Public Safety and Prop. 172

* Prop. 172, on the Nov. 2, statewide ballot, will fund local public safety services, making this measure critical to all Californians. Prop. 172 requires that revenue raised by extending one-half cent of the state sales tax be deposited into a local public safety fund to be used specifically for police, sheriffs, firefighters and district attorneys.

Another fact I can state with certainty is that if Prop. 172 is defeated, budgets for sheriffs, police, firefighters and prosecutors will suffer huge cuts.

This year’s shift of $2.6 billion in local property taxes to the state has placed law enforcement and public safety services in jeopardy of the largest cuts ever.

If Prop. 172 is defeated, law enforcement and firefighting services in Los Angeles County will lose almost $400 million in 1994.

This is not a safe or sensible response to our growing public safety problems. Crime is on the rise throughout California.

Prop. 172 is a straightforward proposition to provide local communities with better public safety protection. We cannot continue fighting a rising crime rate with diminishing revenues. Californians should vote for Prop. 172 to ensure the protection of themselves and their families.

BRAD GATES

Chairman, Yes on 172

Orange County Sheriff/Coroner

* In a letter (Oct. 2), Chamber of Commerce official Allan Zaremberg asserts that passage of the sales tax increase bill, Prop. 172, is necessary to ensure “basic public safety.”

But surely Zaremberg must know that burdensome consumer taxes are oppressive to businesses also--ultimately leading to decreased production and unemployment.

Every philosophical justification for the institution of government agrees that expenditures for police and firefighting services should take priority over everything else. Unfortunately, clever politicians have manipulated municipal budgets so that their personal salaries and perquisites, their bureaucratic staff payrolls, pork-barrel projects, and largess for special interest groups come first--after which there is no money left for essential police and fire protection.

Now, we are asked by these deceitful spendthrifts to approve a tax that is both regressive and unnecessary--in order to receive the most fundamental of all government benefits! What kind of leadership--what kind of nonsense--is that?

DAVID J. BYRNES, Exec. Secretary

Sequoyah Institute of Civil Values

Riverside

* Our cities, counties, states and country are in a fiscal quagmire because politicians lie to us. They promise a temporary tax for a specific purpose, then find a way to switch it to a permanent one. Promoters of Prop. 172 falsely charge that without it, there will be no money for needed additional police. The truth is, all the politicians need do is cut pork, outmoded and outdated programs to find sufficient replacement money.

N. EUGENE SHAFER

Los Angeles