Measure M: Oversized, Oversold

Regarding Stan Oftelie’s Commentary (June 10) bewailing the defeat of Measure M last November, I take strong issue with the statement that the package in Measure M represented a “strong technical program.”

I attended a meeting at my homeowners association where one of the “experts” who drafted the program attempted to explain and justify it.

My understanding of the program from the explanation and further reading was that it was not drafted to solve Orange County’s vexing traffic woes but to offend as few of the city councils as possible.

Moreover, the plan was too grandiose. It attempted to define a 30-year program for highways and public transportation but made no attempt to account for the price structure or availability of gasoline 30 years from today. Considering that the U.S. imports about 50% of its oil supply today and that U.S. production is declining, any long-range program that fails to finance public transportation adequately (Measure M devoted only one-third of its revenues toward public transportation) should not be considered favorably.

I voted against Measure M not because it would raise taxes but because it was overblown, oversold and poorly conceived. A program that offered more reasonable specifics for a shorter period of time would get my vote and, if properly explained, just might get the vote of the majority of Orange Countians, even it if raised taxes.

CARL MARIZ

Irvine