Tax Proposals and Measure M

* If Roger Stanton feels voting for a tax increase is not “leadership”--”There has to be another way,” what “other way” has he proposed since Dec. 6, 1994?

Has he spoken to the seriousness of the financial problems? Does it take “leadership” to complain about the plans of others? Is his proposal to dip into Measure M funds a sign of leadership? That got us into this mess--the treasurer juggling funds. What strength of leadership to vote against one’s beliefs and then not work for its enactment!

No wonder the state panel voted to oversee Orange County.

MAYBELLE SNODGRASS

Santa Ana

* As an Orange County resident who isn’t rich, I disagree strongly with your editorial urging supervisors to work for passage of Measure R, the sales tax increase (“Good-- Now Push for Enactment,” March 30). Putting more of our tax dollars into the hands of the same people who ran the county into bankruptcy in the first place is a classic example of throwing good money after bad.

The one bright spot in the affair has been the willingness of Supervisor (Roger) Stanton to divert Measure M sales tax money (the “car-pool lane construction tax”) to help alleviate our fiscal shortfall. Repeal of Measure M would be a good idea even if the bankruptcy had never happened.

Politicians like to talk about the courage to “make the hard choices” in an emergency. But trying to put through another tax increase doesn’t take any courage. A real hard choice is discontinuing a bureaucratic program which has clearly failed in spite of the howls of the bureaucrats who support it.

If supervisors were willing to use Measure M funds to fight the bankruptcy, they would be showing that they have the courage and sense to make good use of the new sales tax if voters decide to approve it.

THOMAS A. SCHENACH

Huntington Beach

* Readers of the piece by Dana Reed (“Raid on Measure M Is a Dead-End Road,” April 2) should remember:

1) This is the person (as he states) that pushed through the Measure M one-half-cent increase in sales tax; as allowed by our state legislators (to take the heat from them, as they raided highway gas tax funds for other purposes).

2) Dana pushed for the rail portion of Measure M, so as to have a “yuppie train” from South County to Los Angeles, which he just happens to use/need at “subsidized cost” to get to his Los Angeles office.

3) Currently OCTA tells us the amount of daily ridership is at 2,450 for the Metrolink across Orange County. This amount would be equivalent to “one lane-hour capacity,” of the parallel I-5; or, 1% of I-5 daily traffic.

4) This is an expensive “subsidy for taxpaying citizens,” so train riders may ride without paying user costs.

“Planning for a 21st-Century multimodal transportation network” is the hype used by the M campaign-selling consultants. Recent articles all back and reinforce the evidence/history of past national studies, that fixed-rail doesn’t work. America is different from Japan, England or Europe.

CHRIS EMA

Santa Ana