County’s ‘Plan B’ Finding Little Favor

* The Orange County Board of Supervisors’ proposal to shift sales tax money from the cities back to Orange County to pay off the bankruptcy loss is a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Paul Brady, that is. . . .

Mr. Brady, the city manager of Irvine, lost $40 million in the bankruptcy--more than any other city. Failing to properly diversify Irvine’s finances, he invested two-thirds of Irvine’s portfolio with Bob Citron.

When other cities were pulling out of the county pool, Brady obtained City Council approval to borrow $62 million--secured by Irvine’s entire year of operating revenue--so he could invest more money with Citron. Although Brady promised the City Council that Irvine would withdraw its pool investments at the first sign of trouble, he failed to act despite mounting evidence that the pool’s yield was dropping far below projections.

Why should cities that properly managed their finances, cities that pulled out of the pool before the collapse, be forced to give up their sales tax money so Irvine can be made whole? Taxpayers in Tustin, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove and Westminster have a right to be outraged. So do Irvine taxpayers, who are facing a $40-million loss thanks to Brady’s fiscal flop.

The only honest solution is the one proposed by John Moorlach, our new county treasurer who warned of the pending bankruptcy. Cities that borrowed to bet with Citron should take their lumps and absorb their losses.

The supervisors should put their proposal on the November ballot along with Moorlach’s, and let the taxpayers decide. I suspect that, once again, Mr. Moorlach would be proven right.

STEPHEN C. SMITH

Santa Ana

* In the current “Plan B” to pay off the county’s debts, Orange County has no patience with tax-and-spend liberals, but seems to welcome gamble-and-steal conservatives.

DONALD SCHWARTZ

Santa Ana

* Now we can see why the Board of Supervisors struggled so long and hard to produce a bankruptcy recovery plan that does not use new taxes. Government will be reduced. Services will be reduced. A cash cow has been found. The huge cost of our financial mismanagement will be paid primarily by eviscerating the Environmental Management Agency, an agency that operates with no use of revenue from the bankrupt General Fund. Truly, the guiltless shall pay for the crimes of the guilty.

The electorate will not experience the consequences of gutting the EMA for years, long enough for the county supervisors whose indifference or opposition helped to kill Measure R to have moved on to less limiting circumstances. Deferred maintenance, inability to implement long-term infrastructure improvement plans, reduced or eliminated control of developers (a hidden benefit for them) are all too complicated for Joe Taxpayer to worry about or even be aware of.

It will take several years for deterioration to become noticeable. By the end of the 20-year pay-back period Orange County will have descended to the Third World infrastructure status that our former CEO, William J. Popejoy, feared when he advocated Measure R.

The electorate spoke on Measure R. The supervisors selected the least offensive victim to sacrifice. We have chosen our future.

ALAN J. NESTLINGER

Santa Ana

* If any government agency should be eviscerated, it is the county itself. No one can justify the need for a strong county government when most of Orange County is incorporated and when we have effective and efficient special districts the public supports.

TOM POTOCKI

Mission Viejo

* The Orange County supervisors weren’t listening when the voters said no to Measure R, which would have increased taxes. Apparently, they have decided that if they can’t get the money out of one of our pockets, they will explore our other pockets.

These supervisors offered the state six alternatives for a substitute for Measure R. The alternatives consist of stealing funds from other local governments where we will not be able to say yes or no and the local governments will bear the burden of the financial losses caused by county ineptness.

Special districts would be prime targets for the thefts. Much of the funds of special districts are direct charges to the captive users of their services. If money is taken from them, they must increase charges to their customers or discontinue the services. If they discontinue their services, citizens will be deprived of such things as water or trash-disposal services.

The supervisors’ suggested plans consist of taking millions of dollars per year from local governments for 15 years. That amounts to fining us for voting against Measure R. It it is small wonder that many citizens favor doing away with our present system of county government that gets bigger as the territory outside of incorporated cities gets smaller.

BOB DINSEN

Garden Grove