Much has already been written on Measure CC, the Open Space Initiative that would implement a $10 per month per parcel tax to acquire open space parcels. The proponent's arguments just don't stand up to close examination. Their arguments include:

•The law is needed because the city has no money to buy private parcels. The city has an open space budget now and buys land when the opportunity presents itself. In fact, some of the supporters of Measure CC recently asked the City Council for money to purchase a garden plot.

•The law is similar to the Laguna Canyon Conservancy example. There are many differences between Measure CC and the canyon purchase. The canyon land in question was a single large parcel slated for imminent development not under Laguna's control. The targeted land is owned by dozens of individuals, fragmented, steeply sloped and unbuildable under current Laguna regulations.

•The tax is fair and immaterial to Laguna residents. Measure CC will tax more than existing parcels and generate $20 million in revenues. "Fair taxation" depends on who you are. If you are a billionaire living in an ocean front mansion, Measure CC is fair because the tax is immaterial. If you are retired and living in a modest house, Measure CC is an unfair burden. Only the property owners pay this tax, while every registered voter in town gets a vote.

Measure CC sets up a permanent citizens committee. The powers of the citizens committee are not clearly defined. It appears the committee will both review and recommend land purchases and be responsible to ensure all funds are used cost effectively.

Measure CC is silent on who is managing tax revenues that are estimated to be about $20 million.

Management of Laguna's remaining open space is in good hands with our elected officials and staff. Measure CC is not needed and will only lead to waste and problems our city cannot afford.

Learn more about Measure CC. It's not what it seems.

Jill Cooper

Laguna Beach

*

Let's have an intelligent discussion about election

Our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, as enshrined in the 1st Amendment.

However, when exercising that freedom, it is incumbent on the writer of a letter to the editor to be as accurate as possible.

Calling President Barack Obama a "socialist and communist master" demonstrates a shocking lack of knowledge of those two systems.

President Obama is neither a socialist or communist as Mitt Romney is not a fascist. Calling the president those names results in a total lack of credibility on the part of the writer.

Wouldn't it be better to cite five or six reasons to oppose his re-election? Then we all could embark on an intelligent discussion.

Thomas A. Dugan

Laguna Beach

*