Community College District

* For sheer bureaucratic arrogance, it would be hard to cite a better example than the letter we received in the mail from the Los Angeles Community Colleges.

First off, they state that they own the community colleges. I would like to remind them that those colleges are “owned” by the taxpayers, not the clique presently running them.

They lament that they have been unfairly limited in their funding over the past few years and therefore, we taxpayers are going to have to cough up more money. Let me point out to these people that a lot of taxpayers have been enduring “inadequate funding” for quite some time.

The arrogance of departments of government initiating and levying against property owners is staggering. To think that this country had a Boston Tea Party over a piddling tea tax and now is literally drowning in a sea of tax on tax.

There should be a vigorous assault on these bureaucrats, with their increasing assumption that they are the government. More than tea needs dumping!

ALEX SHEPPARD

Reseda

*

* [Ronald A.] Reis wrote a beautiful love story about the community colleges and how they helped him achieve his educational and vocational goals (“Community College a Viable Option,” May 19.). I know that Reis’ story, with some variations, could be told by dozens--even scores--of former and present students in the California community colleges.

But what of the failures? Thousands upon thousands of recent high school graduates and others try to use the community colleges to work their way into the University of California or the California State University system. And though many succeed, more never make it. This is not a condemnation of the colleges--just part of a description of the reality of the community college student body.

And now the LACCD is trying for a special assessment of all property in the district for recreation and lighting. What nonsense. I don’t want to pay for them to play tennis at Valley College or ride horses at Pierce College. If the money were to be used to assist the academic programs I’d pay it gladly.

M. STEPHEN SHELDON

Studio City

*

* Yet another “add-on” tax; this time it is additional money for our community colleges. A small amount, $12, but since Proposition 13 we have had many extra taxes added to our county tax bill. The fact that this tax is for the community colleges puts me in a position of wanting to support the effort, as these schools do much good. On the other hand, it is another add-on tax.

The only opportunity to debate this tax is to attend a meeting. I want to attend and voice my opinion, but I will be out of town and further it could cost more than the $12 to drive to the meeting, considering the new gasoline prices. Meetings such as this are somewhat democratic and do give the taxpayer an opportunity to discuss the new tax. But the majority of people cannot attend due to work, children, lack of interest, travel, cost, etc. The more American way would be to put this “add on” tax (or any new tax) on the November ballot. This would give all taxpayers an opportunity to vote on the subject, not just the few prejudiced groups that may attend the meeting. Voting for or against new taxes is true representation.

CHARLES DUSHECK

Chatsworth

*

* To the secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Community College District:

I would like to know who gave you the authority to assess property owners for your recreational improvements without [it] being put on a ballot for public vote.

What’s to stop Recreation and Parks, libraries, etc., from doing the same thing? And what’s to stop you from raising the assessment each year?

No wonder large companies as well as retired people are bailing out of Southern California, and in particular within the city limits of Los Angeles. You are taxing us to death!

JANET MARIE BEAN

Mission Hills