Park Measure Not Fair to Taxpayers

Moorpark has Measure P for park maintenance on the ballot. It is a special election because political pundits believe supporters are the most likely to vote in a special election.

The measure has the support of the park commissioners, planning commissioners and staff. In fact, two staff members attended an “informational” meeting (essentially a support rally) held at a local restaurant several weeks ago.

Opposition is not by organized committee, but comes from individuals, each doing their own thing. They operate at a disadvantage in opposing the official city family. You could say it is those who want money, the “spenders,” against the bill-paying taxpayers.

The measure defines “park” to include the park buildings and the Community Center, heretofore maintained out of general funds, since buildings were excluded from the assessment district fund use. Other items can be added by the council in the future. The future may have arrived since the council added what was to have been a private park to the city park system. At this same meeting, funding for eight lighted tennis courts (with the goal of having 16) was approved.

These are some of the reasons I am opposing Measure P.

ELOISE BROWN

Moorpark

*

The framers of Proposition 218 were very wise and voters well informed in choosing to stop the continued escalation of taxes and assessments. I agree with the principle that the ballot is the proper way to authorize taxation.

The city of Moorpark presents ballot Proposition P to avoid the current assessment district used to maintain city parks, replacing it with a parcel tax that would be in effect for 10 years, with a maximum charge of $68.50.

I oppose this proposition as much as I was opposed to the preceding assessment, because it is a parcel tax. In plain language, it is inequitable. Families living in tiny homes are paying the same as those in homes worth hundreds of thousands more.

Witness, if you will, the disparity of the size and scope of parks in different areas. Some have gyms, administration buildings, tennis courts, restrooms, telephones, indoor basketball, baseball and soccer fields. Others have a couple of swings and one jungle gym and nothing more. And yet, each family pays the same amount, currently approximately $40. This is unfair!

Anticipating the passage of Proposition P, the City Council has increased the burden on this fund by redefining the word “parks” to include the maintenance of buildings. Until now, these have been maintained out of general funds.

The City Council recently voted to include maintenance of the park at Villa Campesina development, which was to have been the responsibility of the homeowners and the developer, I understand. This makes me wonder what will happen when other homeowner associations demand this same consideration for their privately maintained property.

I support all youth activities--baseball, football, soccer, basketball, etc. I appreciate the need for the peace and beauty of parks. My point of contention is the method of funding. A more creative and equitable approach is needed and Proposition P is not the answer.

TONY SIMEN

Moorpark