A Decision That’s Really Hard to Believe : Washington rejects Los Angeles application for a crucially needed empowerment zone

Whatever the real reason, the decision not to award a federal empowerment zone to Los Angeles was a bad one. No other American city has suffered as much in recent years. The Northridge earthquake, the riots, fires, mudslides and a lingering recession have claimed a fearsome toll.

But Washington argues that the city’s application for a federal package of $100 million in tax credits and other coveted economic incentives was weak and in particular lacked the important specifics and parallel public and private commitments that were in the winning applications.

For its part, Mayor Richard Riordan’s office claims the L.A. application was deliberately general--designed to allow each targeted community to determine what it needed to reduce blight, create jobs and encourage economic development. Los Angeles was also hurt by federal criteria that greatly boosted the chances of smaller cities.

Whatever the problems, the feds should not have aced out a region whose troubles were the very reason Congress revisited the empowerment-zone issue and created legislation whose fruits are now evidently to be denied Los Angeles. The 1992 riots, awful as they were, did push the then-moribund but still meritorious “enterprise zone” idea back onto the front burner in Washington. (The bill cleared Congress but was vetoed by then-President George Bush.)

Washington’s decision is very sad indeed. A federal empowerment zone would have benefited poor neighborhoods in Pacoima and East, Central and South Los Angeles. The city could use a dozen empowerment zones to reduce blight in poor areas. While most of the nation enjoys a healthy rebound from the recession, Southern California continues to struggle. Yes, there are some positive signs lately--and for some of them the Clinton Administration deserves credit. Washington’s help after the Northridge quake last year was remarkable. Even so, the region remains plagued by high unemployment and the loss of defense jobs due to downsizing.

Already the stunning decision is causing politicians to scramble for cover, seeking to point blame away from themselves. Los Angeles politicians suggest the Administration is paying back political favors owed more urgently to others. Maybe, but the Clinton Administration hardly needs to irritate the same California voters it must have to stay in the White House beyond 1996. Thus, while painting the L.A. political power structure as disorganized and outmaneuvered by savvier competitors elsewhere in the nation, the Administration is expected to throw Los Angeles a few major bones, including millions from another federal program. Still the question remains: How did what should have been a political slam dunk become a costly political turnover?