Arena: a Good Deal Then, an Excellent Deal Now

The City Council votes today on the detailed financing plans for Los Angeles’ proposed sports arena. The safe bet is that it will ratify the deal, as it did in January and ought to do again today. In the earlier vote, 13 of the 15 members supported a broad outline of the financial package now before the council. This is the opportunity to nail down the details.

Approval of this big league project would match the best interests of the city in terms of development and revenues. The arena would be home for at least the next 25 years to two local sports powers, the hockey Kings and the basketball Lakers, each with a proven record of drawing fans at the Forum in Inglewood, where they now play. The project could eventually include restaurants, shops and theaters--all within a stone’s throw of the city’s underbooked Convention Center, which is heavily subsidized with public money. Supporters see the arena project as a chance to revive an impoverished, stagnant neighborhood.

Council member Rita Walters, whose district includes the project site, understands the potential advantages of a downtown arena. She was among those who supported the project in January. But with a more detailed version of the proposal before the council, Walters is uneasy, fearing that the city might get stuck with a $70-million bond debt if the developers walked away or the arena failed to draw.

Over the long and complex negotiations that have led the council and arena developers to this point, Walters has asked legitimate questions. Her concern for her constituents and for the city’s financial stability has helped improve the package significantly for city taxpayers.

Public funds--the $70 million in bonds--would cover acquisition and preparation of the site. The developers would fund construction costs, estimated at $200 million. They have also agreed to put a special surcharge on tickets to help the city service the bond debt.

The notion of a new arena was good for the city and its residents even before Walters and others sat down with developers last fall; it is excellent now. The councilwoman is right in saying that risk remains, but risk remains for all parties to this deal, not just the city.

The greater danger to the city and Walters’ own constituents would be to walk away from a plan offering hope of downtown revival and renewal for a troubled neighborhood. This is a sound deal for Los Angeles. The council vote should make it happen.