Let Voters Decide Measure M’s Fate

* Voters are perfectly capable of honoring their own wishes and of changing their priorities as conditions change. They don’t need Bruce Nestande (“Honoring the Voters’ Wishes on the Transportation Sales Tax,” Op-Ed, Sept. 3) to remind them of why 55% of the voting electorate passed Measure M in November of 1990.

What the voters have given, the voters can take away. That’s what it means to live in a state which enables direct democracy (i.e., the initiative, referendum and recall) Surely Mr. Nestande, as a former state assemblyman and county supervisor, must understand this.

Indeed, those individuals who signed the ballot argument in favor of Measure M back in 1990 understood and anticipated this as well. The “Argument in Favor of Measure M” stated: “Any change in the overall expenditure plan regarding the types of projects NOW legally requires a new vote of the people.” [That portion was underlined.] “A new vote of the people” can alter the types of projects funded by Measure M funds and can alter the disbursement of Measure M tax dollars.

Whether or not it’s good policy to divert Measure M funds is a debatable issue. However, there is no legal or moral question that voters have the right and the constitutionally prescribed authority to adopt such a diversion. It’s no surprise leading developers and their “business consultants” are working overtime to prevent such a diversion from being considered by the electorate. Developers spent millions of dollars over many years to raise taxes for various transportation projects. They’re not about to let voters reconsider the county’s funding priorities without putting up a fight.

The Board of Supervisors should place an initiative on the March, 1996, ballot for voters to consider the diversion of Measure M tax dollars for the purpose of bankruptcy relief. Then we can publicly debate the most significant priorities for the expenditure of public tax dollars.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Irvine

* Had the Board of Supervisors known about the true nature of the investment vehicle and its inherent risks in a timely fashion, they probably would have dealt with it differently. Essentially, they lacked critical information.

Unlike the nature of the typical stock market, the failed Orange County investment was more similar to a roll of the dice on borrowed money. Once it crashed on account of some factors beyond [former Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L.] Citron’s control, the $1.7-billion loss could not be retrieved through future growth.

Lacking the right information, anyone in the shoes of the Orange County Board of Supervisors would have also been made to look very ineffective. Who had the responsibility for giving or getting that right information? That will be argued for some time to come.

Unfortunately, the water’s over the dam. All Orange County has to do now is raise a couple of billion dollars through shifts in priorities, cuts in services and higher fees. In addition, it must also reinvent [a] county government that regains public trust in handling the public’s money.

Orange County residents and its Board of Supervisors must pull together and reset the stage for a prosperous recovery. They can use all the help possible. There’s a real need to bury hatchets and get business growing again.

Given the right information, cooperative, energetic, positive people will prevail in a timely manner.

VICTOR H. JASHINSKI

Newport Beach