Editor,
I read with interest both John Pietig’s guest column in response to the previous guest column and this recent letter in support of the city’s housing assistance program.
Because this issue sparked my interest and ire, I might add, I did some research on my own and voila, I found what the writer is calling “unfair accusations” are actually facts, not accusations. Facts are not “unfair,” they are informative.
What is unfair and extravagant, in my opinion, is the city using taxpayer funds to help buy employees houses in the first place. This money should be used for the residents.
The letter writer claims that city employees who benefit from this program are at more risk than any other person who buys a home with a bank loan, and that we should feel sorry for them because they have to “share” the equity appreciation with the city. By the way, I’m pretty sure the neighbors in “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” bought their houses with their own money or had to borrow from a bank like the rest of us. Cities used to spend within their means and put the residents first, not the city employees. Somehow “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” got hijacked.
Look, I don’t blame Mr. Pietig for defending this program. He benefited from it and after all it’s the job of city employees to justify city expenditures. I, however, do not agree with his rationale that “essential” employees must live in town in order to ensure swift responses to emergencies. The last director of public works did not live in Laguna and recently retired after 20 years. Was the safety of Laguna Beach at risk for the last 20 years or was response to emergencies impaired because of this individual’s lack of residency?
Mr. Pietig also states that the variable interest rate loans the city makes at 2% (not to exceed 5%) are set to “exceed” the return on the city’s investment portfolio, somehow leading us to believe that this is a “good investment.” But what he did not mention is that the rate of return on the city’s investments over the last five years has been 0.79%- 1.83%. I know cities have to invest conservatively but heck are they buying negative interest rate bonds?
My major gripe with this program is that it exists at all. Why is a city of 25,000 in the real estate and mortgage business? There will be those that don’t agree with my position, but that’s okay. We all have the right to our opinion. And by the way, I would love to get those power lines in my neighborhood underground. Does anyone have a spare dime?
Deborah Schlesinger, Laguna Beach
