Measure R Gives Voters Voice on Who Ultimately Pays

In the April 18 Times is a front-page story with the headline “No Fallback if Tax Vote Fails, Popejoy Says.” Then you write a story with the headline “Bill to Allow State Takeover of O.C. Fails First Test.” This article indicates that the bill will pass later on. It seems to me that the voters would have a “fallback plan” even if Mr. Popejoy does not.

What is the problem with a state takeover?

Our present county elected and appointed officials have gotten us into this mess, why should we think they can pull us out? Don’t try to tell this writer there is no fallback plan and expect me to vote for the sales tax increase. Up to this brilliant statement of Mr. Popejoy that there is no fallback plan, I was almost ready to vote for the sales tax increase. I am now of the opinion that if we vote against the tax and let the state take over, we wouldn’t be any worse off.

Our county supervisors sit in their plush offices and lush chairs, appoint a man to pull them out of this mess, and he comes up with the “only plan,” a tax increase? Perhaps a state takeover is not such a bad option.

LLOYD B. STEELE

Orange

* Regarding your recent article “No Fallback Plan if Tax Vote Fails,” one glaring thought crosses my mind, and I’d like to share it.

I have a tremendous amount at stake, all related directly to the county’s financial health. I am a county homeowner, my daughter will be starting public kindergarten this fall, and I’m an employee of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department/coroner’s office.

What confounds me is not that CEO Popejoy sees no alternative to passing Measure R if the county is to recover, but that the Board of Supervisors hasn’t distilled the courage to simply vote the tax into effect now, on its own initiative. This action would be decisive and in the best interests of the county.

Surely the board members can’t be trying to save face in the hopes of being reelected next term, because (I hate to break the news to them) that won’t happen.

Why won’t the Board of Supervisors make one clear, intelligent and authoritative decision and increase the sales tax today?

KURT MURINE

Laguna Niguel

* The current payout plan being dictated to the investors of the Orange County bond fund has the school districts receiving 76 cents on the dollar while the Orange County Transportation Authority and the Transportation Corridor Agencies are receiving 80 cents and 83 cents respectively. Our children are being sacrificed to benefit developers.

The Measure M sales tax generates $130 million per year with $65 million of that fund being needed for bond indebtedness. The remaining balance pays for proposed projects. And with each passing year, the funds needed for bond indebtedness will decrease.

If our supervisors had the courage to concern themselves with the interests of our children rather than the money interests in this county, they would have put a measure on the ballot to modify Measure M by postponing, where reasonably possible, proposed projects and targeting the funds freed up for public health and safety, children’s services and education.

MANNIE COSTALES

Lake Forest

* For several months The Times has been printing letters on the Orange County bankruptcy, such as the one by Chuck Sharp on April 16, who explicitly says, “It’s definitely not the voters’ fault and not the taxpayers’ responsibility to fix it.” Someone needs to point out that such a statement is absolutely and completely wrong.

Under our system of government, which everyone professes to support, we--the electorate-- are responsible for the actions of our agents. One can’t have it any other way, unpleasant though it may be. (Former county Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L.) Citron was elected by a large majority of Orange County voters, so were the supervisors. If they screwed up, legally so did we. We may now feel let down or even duped, but that doesn’t change our collective responsibility for what happened or for rectifying it, even if an individual had voted against the treasurer and supervisors. It’s still the majority decision that counts.

Saying “Hell no--I won’t play” now with 20/20 hindsight absolutely wrecks representative government. It says, “I’ll exercise all my rights--but I won’t take any responsibility.” If that takes hold, we have anarchy followed by dictatorial authority to straighten out the mess. That may not be too far-fetched an analogy, since the county is legally controlled by the state, which very well could impose corrective measures that Orange Countians would simply have to accept.

So let’s get beyond the name-calling and posturing. We’ve got a bad problem for which all of us are responsible, and we all need to participate in solving it. We may not like it, but that’s really beside the point for now. The time to express that is in future elections.

GEORGE POLLAK

San Juan Capistrano

* It’s not “education” the public lacks or needs in Orange County (“It Is Supervisors’ Job to Sell Tax to Public,” Editorial, April 16.) Education the public has in abundance. Orange Countians, especially likely voters, know a great deal about the county’s bankruptcy and its current fiscal plight.

They’re also beginning to learn a lot about how this county has been run for years, by whom, for whom, and with what effects. Consequently, the sort of “education” one normally receives during a hotly contested campaign in this county--frightening predictions of imminent calamity, glossy mailers, insistent pollsters and hired “volunteers”--probably won’t move many voters to embrace the sales tax hike as the cure for what ails them or the county. The public already knows too much to be easily bamboozled--this time--by a legion of professional political consultants.

No, what the public lacks and needs in Orange County is trust and faith in the capacity of representative government to serve the commonweal. Without question the supervisors should hit the campaign trail in defense of Measure R. They owe it to Mr. Popejoy and the veracity of the vote they cast to place a sales tax hike on the ballot. They might even pick up a few points in the category of internal fortitude for doing so.

However, no amount of politicking by the current board on behalf of Measure R will restore the public’s loss of trust and faith in Orange County government. Too many promises have been broken, too many opportunities for change squandered, and too many options for financial recovery left unexplored for lack of political courage, by this and former boards, to expect the public to allocate $130 million per year for 10 years to continue politics as usual at the County Hall of Administration.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Irvine

* The county wants to issue $250 million in bonds and give buyers priority over earlier investors (“O.C. Pins Hopes on an Untested Legal Theory,” April 17): This plan is astounding. The $250 million in so-called recovery bonds, with the authority to set aside the millions needed to pay the interest, during the first seven years will come to $210 million. Add the remaining eight years’ interest and we have a total of $450 million in interest alone, with a sum total principal and interest of $700 million.

These interest payments represent wasted tax money because the borrowers receive no material benefit in return.

I submit an option and solution to consider wherein tax-supported bodies would be able to borrow money interest-free directly from the U.S. Treasury for capital projects and for paying off existing debt. It would be a loan, not a grant, and not to pay day-to-day expenses. As the loans are paid to the U.S. Treasury, the money would be extinguished out of the money supply. The Treasury would get the money not from the federal budget, but rather would create the money at the direction of Congress (as authorized in the U.S. Constitution, just like banks and the Federal Reserve do every day.

Institutions such as the Federal Reserve and commercial banks create money every day, so the Treasury wouldn’t be doing anything unusual. Other governments over the centuries have created no-interest loans to meet emergency expenses, so, again, this idea isn’t revolutionary. It’s been carried out successfully before.

Creating additional money for such loans increases the money supply. We would fully expect the economy to grow in proportion to the increase in the money supply. If it didn’t, the Federal Reserve could adjust the reserve requirement of the banks by the fraction needed. This action, along with other safeguards of the plan to prevent “too much money” from being created, and thus no inflation, is possible.

GEORGE S. DE METT

Fullerton