Good Reasons for City’s Lease Law

I have to wonder what your secret agenda was in the editorial “San Fernando’s Ridiculous Lease Law” (Oct. 22). In this day of voter apathy and political corruption, your tirade against a law made by the people for their community is highly suspect.

This law came about because the City Council had approved a controversial land swap with the county regarding the old police station, which is a valuable location in our civic center. When the people did a referendum to place that deal on the ballot, the council rescinded their deal rather than let the voters see the ridiculous terms. End of public trust.

The lease agreement on the ballot in November is much like the original land swap on the old police station. It looks good until you know the terms. You failed to state that because it doesn’t allow any rate increases and San Fernando pays for all the utilities, repairs and improvements, the city could end up with no profit. Having the San Fernando taxpayers pay for posh offices for the Los Angeles city attorneys may be the Los Angeles Times’ idea of a good deal. Or perhaps you just don’t know the terms? How silly of you.

As for the cost of the ballot measure, you’re wrong again. The cost is $3,000, not the $13,000 to $15,000 you quoted. If you are really concerned about costs, you should review the incompetence and mismanagement that has cost the city millions in cost overrides and legal fees.

The city of San Fernando needs campaign-contribution and term limitation on the ballot. Only then can it hope to eliminate outside influence on city elections and begin to clean up the city’s politics.

CARMILLIS M. NOLTEMEYER

Valencia

Noltemeyer is a former member of the San Fernando City Council.