Louisville is engaged in a battle over how to manage its urban-renewal efforts. To an outsider, the debate might appear, in equal measure, spirited and picayune. All minutia aside, the central debate about Louisville Ballot Issue 2A is one of accountability: Is the Louisville Revitalization Commission accountable, in some measure, to the citizens it should serve? Yes. Would Issue 2A augment and improve that accountability? Yes.

If the goal is the most robust and thoughtful method of urban renewal, 2A is a good step forward.

Issue 2A would designate the City Council as the relevant authority for Louisville's urban-renewal efforts. Issue 2A would subject the Louisville Revitalization Commission to the city's ethics and open-government codes, would mandate annual audits, and would require fiscal analysis before the city approves a tax-increment-financing plan.

The LRC is a quasi-public corporation formed to "transact business and exercise its powers as an urban-renewal authority" under state law. It is charged with the redevelopment of the area mostly south and west of Colo. 42 and South Boulder Road. People of sound mind and good will differ sharply about Issue 2A. The issue's opponents Ñ who compose a majority of the City Council and include some members of the business community Ñ make several general arguments. They say 2A is redundant, obscures a hidden agenda, and upends an already settled public-policy debate.

None of those arguments is persuasive. Under the existing urban-renewal structure, the LRC can make proposals that the City Council could accept or reject. The council's ability to negotiate is inherently limited, irrespective of the fact that the mayor is one member of the LRC.

It is true that the City Council has the authority to approve the LRC's annual budget and requires council approval of unbudgeted expenditures. But a "budget" could contain very little specificity. The LRC's budgeted expenditures of public money in 2008 (an admittedly formative year) consist of only two line items: "legal services" and "professional services."

It is true, as 2A's opponents note, that the LRC has incorporated the city's ethics code into its bylaws. But 2A's advocates note correctly that citizens lack standing to file ethics complaints. The enforcement of good ethics would thus be left to the commission itself. But groups often value collegiality over strict enforcement of such rules. An enforceable ethics code matters. A close look at the LRC's unelected membership highlights the need for clear lines of propriety.

As for the opponents' objection that the City Council has already chosen an urban-renewal structure, they are right. But that argument could be made about any citizen initiative. Citizens have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

It's usually pointless to debate a political opponent's "hidden agenda." This remains true in the case of 2A. What matters is not what 2A's proponents may want to happen. What matters is what 2A's language would actually require.

In the end, 2A would establish the council as the urban-renewal authority and would designate the LRC as an advisory board. Opponents say this move would slow down the process and scare off prospective developers, retarding redevelopment and hindering Louisville's potential success. Those assertions have not been corroborated.

On the other hand, the case for 2A is convincing. It would improve the quality and breadth of fiscal analyses, the public accountability of urban renewal, and the rectitude of the process. Issue 2A deserves a vote of "yes."