Friday, November 15, 1996
PROP A:
Daily Bruin’s editorial of Safe Parks Act misses the markBy Greg
Townsend and Reva Concoff
We are writing to complain about your irresponsible editorial
against L. A. County Proposition A, which you printed the day
before the election. Despite your nonsensical, superficial and
flawed analysis, Prop. A  the Safe Parks Act  passed
with 65 percent of the vote. Prop. A will provide $319 million in
much needed funds for parks, recreational facilities, beaches and
natural lands preservation. We worked on the Yes on Prop. A
campaign, graduated from UCLA and expected objectivity from the
Daily Bruin.
First, you criticized Prop. A because it allocated $4 million to
reduce pollutant runoff into Santa Monica Bay. Your editorial
indicated that improving Santa Monica Bay water quality represents
some sort of folly. Heal the Bay formed part of the countywide
coalition that developed Prop. A and would disagree with you.
Second, you criticized Prop. A because it provides $5 million to
restore lands and build a greenway along the Los Angeles River.
Your editorial stated that the river is a concrete canal not worthy
of improvement and beautification. Most environmental
organizations, including Friends of the Los Angeles River, also
would disagree with you.
Third, you attacked Prop. A’s funding of two projects
(representing three-tenths of 1 percent of the total funding) but
failed to mention the other 140 projects that will improve our
quality of life and that of future generations. You didn’t mention
that Prop. A will improve local parks, help preserve our local
mountains, plant trees, clean up beaches  and the list goes
on.
Fourth, the Daily Bruin endorsed L.A. City Measure K supposedly
because it was more local in nature, limited in funding and lacked
an allocation to the L.A. River. You were wrong on all three
counts. Prop K was not any more "local" than Prop. A because Prop.
A will provide funds for every city in the county. Prop. K amounted
to more than $440 million for just L.A. City, and would cost much
more than Prop. A. Finally, Prop. K allocated twice as much funds
to the L.A. River. So much for informed decision making.
Fifth, your editorial stated that the county’s current annual
budget should suffice for parks and recreation needs. This,
however, is not the case. The county and most cities have made deep
cuts in their parks and recreation departments over the past 10
years. People For Parks, a nonprofit group, recently found that
park agencies in L.A. County need more than $1.2 billion to keep up
with urban growth and development. No funds for parks and
recreation have come from Sacramento in over 10 years. Simply,
there are no other sources of funding to protect our local parks
and recreation resources.
A grassroots countywide coalition developed Prop. A to address
local parks and recreation facilities needs in park-starved Los
Angeles. Prop. A was endorsed by more than 825 community, youth,
environmental, senior citizen, law enforcement and civic groups.
Seventy-two of the county’s 88 cities and more than 80 elected
officials endorsed the measure.
Of all the newspapers in the entire county, only the Daily Bruin
and the "ultraconservative" Antelope Valley Press opposed Prop. A.
We’re.afraid you’re not in good company and editorializing from the
hip.
We hope next election you’ll do your homework and get the
facts.