Debate Is Needed on Windfall

California’s decision last week, along with 45 other states, to accept the tobacco settlement negotiated with the major cigarette makers will bring $25 billion to the state, with half of that going to the counties and four cities, including Los Angeles.

With no strings on these funds, there are, not surprisingly, plenty of suggestions already for how to spend Los Angeles County’s $2.6-billion share and the city’s $312 million. But rather than just dividing the pot equally among the areas represented by county supervisors or City Council members, as usually happens, the money should go where the need is greatest and where it can have the most impact.

Because L.A. County said its aim in joining the lawsuit that resulted in this deal was to recoup the public costs of treating sick smokers, the supervisors should use the money to help mend the county’s tattered medical care delivery system. That’s an easy decision. But for the city, which provides little in the way of direct health care, the decision on spending its $312 million is more difficult. Already Mayor Richard Riordan has suggested sidewalk repairs to improve access for the disabled. City Atty. James K. Hahn wants to use the funds to curb teenage smoking.

These are worthy goals, but council members Michael Feuer and Mark Ridley-Thomas have a better approach; they want to convene a task force and hold public hearings to review all the options. The settlement funds could enrich many existing city services, such as after-school activities or programs for the disabled, the homeless or preschoolers. What’s important is that there be open, public consideration that results in a more sensible use than divvying up equal shares of pork for the 15 council districts.