Battle Over Pest Control Fee Hike Plan

* Regarding the Times article (“Taxpayers’ Ire Stings O.C. Pest Control Board,” Aug. 6) on the opposition to the proposed fee increase by the Orange County Vector Control District, the article fails to mention that the district has also received many calls and letters from property owners supporting the increase, including myself.

The minuscule increase (about $2 a year) is certainly justified in light of the state’s shift in property tax revenue allocations. The work of the Vector Control District goes largely unnoticed primarily because it is so well done. With new threats, such as encephalitis-carrying mosquitoes, killer bees (they’re almost here!) and hantavirus-infected rodents, it would seem a poor time for this agency to suffer a reduction in funding and personnel.

Those in opposition to the increase must be shortsighted individuals who have difficulty seeing past the end of their own coin purse. Quality of life must not be measured in mere dollars and cents. If you ever lived in a place where there is no vector control program, you would realize the tiny amount you pay here for such a service is truly one of the world’s great bargains.

TOM COURTNEY

Westminster

* Your editorial on the Vector Control District fee increase and subsequent protest (“Big Noise Over a Small Levy,” Aug. 11) misses the point completely. Certainly pest control and disease control are critical government functions in our highly populated area. Certainly few property owners would complain about paying (another) 30 to 40 cents a month for this vital program, taken in isolation.

The real concern is more structural than specific. The Vector Control District is one of a myriad of governmental agencies, separate and distinct, with power to tax and assess fees. As a resident of Huntington Beach, I pay to support multiple school, community college, street lighting, sewer, air quality, coastline preservation and other independent districts. These agencies each maintain their own accounting, budget, clerical and administrative areas as well as boards of elected or appointed officials.

The main goal of many districts seems to be self-preservation in the face of decreased funding. Surely the cost of providing Vector Control services has not tripled, yet the fee I must pay for them has. The independent district must make up for a loss of funding from the county in order to keep its administrative autonomy. Perhaps a better solution would be to dissolve the district and incorporate its programs into the county public health department, where my elected supervisors can fund them based on a priority scheme taking into account all vital government services and the funds available to pay for them.

Willie Brown proposed a system of regional governance for California. The measure was immediately deep-sixed as it stepped on the toes of thousands of elected boards and councils. With our current budget crisis becoming an annual event, the time has come to revisit the entire structure of California government with an eye toward making it both efficient and accountable.

RUSS SINGER

Huntington Beach

* Since the days of the Proposition 13 “taxpayers’ revolt,” it has been increasingly fashionable to complain about taxes. Unfortunately, this griping has all too often fostered a meat-ax approach to government funding policy and has been irrationally disconnected from consideration of consequences. The current flap over fees for the Orange County Vector Control District is a case in point. The Times reported (Aug. 6) that 4,000 people have written to the district to complain about a $2-a-year fee increase.

I can remember summer evenings growing up in Santa Ana in the 1950s. This was before the creation of the Mosquito Abatement (now Vector Control) District and mosquitoes were a genuine, and constant, nuisance. Beyond annoying, the mosquito populations we had in those days represented a serious health hazard due to their potential for spreading disease. The district was created to abate this and other problems that threaten the public health and, judging by how rarely I see a mosquito now, it has done a commendable job.

Do we really want to turn back the clock to the 1950s because we refuse to pay a couple of bucks a year? It is up to the district to demonstrate that it is operating soundly and that it truly needs the added fee, of course. The problem is that too many people will not even give the agency a chance to make its case. People get the government services they are willing to pay for, and if they are not willing to pay, they deserve the services they get. Mosquitoes and all.

GORDON W.SMITH

Huntington Beach

* You missed it completely in ‘92-93 when the total tax for the MWD jumped from $4.90 to $10.01. The district added a $5 “standby” fee. If you can stop flogging smoking and gun control for a while, you could perform another worthwhile function.

Vector control crept on the 1990-91 tax bill at 90 cents. In 1991-92 it dropped to 72 cents. It jumped to $1.10 in 1992-93. For 1993-94 the plan will “not exceed $4.30.” Vector control is very democratic about the matter. If they receive about 175,000 to 200,000 letters of protest (a majority protest), that “will cause the proposed assessment to be abandoned.” Even if they had included a form protest with the original notice they wouldn’t get enough back for a majority protest. It’s just too much trouble to look up your parcel number--if you know where to find it.

If you can spare one of those investigative reporters doing research in a smoke-filled bar or restaurant, you should send him over to 13001 Garden Grove Blvd. and find out how many vectors they controlled last year.

MARVIN BREHM

Irvine