News

Letters to the Editor: July 25-31

By
• July 24, 2012

A smorgasbord of reader responses to cartoon changes and recent articles about food trucks and road taxes. One reader takes a crack at the question, “Just how hard can panhandling be?”

Mourning Becomes Comic

No Binky, no Akbar? Now I understand Life In Hell!

Nick Pasqual

Santa Cruz County

 

Real Problems

Santa Cruz, you are amazing. You have everything you could ever want and more than you could ever need, yet you feel compelled to complain about poor people in your midst. Even to the point of avoiding downtown altogether. Bums win!

Look: if the worst thing that happens on any given day is someone asks you for a quarter, well, you are truly blessed, dontcha know. So the next time you get the urge to tell a panhandler to “go to work,” consider this: panhandling for a living is hard work. If you don’t believe it, try it.

Gibral Jillard

Santa “oh look, another BMW” Cruz

 

From The Web

Food Truck Obstacle Course

[RE: “Where Are the Santa Cruz Food Trucks?” July 18.html]: Good story. Seems like SC City is downplaying all of the hoops they create. A friend tried getting a food truck here and it was nearly impossible. The Truck Stop folks are still going through it. UCSC also has mega rules and limits how many trucks are allowed on campus. That might prevent mobile businesses as well. There are some nondescript Mexican trucks in the southern part of SC. There is the Aunt LaLi ice cream truck. And we can’t not mention the pushcarts, which appear to be not permitted. You raise a good question as to why the craze has not been embraced by this area. Is it the people? Or perhaps the outdated rules of the gov’t and UCSC? I look forward to this discussion.

Mac

 

When Does It End?

[RE: “RTC Weighs Ballot Measure for County Roads,” July 18.html]: It’s important to note the amount of money collected for road repair to date. I believe the amount taken out of property taxes is $56 per parcel per year. On top of that, 67.7 cents per gallon of gas (49.3 cents state, 18.4 cents fed) also gets collected for this purpose. Being that roads are high on the list of what citizens expect the government to maintain, the $56 figure is quite low. In my humble opinion, yes, $10 is not a lot, but when will asking for more money stop, and the inefficient poor use of money by the government stop? Send government a message and reject this measure. Cut costs on programs that you do not want to pay for, and increase the $56 to around $250. And provide that all of the 67.7 cents per gallon go directly into an account for this purpose, with none going to government bureaucrats.

Bill Smallman

 

Move On

[RE: “Letters to the Editor,” July 18.html]: DeCinzo: get over it; a humorist without humanity; mean-spirited and most often, not funny.

Kathy Cheer

Santa Cruz

  • https://www.santacruz.com/news/letters_to_the_editor_july_25_31.html Don Honda

    For:  Road Tax

    Jacob—nice little spin, “Santa Cruz County voters might have to decide this November if local roads are worth $10.”  You don’t delve into how the proposed measure does not have a sunset clause, that is open to fees increasing in the future, that at the onset, at least 20% is earmarked for non-road related venues.  This is besides the point that the RTC receives funding for road maintenance but disburses it to other budgetary items.  See:  http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_highway_fy1112.html to find out how much Santa Cruz County receives from the State alone, then add how the city of Santa Cruz has financial obligations (through past measure H to fix our local roads.

    Add:  That it will be stipulated that the funds be used at the discretion of the municipalities receiving them.  That 20% off the top is minimal—it could get up to 100% with no oversight as to how it is spent.  The only restriction is that no more than 5% be used for administration costs.  This is based on SB 83 (2009).

    DMV/CHP had an excess $500 Million in funds.  It was just raided for $432 Million by Gov. Brown to put into the General Fund.  I have this verified by email from a State Finance Officer.  It sure could have fixed alotta roads!

    Response:  The Motor Vehicle Account is used primarily for state operations of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol.  The fund condition published in the Governor’s Budget did show a $500 million fund balance.  The May Revision proposed a $300 million loan from the MVA to the General Fund.  In addition, the budget passed by the Legislature increased the loan to $432.2 million, which will result in a fund balance of $109 million.  The budget requires repayment of the loans by June 30, 2016.

  • https://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/07/24/letters_to_the_editor_july_25_31 Don Honda

    For:  Road Tax

    Jacob—nice little spin, “Santa Cruz County voters might have to decide this November if local roads are worth $10.”  You don’t delve into how the proposed measure does not have a sunset clause, that is open to fees increasing in the future, that at the onset, at least 20% is earmarked for non-road related venues.  This is besides the point that the RTC receives funding for road maintenance but disburses it to other budgetary items.  See:  http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_highway_fy1112.html to find out how much Santa Cruz County receives from the State alone, then add how the city of Santa Cruz has financial obligations (through past measure H to fix our local roads.

    Add:  That it will be stipulated that the funds be used at the discretion of the municipalities receiving them.  That 20% off the top is minimal—it could get up to 100% with no oversight as to how it is spent.  The only restriction is that no more than 5% be used for administration costs.  This is based on SB 83 (2009).

    DMV/CHP had an excess $500 Million in funds.  It was just raided for $432 Million by Gov. Brown to put into the General Fund.  I have this verified by email from a State Finance Officer.  It sure could have fixed alotta roads!

    Response:  The Motor Vehicle Account is used primarily for state operations of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol.  The fund condition published in the Governor’s Budget did show a $500 million fund balance.  The May Revision proposed a $300 million loan from the MVA to the General Fund.  In addition, the budget passed by the Legislature increased the loan to $432.2 million, which will result in a fund balance of $109 million.  The budget requires repayment of the loans by June 30, 2016.