MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Press Enterprise - 8/14/02

A is for ambiguity I have received two pamphlets on "New Measure A" and they cause me to wonder if they were put out by ex-Enron employees.

First, there is no accounting of how much was received In the first 14 years or how it was spent; some reasonable detail would be nice. Second, It appears that some statements were too soft in the first where "widen or improve" was replaced by "widen and improve" in the second. Is the 'actual language so mushy that it can be taken to mean either/or? Plain old honesty would sure be nice.

From reading what has been sent so far, I wonder how the balance is' between social programs and better roads.

JOHN B. NORTHUP
Riverside

Press-Enterprise - 8/11/02

Voting No on Measure A this November should be a priority for all Riverside County residents. The Riverside County Transportation Commission has so much of our sales tax money from the "old Measure A," 1988-2008 that they voted to spend $500,000 for three slick brochures to all voters to promote the need for a continuation Of Measure A for a total of 50 years, 1988~2038. Two were mailed in July and one during the first part of August. These mailings are just a few months before the November election in which they hope to influence your vote with your own money.

Taxpayers should be outraged that a half-million dollars was used in this manner by the same people who want you to continue taxing yourself until 2038. Vote No on Measure A and send them a message.

GEORGE HAGUE
Moreno Valley



Press-Enterprise - 8/11/02
I have recently read two short articles in The Press-Enterprise regarding Measure A. Both articles featured an "explanation" of what the measure would accomplish according to its proponents. Other articles also alluded to opposition to the measure, but failed to provide detail regarding this opposition.

Residents of Riverside County have already, received a glossy brochure put out by the Riverside County Transportation Commission which details the measure's supposed benefits. What we haven't heard is a thorough explanation of why mainstream environmental groups such as the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club and ordinary citizens, are opposed to this measure.

I request, in the interest of balance and fairness, that The Press-Enterprise run an article discussing opposition to this measure and feature people such as Barrington Daltrey, the attorney you quoted, and representatives from the Audubon Society and Sietra Club. Only then will conscientious voters be given balanced information on which they can make an informed decision opinion.

KATHERINE CECH LATONIO
Riverside Press-Enterprise