Advertisement

Measure A Sparks Debate Over Growth and County's Future

June 05, 1988

Your editorial "Measure A Not the Best Road to Slow Growth" (May 29) gives the impression that the measure is a no-growth measure rather than a sensible approach to preventing the worsening of traffic with controlled growth that would require that adequate roads, parks, police and fire protection be established simultaneously with the construction of homes, offices and shopping centers.

The editorial has some very curious and illogical conclusions. It states that the officials have not been performing their duties and have been too "cozy" with the developers. Yet it recommends that the public should rely on a committee formed by the supervisors that has adopted most of the provisions of Measure A and that it would look for ways to "force" the cities in the county to adopt their recommendations. Why should the public rely on a committee formed by the very officials who have been "lax" in their duties? The editorial also failed to mention that the committee was also recommending a 1-cent transportation tax.

Montgomery County did not increase taxes nor did it suffer economic chaos. In fact its employment increased and its housing costs did not rise any more than neighboring communities in the area. But their traffic problems were kept from getting worse as did occur in Fairfax County, Va.

The editorial also condemns Measure A for not exempting construction for low-cost and moderate-cost housing from the measure. Have the developers been building any reasonable number of such housing to date? The answer is no. Moreover the supervisors have allowed many reductions in the original approvals of the number of such housing.

A no vote on Measure A means continuing the status quo with every increasing traffic problems. A YES vote means a stop to unrestricted growth and prevention of the worsening of traffic in our communities.

DAVID E. GAREN

Mission Viejo

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|