Pretty lively council session today on whether to proceed with the scheme to raise $53 million by privatizing city garages. But the hand-wringing was really more than that - it was a reminder that L..A.'s disastrous finances will require desperate and unpopular decisions. Actually, the parking dispute is a perfect example of conflicting agendas: Businesses in Westwood and Hollywood say that turning over the garages to private interests will result in higher fees and lost business; city workers, including cops and firefighters, say that not leasing out the garages will result in additonal layoffs and furloughs. The lease idea was short-sighted from the start, but at this point it's probably the best of a sorry list of options - barely. But why has the city and council waited this long to carry out a plan that had been a key component of a budget they signed off on months ago? From City Maven:

Council President Eric Garcetti laid out the four options before council:

1. Go to market and see what companies will pay to sign 50-year leases on nine city-owned parking garages.

2. Go to market and see what companies will pay to sign 50-year leases on city-owned garages with limitations on what can be done in Hollywood, Westwood and downtown.

3. Walk away from the leasing plan but evaluate how to make more money from garages. This could include advertising in garages or increasing the hourly parking rates. The city would then borrow against these assets.

4. Furloughs and layoffs.

I'm guessing that they'll go for a combination of numbers 2 and 4 - and then pray it's enough.

Jerry Brown didn't quite say they were a waste of taxpayer dollars, but in proposing to eliminate enterprise zones he all but acknowledges their limited value. The program, which was created in 1984, supposedly encourages development - and job creation - by offering companies special tax breaks if they open operations in chronically depressed areas. I say supposedly because enterprise zones typically do not create jobs that wouldn't otherwise be created. Oh, and they cost quite a bit. The Public Policy Institute of California concluded as much in a 2009 study. From press release:

The PPIC report contrasts employment growth in enterprise zones with comparison areas and concludes that the program, on average, has no effect on job or business creation. The report recommends a re-examination of the program, which offers tax credits and incentives to businesses in 42 designated zones throughout the state. The program's cost in the next fiscal year is estimated at nearly half a billion dollars. "The state can ill afford to continue the enterprise zone program without clearer evidence of its benefits or a well-defined plan to make it more effective," says Jed Kolko, PPIC associate director of research, who co-authored the report with David Neumark, PPIC senior fellow and professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine.

As you might guess, Brown's proposal isn't going down well in certain quarters. L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says that "any scenario that would completely eliminate the redevelopment zones and state enterprise zones is a non-starter." This knee-jerk stance has little or nothing to do with economic development and everything to do with political brinkmanship. Elected officials rely on these costly, unnecessary programs to support claims that they're actually doing something about jobs. The reality is that mayors, city council members, and even governors play only a marginal role in boosting employment. All that ultimately matters is the strength of the overall economy - and right now companies are still hesitant about expanding, with or without tax breaks.

As if on cue, members of the L.A. City Council were making their pitches this morning on keeping the enterprise zone program - all in the name of job creation. Very little attention paid to the cost of the program versus the payback in economic activity, not to mention whether that activity would have happened anyway.

It's the Marine Corps's F-35 jet, which is being built by Lockheed and has proven to be expensive and unreliable. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the two-year probation as part of an overall plan to save $102 billion in military spending through 2016. The Marines will thus join the Air Force and Navy in delaying acquisition of the Pentagon's biggest weapons project. But this could get interesting because the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is Calfiornia Republican Buck McKeon, who happens to represent parts of the defense-focused Antelope Valley. "I don't like it, but he has been working on these things for a long time and I just got hit with this," McKeon said when asked if he agreed with Gates's plan. "I need some time to think about this a little bit." Guess it's time to see just how committed the Republicans are in cutting the budget. (Reuters)

Quite a bit, according to a Pew Research study. Almost 80 percent know that the federal budget is bigger than it was in the 1990s, and two-thirds realize that the U.S. brings in more foreign goods than it sells overseas. But after that things get iffy. Only 16 percent are aware that more than half of the loans made to banks under TARP have been paid back (an identical percentage says that none has been paid back). Of course if they don't know that, they can't possibly judge whether the bailout program has been effective (something you'd never figure out by the political rantings against TARP). What's really distressing (though not surprising) is the lack of economic knowledge among 18-29-year-olds. On the TARP question, 7 percent answered correctly.

NBC's Matt Lauer must have known he'd get a rise by asking the two candidates for governor if they would dump all the negative ads for the remaining days of the campaign. The huge crowd at the Long Beach Convention Center went nuts at the suggestion, while both Brown and Whitman looked as if they were both having a really bad case of acid reflux (nobody ever said running for governor was easy). "You've got plenty of positive ads," Lauer said to both candidates, "and you could pull your negative ads and replace them with positive ads." Brown started off by saying "Negativity is in the eye of the beholder," which is true but definitely not what this audience wanted to hear. So Brown did what any savvy politician would do: He changed course. "If Meg wants to do that, I'll be glad to do that. We can settle the discussion later today and I'm sure we could work something out." Understand that Brown is comfortably ahead in most of the polls, so he wouldn't have all that much to lose by taking the high road. For Whitman, however, negative ads are about all she has left. Perhaps that explains her equivocation:

So here's what I'll do. I'll take down any ads that can even be remotely construed as a personal attack. But I don't think we can take down the ads that talk about where Gov. Brown stands on the issues. I just don't think it's the right thing to do.

The audience was not happy with the distinction. Whitman's ads about Brown and the issues have been criticized on many fronts as misleading or flat-out inaccurate. Brown, who appeared to be the favorite among those in attendance, became even more interested in the positive-ad idea.

I have one nice ad where I look into the camera and I say what I'm for. You have a very nice ad where you look into the camera - pretty good ad, by the way. We can put both of them on and let all the other ones go off. I'll agree to that right now.

The audience erupted. Whitman was now stuck. Lauer said to her: "If you believe the polls you're down by some points. So some could say what you've tried at this point isn't completely working, why not try a different course?" What on earth could Whitman say?

Jerry Brown has been in politics for 40 years, and there's a long track record. And I want to make sure that people really understand what's going on. I'm not doing it in a mean-spirited way, I just think it's important for people to understand what the track record was in Oakland and what the track record was as governor.

Translation: Don't hold your breath about the positive ads. By the way, Schwarzenegger sat back during much of the time, making a few references to the candidates shvitzing and looking positively relieved that he wasn't having to go through this nonsense. He has refused to endorse either candidate, but said at the end of the session that California was blessed with the two best political candidates in the country. Here's the link to the Women's Conference. As these things go, it was pretty entertaining.