New Schools and Prop. 170

* On behalf of California’s public school children, I want to compliment The Times for seeing both the importance of Prop. 170 to our public schools as well as the fairness issue involved in this measure (editorial, Oct. 11). Prop. 170 is a straightforward measure on the Nov. 2 ballot allowing local voters to pass local school bonds on a majority vote--the same way we elect supervisors, council members, governors and Presidents.

Prop. 170 is about more than education, it’s about fairness, jobs and California’s future.

Without maintaining the highest quality education system, including adequate classroom space, California will not be able to compete in a world where education is so highly valued. Prop. 170 also provides the added benefit of boosting this state’s sagging economy. It is estimated that for every 120 schools built, as many as 50,000 jobs are created.

The timing for Prop. 170 could not be better. With more than 180,000 new students entering our schools each year, half of our public schools more than 30 years old and California’s unemployment rate approaching 10%, 170 is a win-win proposition that deserves the support of all voters.

MARLYS ROBERTSON, President

League of Women Voters of California

Sacramento

* I urge a no vote on Prop. 170. There is already an easy way for a majority of voters in California, or any of its cities, to pay for the construction of new school classrooms--vote to raise taxes. Apparently a majority of the voters do not want to raise their own taxes, so Prop. 170 (and The Times) proposes to make it easier for them to raise the taxes of others (i.e., property owners). If a majority of voters are unwilling to tax themselves to pay for schools, why make it easier for them to tax property owners?

CARY W. SPENCER

Malibu

* Your editorial quite correctly points out that our schools are overcrowded. For that reason The Times supports Prop. 170 in spite of the fact that it would lead (regretfully) to higher homeowner taxes. What was not mentioned, however, is that there is a competitive proposition on the ballot which would also mitigate the overcrowding, and yet would do so without increasing the taxes a penny. This is, of course, the voucher proposal under which many students would be allowed to switch out of overcrowded public schools and thereby reduce the need for more building (and taxes).

Interestingly, The Times has also pointed out elsewhere that the greatest support for vouchers comes from the minority community and doubtless one of the reasons for this is that presently many children are bused long distances from overcrowded inner-city schools.

Thus a voucher system would lessen overcrowding without raising taxes, and it would also reduce busing costs.

C. R. MULLIN

Santa Barbara

* With the possibility of Prop. 174 it would be suicide for property owners to vote for Prop. 170. To increase taxes for property owners benefiting from Prop. 13 (on limited income) and add a larger burden to property owners already paying high property taxes is ludicrous.

It appears that in the very near future the government should look for other ways to fund schools.

JOYCE WESTBROOKS

Altadena