Show some results first

Los Angeles was once a great place to grow up, and it wasn't just because of the sunshine and the beach. Kids here enjoyed a great public school system, true, but it was more than that. They had an infrastructure of first-rate libraries, organized after-school activities, safe parks, job-training programs and community service projects. The city's best-known contributions to the world were healthy, well-educated, successful young people. Gang life beckoned to some, but youths who wanted to stay out of that life generally could. There were options.

But over the course of three decades, the city, county, state and federal governments have systematically defunded children and young adults. Occasional successes, such as boosting library hours, have been more than matched by cutbacks in supervised recreation and other areas. Great programs such as L.A.'s Best are available to only a few. At the same time, families that once had the reliable paychecks and solid medical plans that allowed them to devote necessary attention to their kids now are left to struggle alone when the economy takes a nose-dive or healthcare becomes unaffordable.

Violent crime has dipped in recent years, but gang membership has remained high. The size of youth gangs and the pervasiveness of gang culture set Los Angeles apart from other cities. Gangs are L.A.'s best-known export. There can be little doubt that the city would be a better place to live if the public once again insisted that it become better known for the support it gives its youth than as the world headquarters of gangs.

So when City Councilwoman Janice Hahn comes forward with a ballot measure to raise millions of dollars for programs to divert youth from gangs -- as city Measure A promises to do, with a $36-per-year tax on each parcel or property -- how can The Times say no? Yet we do say no, with regret but with conviction. Here's why:

For more than a decade, the city ran gang prevention and intervention programs under the L.A. Bridges banner, using contractors that operated with minimal scrutiny and no evaluation. Did they really keep kids out of gangs? Did they really prevent violence? Were the most capable providers the ones getting the contracts, or were they simply the ones best connected with politicians? No one knows. Then-City Controller Rick Tuttle said L.A. Bridges should be scrapped and replaced, but his report was shunned by the political establishment, which seemed to be more interested in appearances than in results. To further burnish the appearance that the city cared about its youth, every program at every city park that could conceivably be depicted as an alternative to gang life was trumpeted as just that. No change from City Hall -- except in marketing its image.