No More Secret Deals

Next week the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is expected to actually debate the question of whether the public has a right to know who buys or leases publicly owned assets. It would not seem a particularly debatable point, but you do have to remember that this is the board that last August voted to allow the largest lease holder in the county-owned Marina del Rey to sell nearly half of his holdings to unknown investors.

After an investigation, The Times this week revealed the identity of the Middle Eastern investors. Fortunately, there is no evidence of any criminal taint on the funds they invested in Marina del Rey. But the process of selling public assets should not depend on luck.

County Supervisor Ed Edelman, who is the only one of the five supervisors who did not participate in the August vote by the board to approve the $21.8-million deal, is now suggesting that the county should develop a policy that he hopes can balance the public need to know with the privacy desires of some large investors. While the sentiment is admirable, the two goals are inherently in conflict. The board, acting on the behalf of the taxpayers, can not be put in the position of basing what it knows about a potential investor merely on the word of an intermediary, as it did in the Marina case.

Abraham M. Lurie, who happens to be a major campaign contributor to the supervisors and whose $3.3-million lease payments last year accounted for nearly 20% of the county marina’s revenue, was in financial trouble. One county supervisor told reporters that if the board did not allow Lurie to bring in the investors and he later became financially insolvent, the county feared it could be sued. It seems a peculiar fear from a county that has not hesitated to press on in recent lawsuits involving the homeless and the federal government over the political district boundaries that are alleged to be discriminatory against Latinos.

Supervisor Edelman’s motion to have the county develop a policy that meets concerns about public disclosure of future investors is a good start; we would only suggest that he more emphatically ask that disclosure be required and that without it the board could not approve any deal involving public property or assets.

Surely disclosure of ownership requirements that apply even to gambling casinos should also apply to taxpayer-owned assets of Los Angeles County.