PERSPECTIVE ON L.A. CITY BUDGET : Pay for Police, Not Ill-Fated Projects : Municipal priorities are skewed when people are asked to give to a fund for services that should be taken care of by taxes.

Last month, voters demonstrated a serious dissatisfaction with big governments and the people elected to run them. Mayor Richard Riordan’s election more than a year ago may have foreshadowed this. But in Los Angeles, entrenched bureaucracies with vested interests and a charter system that “protects” citizens by giving everyone and no one power continue to hamstring a city now led by people who may be tuned in to the electorate’s wishes but still can’t act.

The need to establish the Mayor’s Alliance for a Safer L.A. to raise $15 million to address pressing public-safety needs is a perfect example of government not working. Crime is the greatest concern of most people. Although free market, privatization advocates can argue that many current government functions could be better handled in the private sector, crime prevention clearly is a government responsibility.

The city budget is now $3.98 billion, with the Police Department taking $1.07 billion. Thus, the $15 million sought by the alliance amounts to less than two-fifths of 1% of the city budget. Yet the mayor and the police chief have been unable or unwilling to shift or cut to find the $15 million.

Policing is a public good because, for example, when an officer is patrolling in front of my store he or she also is protecting neighboring stores. Thus if individuals had to purchase their own crime-prevention services, they would consider only the personal benefits, not the benefits to others. Moreover, if crime rates fall, more businesses will stay in or move to Los Angeles, thereby expanding jobs and the tax base. In other words, crime also imposes on city social costs in the form of reduced economic activity.

Compared with other large cities, Los Angeles has relatively few police officers. Riordan and Police Chief Willie Williams are seeking to improve policing services in the city with $15 million in private funds for some short-term needs, including a departmentwide computer network and personnel training recommended by the Christopher Commission. After the first year of implementation of the alliance’s goals, the computer system will save the LAPD more than 640,000 hours of desk work annually, freeing the equivalent of more than 350 full-time officers for real police work.

The alliance, to its credit, has raised more than half of the required amount. Think of what this means. With business taxes and fees already among the highest in the nation, Angelenos are being asked to contribute voluntarily to support a function that should be covered by the taxes they already pay. Additionally, is the alliance going to continue to pick up this bill? If modernization is a top priority and a solution to many of our crime problems, why isn’t the mayor including it in his 1995-96 budget?

Where do our tax revenues go? To maintain the city’s duplicative 911 service where one operator listens to the caller’s problem and then sends the call to either a police or fire department dispatcher? If the first operator could dispatch the necessary help directly, we would save the required $15 million many times over and also provide quicker responses. To maintain a bloated engineering department so City Council members can appear responsive to constituents by drawing plans for new bridges or stoplights--even though there are no capital funds to actually implement the designs?

Should we be surprised that citizens have lost faith in the ability of their government to spend their tax dollars wisely? This will continue until we give our city executives power to act and then hold them responsible.

There are many city activities that might be best paid for by private contributions, but crime prevention is not one of them. Given how tightly the mayor’s and police chief’s hands are tied, their alliance is a noble effort. But the better solution is to make certain our elected city leaders are able to put the city’s tax revenues to uses that will best serve their constituents’ needs.