Propositions on Tuesday’s Ballot

As a petitioner against Prop. 5 before the California Supreme Court, which invalidated this measure, I do consider Prop. 1A only slightly more palatable. Whereas Prop. 5 granted the Indian tribes virtual carte blanche, Prop. 1A limits gambling expansion to a doubling of the present number of slot machines--still a sizable increase. Yet Prop. 1A again fails to protect the casino communities, by not requiring the tribes to pay their fair share in taxes for local services and by not requiring tribal adherence to local environmental, zoning and design controls.

Fortunately there is an alternative: Prop. 29. This measure does allow the tribes to keep their present level of gambling but also gives quality-of-life protection to their non-Indian neighbors, as well as public input in casino projects.

FRANK TYSEN

Palm Springs

*

Your Feb. 26 editorial recommending a no vote on Prop. 1A is once again a typically misguided attitude toward common sense. You will not stop gambling (as Prohibition did not stop drinking) and denying it in California just means continued unwarranted wealth flowing to Nevada, while preventing tax revenue in California that could reduce our tax burden and/or aid needy people (not only the Indians), schools, etc.

FRED NEWMAN

Marina del Rey

*

I believe that it is important for the citizens of Southern California to understand how a yes vote on Props. 12 and 13 will positively affect their quality of life. Some of our water is supplied by sources far from here, such as Northern California and the Colorado River. But most of it comes from carefully managed aquifers right here in the Los Angeles Basin. These aquifers, in turn, are fed by runoff from watershed in our nearby foothills. Those same beautiful mountains, streams and lakes that help make our part of the state so special are essential to our health and well-being.

A yes vote on Props. 12 and 13 will help ensure that these precious resources are preserved for everyone’s benefit.

BIL SEYMOUR

Claremont

*

Our public libraries have always served as centers of lifelong learning and literacy.

When it comes to literacy, California fourth-grade students ranked next to last in the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Adult illiteracy hurts our economic competitiveness, and family illiteracy is often passed from generation to generation.

Prop. 14 funds can be used to build new libraries, renovate inadequate facilities, provide state-of-the-art equipment, improve study conditions and create a safe, comfortable environment for users.

Vote yes on literacy for all Californians and support Prop. 14.

MARGARET JEPPERSON

President, Friends of the Hawthorne Libraries

*

The campaign finance reforms of Prop. 25 offer California voters the chance to save billions of dollars. According to the independent legislative analyst, California gives away over $27 billion in tax breaks every year. That money would otherwise come to the state to pay for education, traffic relief, parks and other important needs.

Tax breaks cost Californians 540 times more than what it will cost to pay for Prop. 25. At a cost of only $1 per person per year, Prop. 25’s contribution and spending limits and partial public financing will help put a stop to special interest tax giveaways. It is time to make elected officials accountable to the taxpayers instead of their campaign contributors. Vote yes on Prop. 25.

JIM KNOX, Executive Director

California Common Cause

Sacramento

*

Prop. 26 is on the ballot for one reason and only one. That is to eliminate the two-thirds majority needed to pass bond issues. The education system is guilty of the worst crime imaginable in espousing the benefits of the proposition without telling the truth about the purpose. Millions are being spent to sell this measure that will virtually eliminate any opposition to any school bond that is proposed in the future and the state indebtedness will soar.

Vote no on Prop. 26 to ensure honesty and integrity in future school financing.

DON R. BEAVER

Monarch Beach

*

For 50 years I have agreed with The Times on nearly all California propositions. On Prop. 28, we strongly disagree (editorial, Feb. 21). I have smoked cigarettes for 55 years, since I was in the Navy in the Second World War. At that time, cigarettes were about 10 cents a pack. Now, with the 50-cents-a-pack added tax, they are about $3 a pack. I enjoy smoking, even though I do not inhale.

My main objection to this added tax is that it is unfair. We pay income taxes, general sales taxes and property taxes, as well as many other taxes for the welfare of all people in California. Why, I wonder, was the smoker selectively burdened with this obscenely large special tax “to help our children”? Fortunately this added tax is not a crushing burden on me. But I am sure that it is a heavy burden on many persons who have enjoyed smoking for many years.

REX V. RHOADES

La Verne