city last year entered into a $200-million agreement with the MTA to build subway lines to North Hollywood, the Eastside and Mid-City areas. The money is from Propositions A and C, to be used for transportation projects. But the MTA has since failed to meet federal mandates and was forced to shelve two of the three rail lines. The agency failed to deliver its end of the bargain rendering moot its agreement with the city.

Let me drive home this point: There are no plans in the foreseeable future to build subway lines to the East Side and Mid-City areas. And this presents a rare window for the city to use funds previously earmarked for these projects for others that qualify for Props. A and C, now paid for from city discretionary funds. This move over an eight-year period could free up about $100 million in discretionary funds--enough to be redirected toward public safety infrastructure. This will provide for much needed new police stations in the [San Fernando] Valley, the Mid-Wilshire area, and other police projects, while keeping the commitment to expend Prop. A and C money on qualified transportation purposes.

As your editorial correctly pointed out regarding the police department, “men and women who protect Los Angeles work in aging, overcrowded facilities.” The paper also carried [an article reporting] that LAPD Chief Bernard Parks is requesting an additional 1,000 officers to maintain a lower crime rate for the city’s ever-growing population (“Parks Makes Call for 1,000 More Officers,” July 28). This means the conditions will only get worse.

These are the realities that cannot be ignored. What’s more, the days of voters supporting hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds are gone until their confidence can be restored. In 1995, I authored a $171-million police facilities bond measure that was narrowly defeated. The proposed police bond for the next April ballot is projected to be three or four times greater. I believe that this, too, will fail, in part because of this: The city lost its credibility when it failed to deliver on all the new police stations promised in 1988 with Prop. 2 funds.

My proposal also creates a rare opportunity for the city to make good on its promise to its citizens, however belatedly. Otherwise police needs will continue to go unmet until it may be too late, and citizens will pay a higher price in public safety.

My proposal can change this grim picture. It only demands the political will to do so.

RICHARD ALARCON

Council Member, District 7