Supporters of Arena: It’s Time to Speak Out

The promise last week by developers of the proposed $240-million sports arena to make public pertinent financial details before the City Council votes on the project was welcome and overdue. It should end a controversy that could have been avoided in the first place. Obviously the council members and the public they represent have a right to know how tax dollars are to be spent. That said, the arena still needs strong and vocal allies on the council and in the mayor’s office to make this worthwhile project happen.

Supporters of the project, planned for a dilapidated area near the downtown Convention Center, were naive to think the public would support $70 million in bonded indebtedness without seeing the fine print. These public funds would go toward site preparation and relocation of tenants displaced by the project. The arena would be the new home for the Kings hockey and Lakers basketball teams.

Under the original agreement between the city and the developers, not even the City Council could see the actual contracts and other financial details before voting to commit public funds. That’s reckless, given the unpleasant fiscal surprises other cities have experienced in building new sports venues.

Pressed by a series of articles by Times columnist Bill Boyarsky questioning the secrecy surrounding the deal, the council last month approved a motion urging release of the documents. Now, after first agreeing to provide summaries of portions of the documents, the Kings’ owners say they will release all details except the amount of money changing hands between the Lakers and Kings, a matter appropriately left to the two franchises.

This project has not lacked for sharp critics. Council member Rita Walters, in whose district the arena would sit, raised some legitimate concerns in the past, but there’s a difference between concern and fretting over details at the expense of the big picture. While the arena will not erase the employment and quality-of-life problems of the surrounding neighborhoods, it should help by breathing new vitality into an area that has been unable to attract other major businesses.

Council member Joel Wachs, never one to miss an opportunity for populist publicity, has been an outspoken critic from the start. Though disclosure is now promised, Wachs is still lobbying for a time-consuming initiative on the June 1998 ballot to require voter support before public funds could be allocated to new sports facilities. His insistence that “you cannot trust City Hall to drive a tough bargain” is an odd comment indeed from an individual who has been part of City Hall for more than 25 years.

What this project most needs now are cleareyed champions. Mayor Richard Riordan, council President John Ferraro and several other council members support the arena deal but have been hesitant to speak forcefully and honestly about its potential to improve the downtown area and generate tax revenue for the city at large. The leaders of Los Angeles should step forward to keep this worthy project on track. The alternatives--blight and stagnation--would be more costly to Los Angeles in the long run than the building of an arena.