The Alternatives if Voters Say No Thanks to Measure R

* Your editorial in the Sunday, June 4, edition regarding the position of local elected officials on Measure R (“Elected Officials Fail to Measure Up”) was extremely disappointing. I was not surprised by The Times’ position supporting Measure R, because I have come to expect The Times to support any and all tax increases. While I support the right of the free press to express such opinions, I am greatly dismayed by the intemperate approach with which you scold local elected officials who stand in opposition to this unfair and unneeded increase to our already too high tax burden.

Is it a lack of leadership for one to oppose a half-cent sales tax that will be in effect for 10 years, while a very cursory review of the county’s financial position reveals that if the county would have not included funding to pay back itself, a tax would be needed for only five years (or a quarter-cent for 10 years)?

A more in-depth, critical and conservative analysis of the county’s funding needs shows that this time frame could be reduced even further or the need for a sales tax eliminated completely if a plan is put together that effectively restructures the county’s bond debt and provides for paying off creditors in a time frame that does not paralyze county government. This is one of the main reasons I oppose Measure R. The county has yet to deal with the bankruptcy in a straightforward and totally candid manner. The voters, as well as elected officials outside of county government, have simply not been told the whole truth.

I have proposed that our city either forgive the county its share of the Orange County investment pool losses or defer them until such time as the county can repay us without the need for new taxes. (My logic being, why should Laguna Niguel taxpayers pay $27.5 million in additional taxes to recover approximately $3 million to $4 million in losses that have been easily absorbed due to the city’s extremely conservative fiscal policies?) In order to keep our school districts whole during the period of deferral, I have proposed that the cities of south Orange County either provide loans or loan guarantees to them at an interest rate and pay-back schedule agreeable to both.

MARK J. GOODMAN

Mayor, Laguna Niguel

* I find it extremely interesting that our Board of Supervisors is perturbed at not being included in the decisions of William Popejoy, county CEO. For years, they never questioned the actions of our county treasurer and completely ignored audit recommendations. Now, in the most critical time of our county’s financial recovery, they find themselves on the outside looking in. So what’s new?

With the exception of two recently elected supervisors, as a group they have displayed little to no ability in making difficult decisions pertaining to financial audits or personnel changes. Yet when a leader from the private sector steps in who will make difficult and unpopular decisions, the waffling of politics prevents them from voicing the support desperately needed at this time. Why would anyone want to include people like that in key decisions?

The supervisors brought in a competent executive. Their support, not their inappropriate comments, is needed by him to see us through this difficult period. It is that which should be their focus at this time.

NOEL F. RAMOS

Santa Ana

* Privatization or tax increases? Not much of a choice. I am not for either one, but we are going to have to decide which is the lesser of the two evils.

I don’t think privatization is the answer. A good example is Dana Point’s proposed budget for 1995-96, which is $490,000 higher than last year because of the increase for police services, street and park maintenance. When Dana Point contracted with the Sheriff’s Department for police services, it included a police helicopter. This year, because of the exorbitant increase, the service was not renewed. So much for saving money by privatization.

If the tax increase is not approved, be prepared to pay through the nose for utilities, water services, etc. Which is the lesser of these evils? My guess would be a tax increase, much as I am against any increase.

JEAN WOJTAS

Dana Point

* It is with great concern that I hear the crescendo drone of the Measure R campaign. Of course, the main proponents are the investors of the Orange County investment pool who are trying to retrieve the principal (and interest?) from this mismanaged and misrepresented scheme.

Everyone should know that investments carry what is called risk, regardless of how wonderfully safe they sound. And any responsible person should know that borrowing money for investment purposes mainly profits the lender. Otherwise the investor deserves the consequences of his irresponsible behavior (or ignorance) and needs to make do with what remains of the principal. My heart goes out only to the ones who were given no choice but to invest in this debacle.

However, no one will convince me that I should give to the feeding trough for the bailout of imprudent, poorly informed or greedy investors. The chorus of the vultures (lawyers, securities brokers and politicians) circling this carcass, asking me to give more, will do little to change my mind.

So please, Mr. Popejoy, stop pushing for the tax bailout and instead teach the basics of what it means to invest prudently and how to live within one’s means. Ultimately, everyone will benefit from this hard lesson.

KEVIN KINZINGER

Fullerton

* As the clock runs down to the June 27 election on Measure R, proponents of the sales tax hike are beginning to panic. The public isn’t buying the hysterical predictions about the county’s future if Measure R fails; nor are they persuaded by the expensive mailers being sent out on behalf of the League of Women Voters, the California Teachers Assn. and the Assn. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs urging a yes vote. Anyone who has actually read Section 1-4-77 of Measure R knows that not a single cent of the funds extracted by Measure R is legally dedicated to either the public schools or public safety.

The intellectual cupboard in defense of Measure R is mighty bare. Enter James Doti and Esmael Adibi of Chapman University with yet another reason to increase the county sales tax (“California Cheats O.C. by Giving It Less Money for Education,” June 6).

Let me see if I understand Doti and Adibi’s newest offering on behalf of Measure R. Orange County receives less tax revenue per capita from the state compared to what it contributes. Therefore, we should increase the county sales tax to remedy this inequity. Say what? That’s right, Doti and Adibi would like you to believe that Orange County taxpayers should pay a higher sales tax because we are a tax-revenue exporter to the rest of the state. This has to be the most convoluted argument made yet on behalf of Measure R.

That Orange County contributes more per capita to state tax coffers than it receives from the state in return is indisputable. We’re not the only county in the state to be a net tax revenue exporter; but then again, no other California county has filed for bankruptcy protection. Still, to recommend a yes vote on Measure R due to this longstanding distributional inequity defies the logic of deductive reasoning as well as common sense. The amount of money the county should be receiving from the state, given our per capita tax contribution, has nothing to do with Measure R. Orange County taxpayers probably pay more than their share of federal income taxes as a percentage of what the county receives in federal expenditures as well.

Is this another reason to vote for a sales tax hike? I don’t think so.

Truth is, now that a rollover of the county’s debt is likely for a full year, it makes a lot more sense for Orange County’s state legislative delegation to get busy rectifying the maldistribution of state revenue than it does to ask Orange County voters to raise taxes.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Irvine

* The county is so short of money and so long on talent between the supervisors, sheriff and other senior gurus, I’m surprised they haven’t considered the following: Due to the shortage of county funds and employees, save resources and promote more good government by counting only “yes” votes in the forthcoming sales tax vote.

WALLACE B. ROBERTS

San Clemente

* Let’s wake up and smell the coffee. Orange County’s bankruptcy is not what any of us asked for, but it’s a fact, so let’s deal with it. Let’s pass Measure R and stop complaining. Unfortunately, Robert Citron gambled and ignored the advice of advisers and analysts and lost. It’s time to move on. Let’s stop dwelling on past mistakes and misfortunes and look toward our future.

DUSTY HARRIS

Newport Beach