Facing Up to the Issues at Election Time

* I am responding to the Times’ editorial “Nice Idea, but Not Needed” (Oct. 26) that regrettably echoes the shortsightedness of the opponents of Measure A and adds the absurd notion that this is “mostly a neighborhood issue.”

The thousands of residents from all over Newport Beach who for a lifetime have experienced these great open spaces--on foot, or from the bay or on a bike, or from a car window--know for sure that this is not merely a neighborhood issue.

I live at the far end of Corona del Mar, about as far from the Castaways and Newporter North as you can get and still be in the city. I’m a so-called senior citizen with no nearby offspring. So I could claim no benefit from saving these properties.

Yet I believe passionately that the quality of my life, the value of my property and my enjoyment of the uniqueness of this city are measurably enhanced by these open lands.

The placement of two or more subdivisions there will only diminish those values. The mostly well-heeled opponents of Measure A insist on bloating its truly modest cost. In their preoccupation with unfounded accusations and other irrelevancies, they have obscured meaningful dialogue about an issue of everlasting, communitywide significance.

Yes, these are tough times. But they will pass, and so will this opportunity if we fail to grasp it. Will we look back with pride in our foresight? Or will we regret our missed opportunity?

I know we are a city with the resources. I want to believe we are a city with the vision to see what’s right for our future. Take the first step. Vote Yes on Measure A.

ROBERT SHELTON

Coronal del Mar

* I believe there are five reasons not to form an improvement district to purchase open space from the Irvine Co. as provided in Measure A before the voters in Newport Beach Nov. 2. They are:

1) The proposed improvement district is too large in relation to the area to be benefited.

2) The proposal to assess the entire city of Newport Beach to pay for the project is unfair, since residents outside the city would be benefited without having to pay anything.

3) It is even more unfair to commercial owners, since they are not in a position, as citizens are, to benefit at all. Already beset by the recession and record vacancies, a 30-year assessment would be the crowning ignominy of it all.

4) The city doesn’t need more open space, with the 89 acres of open space being given the city by the Irvine Co. free of charge.

5) The proposal stretches the law that permits property to be assessed to absurd limits. If implemented, it will probably be challenged in court. The prospect of costly litigation should be very sobering to anyone who would like the city’s expenses held down.

DON OLSON

Newport Beach

* I am voting for Proposition 173, the California Housing and Jobs Investment Act, for two good reasons--housing and jobs!

This is an opportunity for us to do something positive to help with two of the most pressing problems our county, and our state, are facing--the lack of affordable housing and high unemployment.

Proposition 173 provides start-up financing for a new program to provide state mortgage guaranty insurance to 55,000 first time home buyers, and it won’t raise taxes. Every dollar insured is to be repaid by the new homeowners who benefit from the program. It also will create 37,000 new jobs in construction and home improvement industries.

Last but certainly not least, this proposition doesn’t create new bond debt, it simply puts idle state bonds, already approved by voters more than 10 years ago, to work helping California families. It’s time to stop complaining about the lack of jobs and the lack of affordable housing and do something about it. Join me in voting Yes on Proposition 173!

JUDITH A. LEGAN

Irvine

* The Saddleback Community College District board of trustees voted unanimously to oppose Proposition 174, the “Voucher Initiative.”

Proposition 174 is bad for the people of our district, the county, and the state. It appears to be in clear violation of the U.S. and California constitutions. The U.S. Constitution clearly forbids the use of public funds for sectarian purposes and prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.

There is nothing in this initiative that expressly prohibits either. The California Constitution forbids appropriating public monies for any sectarian or denominational school.

Many of our K-12 and community college districts in California are experiencing budgets that could be described as fragile at best. Our children deserve more than this.

A strong public educational system available to persons of all economic backgrounds is the backbone of our nation.

It is during these times of shrinking budgets and increasing unemployment that our public schools most need the strong support of the public and the legislative bodies as well.

JOHN S. WILLIAMS

Santa Ana

* I was outraged when I recently read an article on Proposition 174, the school choice initiative.

Six million dollars has already been spent on television commercials alone to defeat this proposition, the California Teachers Assn. assessed a $63 surcharge in dues for each member to go toward the defeat of the proposal, the CTA will eventually spend over $12 million, school districts are being investigated by the district attorney for misusing school funds to distribute material against the proposition.

Ultimately, nearly $20 million will have been spent to oppose Proposition 174. If only these organizations, which claim to be most interested in the education and welfare of our children, would have contributed this incredible amount of money to the school system itself rather than their self-interested anti-parental choice campaign, our educational problems would be solved.

DINA P. GARTLAND

Fountain Valley

* I am a senior at Dana Hills High School and am very much against Proposition 174. Although I am graduating, many students will still be affected by 174, including my younger sister.

Public schools are suffering enough without losing the $1.6 billion that the state coffers will lose if Proposition 174 passes. Tax money is for public education, not religious education.

Those who cannot afford to pay for private schools depend on that money and the ability of the public schools to function using that money. It’s a parent’s choice to pay for private education. Innocent students should not have to suffer because of this.

If people will only vote No on Proposition 174, public schools will survive and continue to send millions of students onto higher education.

MELISSA MILLER

Dana Point

* Almost everyone acknowledges that our public schools are doing a miserable job. Those who do not, express concern that if Proposition 174 passes, students who stay in public schools will be at a learning disadvantage compared to those in private schools. Consider the following:

* Pupils in public schools already are at a large disadvantage. Many cannot afford private schools where parents demand results.

* If Proposition 174 passes, more students will enter private schools and public schools will be forced to upgrade their performance. Thus, all students will have a better learning experience.

* If Proposition 174 does not pass, the disparity between public and private schools will continue to grow.

ROD SACKETT

Newport Beach

* By now, as arguments on Proposition 174 fill the air, most individuals have made up their minds regarding how they plan to vote. The rhetoric is charged with strong feelings on both sides. Community colleges, in the meantime, are virtually ignored in the debate.

Estimates are that for every K-12 student who accesses a voucher, the California community college system will lose $850 per student per year.

Consider the role your local community college has played in your life, in your family’s life, and in the lives of your friends and neighbors. Please carefully consider community colleges as you make your decision on Proposition 174.

VIVIAN B. BLEVINS

Santa Ana

* Chris Norby and others in education who support Proposition 174 (“4 O.C. Schoolteachers Vouch for 174,” Oct. 24) are turning a blind eye to a key fact. They talk about competition being healthy for schools, but as teachers they should know that public and private schools cannot compete on an equal footing. A school allowed to select its students will always outperform one that must take whoever walks in the door on registration day.

Schools in neighborhoods afflicted by poverty, drugs, limited English and illiteracy naturally have a higher percentage of hard-to-educate students. These schools need help, not vouchers.

If we encourage parents who care to pull their kids out of public schools (along with a portion of their tax money), how will the schools be improved? How will they compete?

If some schools need rejuvenating, the answer is reform, not abandonment disguised as “choice.”

STEVE DUTCHER

Fullerton