Defeat of Prop. 1

For whatever reason, the voters defeated Proposition 1 in the recent election.

While I was against this myself, after reading the front page story on April 15, I take little solace in the result of the election. Instead of joy, I am outraged. Laura Chick is quoted as saying that “the need (for these services) is real.” Her motion would call for the creation of a task force to explore alternate means to obtain what was voted down in Proposition 1. One of these measures is to sell off surplus city property. Why wasn’t this ‘explored” before the city tried to gouge the taxpayers? Are we viewed simply as a bottomless pit of dollars, always available to the city coffers for any whim? Here’s an interesting idea: If the city is supposed to work for the people, why not try something novel like working to save our money?

MARK HARTZELL

Tujunga

*

If the cost of Proposition 1 to the average homeowner was to only be a bit more than $30 per year, and the projects to be funded by it were really necessary, then one would think that the politicians involved would find a way to pay for the needed projects out of our already too high property taxes. However, if the Proposition 1 projects don’t get funded, it won’t be because I am not willing to part with an additional $31.29 per year, it will be because our elected officials really don’t think that the projects are very important.

If our elected officials are forced to establish a list of priorities before spending our money, just like I have to do for my family budget each month, and if the Proposition 1 projects are really important to the safety and welfare of the citizens of Los Angeles, then the projects will get funded.

CHARLES O. HALL

Woodland Hills