“We are headed in the wrong direction.”

So said Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa last month in acknowledging his share of responsibility for the city’s massive structural budget deficit. More than 80 percent of the city’s budget is dedicated to wages and benefits. The state, also in fiscal crisis, continues to suck every available cent out of cities. The appearance, at least, is that our level of spending on municipal infrastructure is more appropriate for Mayberry than a metropolis of 4 million people.

As city leaders grapple with the budget crisis, they should take the following actions:

Instead of scattershot budget cuts, work to identify and fund the basic city services that create a livable city. Public safety is priority No. 1, but it’s just the beginning. The mayor should convene a panel on “Quality of Life in Los Angeles” that holds hearings throughout the city to hear from residents and businesses about how they define quality of life, and which services are essential to meeting basic quality of life standards. After this review, the mayor should appoint a services czar (similar to the jobs czar named to lead efforts to streamline business permitting, planning and code reform) to address services and service delivery. Ultimately, the city should be benchmarking quality of life in Los Angeles, including service delivery, relative to other major American cities.

Reject piecemeal solutions to the budget crisis. The city should adopt no new broad-based taxes or fees, or pursue major bond offerings, until a comprehensive plan for infrastructure investment, service delivery and long-term public-employee wage and benefit reform is on the table. (Already some of the city’s unions have made helpful short-term concessions, but with bills that come due later. More concessions are needed if we are to avert major layoffs, and long-term reform cannot wait.)

Don’t give away the store. There should be no municipal asset sales unless they are good deals for the city. That means ensuring the city can participate in the upside as asset values and operating profits increase, without gouging users such as through excessive parking fees.

Confirm that necessary investments are being made in the city’s infrastructure. The city has failed to comply with legal requirements to report on the condition of municipal infrastructure, yet we see that our roads are crumbling, and we’re concerned about the deferred maintenance and failure to keep abreast in our public buildings, bridges and facilities. Report to us on long-term modernization and improvement plans, and our anticipated financing capacity.

Vet major initiatives, including land-use initiatives, through the Neighborhood Council system to allow for community participation. This is why the system was created. A good place to start is on the proposed solutions for sidewalk repair.

Just as average citizens and business owners now are making wrenching decisions in their own lives (“Do I give the keys back to the bank and let them foreclose?” “Do we declare bankruptcy and reorganize the business?”), L.A. city leaders have very tough decisions to make. They can and should be made smartly, humanely and with the city’s long-term interests in mind.

For the sake of the city’s future, I am hopeful city leaders will rise to the occasion and demonstrate real leadership. If they don’t, the next generation of city leaders will.

Cary Brazeman, founder of the community organization L.A. Neighbors United, owns a marketing and public relations agency in Los Angeles.