Mcelroy and the Univers~Ty Town Center for and Against Proposition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VOLUME 20, NUMBER 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 2, 1973 McElroy And The Univers~ty Town Center by Hannah Cohen A theater or theaters to show films including foreign One of the major issues confronting both the or art films . university community and the La Jolla community is Temporary space for a leg itimate theater, the per that of the lkliversityCommunity Town Center. On May manent facility to be included in a later space phase 9 the Chancellor and the Campus Planning Committee when the Town Center and the university commun ity met and approved support for the Town Center con have grown sufficiently to support such a theater. cept . Spaces for a minimum of six stud io craft shops, However, according to ChanceliorMcElroy, the local where visitors can watch artisans at work and purchase press has misrepresented his position on the center. their wares . They have said that he supports the construction of the A supervised and equipped day care center for center unconditionally in the vic inity of the intersection children of preschool age. of I..a Jolla Village Drive and Genesee Avenue. A var1ety of restaurants. The memo sent by the Chancellor to the chairmen Outdoor community areas to include the following : and members of the Planning Commission at the a) An outdoor amph itheater in the central open space. Community Concourse, San Diego on August 10, b) Outdoor exh ibit areas for art , sculpture and com states that he will only support the master plan of the munity fairs . ) Landscaped plazas and gathering areas center and the entire center concept if the following with sculpture or water displays. conditions are satisfied. The Ice rink or assurance for its provision at an early The ultimate size of the Town Center should be phase in the development of the Town Center. scaled to the population of the University Community. Office facilities for research and the professionals. When the Town Center is first opened and at each An increment for housing. successive stage, a balance of uses should be provided including commercial shops, civic, cultural and An amusement center (with such facilities as pinball recreational facilities, housing and developed open machines, etc.) to provide entertainment for all age spaces. levels. In the initial increment of the Town Center there Adequate space or right-of-way and a passenger should be in addition to the major retail stores ; the terminal for a future personal rapid transit system . following : The scale of parking space should be reduced in A community meeting room with attached caterer's proportion with the development of other forms of kitchen to seat approximately 200 people. transportation. An administrative office and reception area for a The City of San Diego should work with the "Town Council." developer in seeking funding through the program for A housing office with information on all available Federal Revenue Sharing for Housing or other sub housing within the University Community. si dies to ensure an economic balance of housing A City of San Diego branch library. Chancellor McElroy with in the university community. For And Against Proposition One The most controversial issue on the Nov. 6 ballot is 1900." calculations are erroneous. He maintains that the Governor Reagan's tax initiative, PropOSition 1. The Proponents also point out that the measure would budget will actually increase in the next year due to an general intent of the measure is to provide some sort of k€:ep the budget level in accordance with the cost of increase in personal income (the state income tax :" a tax relief by restricting the taxation and expenditure living and economic growth levels. percentage of total California personal income). powers of the state. It is asserted also that the proposition would not According to the CAL-PIRG study preciously Specifically, the measure would require the cause damaging cutbacks in state programs having to mentioned A. Alan Post has declared the fol!owing establishment of an expenditure limit (to be effective do with safety, education, and environment. Neither, programs "likely to be cut " if Proposition 1 is passed : for the 1974-75 fiscal year) based on percentage of total they say, will it cause a shift of taxes or costs onto the AREA REDUCTION IN MIGGIONS California personal income. local property taxpayers. The measure does in fact The Legislature could authorize expenditures over state that property tax levels cannot exceed a specified JUSTICE the specified amount to meet an emergency situation, limit, but there area number of exceptions contained in decrease police training programs 8 .9 to pay state debts, or to pay a tax refund from money the proposal. These are : (1) in the case of an which exceeds the established revenue limit. emergency situation, (2) when population or cost of Senior Citizen Property Tax Starting in 1974 the ceiling on state personal income living increases faster than the assessed valuation of Assistance Program 18 tax ratio would be 7V2% less than the rates in effect on property for tax purposes, (3) in the case of special January 1, 1973. To create a new state tax or change circumstances creating hardship for local agencies, (4) Renters Tax Relief 41 the rate of an existing state tax a two-thirds vote of the when the federal government or court imposes new legislature would be required. costs on the local agency, (5) when authorized by the Food and Agriculture The initiative would.,also place a limit on the taxing voters of the local agency. The issue at this point control and erad icat ion of pests 8 powers of local gO'lernment. It would prohibit local seems to be whether these exceptions will be a property taxation of a level higher than that which significant factor in the application of the provisions in Consumer Affairs 8.6 existed in the 1971-72 or 1972-73 fiscal year, (the higher the propoSition. Gov't Regulation of Corporations of the two figures would determine the maximum) Opponents of the initiative assert that local taxes except in special circumstances. It would also specify will be Increased to meet increased cost demands. and Banks 3.5 that a local agency cannot Impose an Income tax This would take the form of sales and property taxes ; unless given this power by a two-thirds vote of the increased service charges would provide additional Parks and Recreation legislature. revenue. This raises the issue ' of whether Prop. 1 Eliminate free or inexpensive According to Legislative Analyst Allan Post the provides for an equitable distribution of the burden of status at many areas and instead initiative would require large reductions in state ex taxation. A study by CAL-PIRG states that "the real attempt to make areas ~If supporting 9 penditures. For the year 1974-75, a reduction of thrust of Prop. 1 would be a shift away from income $620,000,000 is predicted; the reduction amounts taxes, which are progressive taxes, to property and Education would go up on succeeding years (over one and a third sales taxes and fees, which are regressive means of Halt new projects 122 billion predicted for 19n-78). obtaining revenue ... Economlc studies consistently Post states that the required budget cuts would most show that these three revenue sources, just men Eliminate state subsidies to libraries probably be made in the following areas: (1) aid to tioned, take a much larger percentage of income from local govemments. According to Post, this loss of aid poor and middle income famll ies than they do from $200 tuition at State Univ. & colleges 56 would be compensated for by ImpOSition of new taxes, wealthy families." The issue here would seem to be to spending cuts, or increase In PrQperty tax (which is what extent such " regressive" taxation will be required . $100 at community colleges 65 allowed in an emergency situation or Is hardships arise It is also claimed by opponents that the 7.5% In from special circumstances). (2) Senior citizens come tax cut favor the rich over the poor, since the End state schoJamhips and fellowships at property tax assistance and renter tax relief might be 7.5% reduction will save richer Individuals a larger private institutions 5.4 endangered Since such cuts are permitted In the percentage of their tax bill (e.g. someone who earns measure. (3) Aid to Universities and colleges might be $10,000 will save .9% of tholr tax bill, while someone Eliminate non credit courses at community cut. Because expenditure limits do not apply to tuition who earns flw times that much will save 6%). Those colleges or di rectly charge for them 18 and fees, use of these sources of r8\/'8l"lue would be who favor Prop. 1 state that the 71h% cut Is applied encouraged. equally to eYef'YOn8, therefore it Is equitable. The potential effect vI FIVV~IlIUIl I VII auucauon In Proponents of the measure point out a number of qpponents also object that Proposition 1 would make California has been one of the central issues connect u facts which they believe to be strong points of the It oifflcult to change tax loopholes and other Inequities with the tax initiative. The UC Student Lohhy claims that "the l!niverslty of California's budget is amcng measure. The most obvious of the84t Is the tax relief on by requiring a ~ vote to change a state tax rate. both the local and state level which they feel the One of the most Important Issues connected with the those progrAm budgets most defenseless "to cutbacks measure will proYide. According to Governor Reagan proposal Is the question of which, If any, arMS will hp If revenue shortages require cutback measures .