They Won’t Be Taken for a Ride

* From the outset, my husband and I were on opposite sides of Measure M. He said the state or county would get their hands on the money, and it would not be used for the roads and transportation. I said the oversight committee would ensure the funds would be used for the listed purposes.

A few months ago, while traveling over newly improved roads, my husband praised Measure M. He was amazed that the money was actually going for the purposes stated. I replied, “I told you so.”

With reports of the county considering taking Measure M funds, I am in shock! Hopefully, Dana Parsons is not right (“Will Voters Be Taken for a Ride With Measure M Funds?” Aug. 6) when he said, “Well, it sounded good for a while, this notion that the public could decide what to do with Measure M tax dollars.”

MARGE TURNER

Brea

* The Times recently (July 14) editorialized, “It is folly for the supervisors to think that the voters’ rejection last month of a half-cent sales tax for bankruptcy recovery represented any kind of endorsement of their stewardship.” My vote on this issue was specifically an indictment of their “stewardship.” This fiasco occurred while the supervisors were busy memorializing themselves by dedicating parks and other projects in their own name(s). It will be a cold day in hell before I vote to give them even more money to squander. Just wait until they ask for voter approval of the raid on Measure M funds.

JAN MILLER

Orange

* If [Orange County Transportation Authority Chief Executive Officer] Stan Oftelie is so good, why did he wait until Riverside County had completed construction of a car-pool lane on Route 91 to the county line before starting construction of the extension of the car-pool lane into Orange County?

He may oversee a $602-million budget, but he still doesn’t have his ducks in a row.

R.E. JONES

Anaheim