Assessing Views of Taxes, Quality Education and Protest

Your recent reports on the homeowner assessment fees are weighted in favor of imposition of the fees. For example, the story on July 25 was misleadingly headlined “Homeowner Assessment Fee Approved for Schools.”

In the body of the story itself, two boards approved the fees: Orange and Placentia-Yorba Linda; two other boards rejected the fees: Buena Park and Fullerton, the latter unanimously; and La Habra postponed decision until October.

Then again, on July 26, the protesters of this new form of taxation were portrayed as a mob and characterized as mostly senior citizens. Since the fee has nothing whatsoever to do with the education of children, the attempt to show that seniors are against it and parents for it is unbalanced reporting.

These fees, assessments or taxes are not imposed for educational purposes, nor does the Streets and Highway Code Section 22556 that is cited in support of them so claim. The formation of a Lighting and Landscaping District by a school district is intended to provide for improvement of facilities to be used by the general public at large on school playgrounds. It is not a proper educational function of the school district to usurp the responsibilities of other municipal entities to provide parks and recreation amenities.

Schools should not attempt to enlarge their responsibilities at a time when they can hardly afford to keep their educational functions afloat. Passage of these new taxes will lead to school expenditures for security patrol of public mini-parks, litter removal, graffiti removal, surveillance of public restrooms and other associated costs of operating public facilities. This is the proper venue of parks and recreation departments, not school districts.

NORMAN H. BLITCH, Fullerton