L.A. Has Money for Hotels but for Not Cops

I read with interest the article “Testy L.A. Council Puts Police Tax Hike to Rest” (Feb. 12), which reported on the bitter and rancorous debate on this issue in the council. Then I Iooked above the fold on the same page and saw “City OKs Hotel Subsidy Deal,” which reported on the council’s 14-0 vote on the same day to provide $177 million in subsidies to a company owned by Philip Anschutz, one of the wealthiest people in the U.S.

In the latter article, Kris Vosburgh of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. is quoted as asking, “If the city has that kind of money to give away, why are they saying they can’t afford to hire more police officers without raising taxes?” Alas, Mr. Vosburgh beat me to the punch, but I would say that the juxtaposition of these articles was one of the more ironic things I have seen in The Times lately.

Noel Park

San Pedro

*

Governments should do few things and do them well. Getting into the hotel development business is way beyond any expertise city officials have; rather, it is an opportunity for them to politicize the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The billions of dollars this city’s leaders have poured into the revitalization of downtown L.A. over the last 40 years have had negligible effect. The City Council’s wishful thinking for this project’s outcome (revitalizing the Convention Center) is throwing good money after bad. Yet, on the same page as the hotel subsidy story, it is reported that there is no money to expand police forces. We leave it to private risk-takers to assess the viability of financial bets, including where and when to place new hotels. The fact that the builder requires a $177-million inducement speaks volumes.

Pamela Abrams

Los Angeles