Prop. 35 on State’s Engineers

* I am disappointed that The Times would endorse Prop. 35 [to allow the state to use private contractors for engineering and architectural services], even if reluctantly (editorial, Oct. 11). Just because former Gov. Pete Wilson set up the state for this kind of thing does not mean we still have to dance to his pipe. If we could wait this long for the various projects to get done, we can wait until enough engineers have been hired and trained.

Privatization is always a bad deal, and it is never cheaper in the long run--all you have to do is look at the Orange Crush, done by private industry. Now it needs to be overhauled, because it was not done right the first time around.

Private industry is there to make a profit; state workers will do the job because it needs to be done. No supervisor or manager in private industry would work for the salary a state worker is paid. The rank and file might be paid more than in private industry, but the end result is still a cheaper job. It might be argued that this only pertains to engineers, but once the foot is in the door private industry will push for more, as is evident from the fact that they were not happy with just 30%. Just how much will be enough for them?

IRENA WEYGOLD

Irvine

*

I am writing to thank you for your editorial support for Prop 35. I have been a civil engineer employed both publicly and privately for over 25 years here in California. When I graduated from UC Berkeley in 1971 the California highway system was the envy of the world. Its condition today is disturbing, all the more so because our booming economy could fund improvements if only the design resources were available.

With the lure of dot-com opportunities, the number of design professionals is decreasing just as the need is becoming critical. There is plenty of work to go around. All of the engineers, public and private, should be involved in the effort to improve our infrastructure and sustain our economic health.

GLENN R. BROWN

Encino