Library vote just the latest example of city's dysfunction

Look, I love public libraries - really I do. And it's painful to see their hours being reduced because of the city's budget troubles. Not to mention less money being made available for collections and personnel. Just shouldn't happen. But as an L.A. voter, I don't want to be determining whether libraries have a higher priority than, say, parks or police or street-sweeping. That's why Measure L was so misguided, and why its passage creates all sorts of complications for L.A.'s budget folks (whose lives are already complicated enough). Once again, a tiny percentage of voters (around 11 percent) has been given enormous clout in determining how the city's finances should be managed - and it's just plain dumb. Not to belabor the obvious, but budgeting is a zero-sum game - what gets committed for one department is taken away from another, and the considerations behind those decisions are not always as simple as they appear. From the LAT editorial that opposed Measure L:

The voters elect a mayor and City Council to make those kinds of choices through a comprehensive annual budget process, adapting their allocations to the city's ever-changing needs and circumstances. Mandatory funding proposals such as Measure L ask voters to make choices about particular programs without knowing how those choices will affect the rest of the budget. That is why The Times opposes them.

The success of Measure L will likely serve as a template for similar campaigns in the future. Parks and Recreation? Let's throw a measure on the ballot that would maintain its funding. Same with the zoo or the housing department or cultural affairs. This fracturing of the budget process makes very little sense and is emblematic of a city that's unwilling to make tough decisions for the benefit of everyone, not just the ones shouting the loudest. Really sad.