Cost of referendum should be on backers
I’m proud to be a Californian! Ours is the state that has led the way for much of the progress in the country. As California goes, so goes the country!
Paying taxes certainly is a duty to which none of us look forward to. However, every day, at home or anywhere we go, we see what our state taxes provide that we as individuals we could not afford: schools, parks, roads, enforcement of the laws requiring standards for building, vehicle operation, professional services, etc. We often find meeting the requirements upsetting and annoying when we must comply, but are appreciative of those that others must follow.
We have a group of citizens who feel their lives would be much better if they could make up a new set of rules, and a brand new state in which to show how well those ideas would work. At this time they have not presented us with a “business plan” to show how this new state will be financed, what services will be added — or cut — what will replace the many paychecks signed by the state to mention a few matters to be considered before embarking on such a venture.
Most of us are highly frustrated with government at all levels and feel no one is listening to us. Working to bring about change without fear is one of the great things about our country, but it is amazing to me that an individual or group, no matter how small, can impose the $4,000 expense of an advisory ballot measure on the taxpayers. Evidently, any one of us, if we can convince three of our five supervisors we have a good idea, could do the same.
It would seem reasonable the expense of putting up such a “test balloon” should be the responsibility of the author. We, the taxpayers, are stuck with the bill this time, but our supervisors should be swamped by our requests for a rule change making any expense for inclusion on the ballot be borne by the individual or group asking for community support or rejection of their ideas.
New-state ideology may lack pragmatism
In response to Frank Galea’s letter (“Ideology, not money, reason to leave Calif.,” March 11), I must say that, on the surface, the issues over whether or not to create a new, northern state seem reasonable. But, they do not persuade this 60-year-old, barely surviving on SSI.
Nor does Mr. Galea address, or speak for, the millions of Californians, statewide, who need help (including school-age children and migrant, green-card farm workers and everyone in need of retraining for viable employment due to the slowing of timber/fishing/tourism on a constant, seasonal basis).
Ideology is a nice idea; but is it pragmatic?