Bradley Vetoes $2.5 Million for Foot Patrols as Too Costly

Asserting his rarely used veto power, Mayor Tom Bradley on Friday cut the funding for a popular police foot-patrol program, calling the $2.5-million appropriation a “raid on the city’s reserve fund.”

The unusual veto--made even more surprising as it came four days after the program’s high-profile kickoff in crime-ridden MacArthur Park--raised the eyebrows of council members still mulling the mayor’s future political effectiveness after the damaging findings of the city attorney’s six-month investigation of Bradley’s finances.

“If he wants to put that behind him, then he has got to deal with the issues and play a leadership role,” said Councilwoman Gloria Molina, who said she supports the mayor’s veto. “It looks like he’s back with us.”

In his veto message, which aides said the mayor personally drafted early Wednesday morning even as the city attorney’s report was being delivered to his office, Bradley said: “I share the council’s concern that the police should have a greater presence in critical areas of the city.” But, the mayor wrote, “I believe the additional foot patrols can be deployed with existing personnel resources.”

Under the program, the Los Angeles Police Department has begun sending patrols of 10 to 20 officers to walk beats in 18 crime “hot spots” citywide. The $2.5-million appropriation would have carried the program through the remaining 10 months of the city’s fiscal year.

The mayor, who has vetoed fewer than 20 of the hundreds of ordinances that crossed his desk so far this year, said he will support a scaled-down three-month pilot program with a budget “not to exceed $750,000.” And he said he will consider future funding when the results of the pilot are in.

Despite the veto, LAPD spokesman Cmdr. William Booth said, the patrols will continue as the issue gets hashed out in the City Council. “We’re assuming the council will agree with the mayor’s (three-month plan), and we will continue to field the foot beats,” Booth said.

A Bradley spokesman said the timing of the veto had nothing to do with the city attorney’s report being issued earlier in the week. “It’s obviously an action the mayor thought was necessary, no matter what week it was,” said Bill Chandler, a spokesman for the mayor. The mayor had until next Friday to accept or reject the ordinance.

City Council President John Ferraro speculated that despite the strong 10-2 vote on which the council approved the foot patrols on Sept. 6, Bradley will likely have sufficient votes to sustain the veto because allies and foes alike came to the mayor’s support Friday. Ten votes of the 15-member council are necessary to sustain or override a mayoral veto.

Councilman Richard Alatorre, who voted for the original measure despite concerns over funding, said he will support the mayor’s veto. “I supported the three-month plan (when proposed at council), and I will support the mayor,” said Alatorre, a Bradley supporter.

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, a frequent Bradley critic who had voted for the foot patrols, also plans to vote with the mayor.

“He did the right thing,” Yaroslavsky said. “The program should proceed, but in a financially responsible way. We can have foot beats and not break the bank.”

Yaroslavsky said he wants the program funded from a growing surplus in the Police Department’s budget. According to a report by the city administrative office, the LAPD has a $1.3-million surplus in its salary account due to unfilled positions.

The CAO report recommended against adoption of the program. The city’s research office concluded that police foot patrols are typically ineffective and put officers at a high risk.

The report also noted that the police force is budgeted for an all-time high of 8,414 sworn officers--representing a growth of 22% in seven years. “This could provide an adequate resource pool from which to draw foot patrols if they are effective,” the report concluded.

Still, there was some stiff and immediate opposition to the veto.

‘A Lot of Malarkey’

“This is a lot of malarkey,” Councilman Ernani Bernardi said. “We don’t need a pilot program to tell us we need more cops on the street.”

Councilman Nate Holden, who authored the original proposal and navigated it through the council, said: “I can’t believe it. . . . He’s slapped the public in the face.” Holden said he expects a public outcry, but it is unclear whether that may enable him to secure 10 votes needed to override the veto.

But even the LAPD does not consider the foot patrol program a high priority.

Officials say foot patrols are effective in small areas, but overall, they are inefficient, expensive and a “luxury,” according to Booth.

“If the council wants these beats established and wants these kinds of police services, we’ll certainly do it,” Booth said. “What they want to fund, we’ll provide.”