Measure Q is our ‘best chance to get it right’

For many years, local folks have explored creating a special entity to fund sensitive land and water quality protection. And with each passing year, the impacts from climate change in our community have grown. Finally, we have Measure Q ready for voter approval. The measure will not only fund protection of fragile lands and water resources, but directly help us adapt to climate change. Measure Q will provide an ongoing, local dedicated funding source — one that cannot be raided by the state or county in times of tight money. It’s our best chance in decades to get this right. Please join me in voting for Measure Q.

— Tom Burns, Santa Cruz

No on Measure Q, ‘a forever money grab’

For many reasons, the Santa Cruz County Fire Chief’s Association opposes Measure Q. Despite the feel-good title, “Santa Cruz County Safe Drinking Water, Clean Beaches, Wildfire Risk Reduction, And Wildlife Protection Initiative,” our local fire chiefs call this “misleading and irresponsible branding” because they have painfully witnessed that the county, which would forever administer the anticipated $7.3 million collected annually should Measure Q pass, has historically failed to follow through on past promises to voters (2018 Measure G) to actually fund fire reduction activities. “There is no guarantee any funds will be spent to reduce wildfire risks.”

Rightfully, we should pay attention to our local fire chiefs, not the large nonprofits that paid to qualify this measure for the ballot and stand to reap great financial benefit, while bolstering the county’s funds.

Don’t be fooled. Measure Q is a forever money grab.

— Becky Steinbruner, Aptos

‘Enough is enough’ – No on regressive Measure Z

As a generally progressive Editorial Board in a famously liberal city, it takes courage to step out and oppose a new tax, as the Sentinel has done with the Measure Z beverage tax. The board correctly identifies this tax as regressive — something its backers fail to acknowledge — because it will hurt lower-income residents the hardest.

There is absolutely no guarantee that any money raised would go to the programs its supporters propose; rather, it is a general fund tax that could be used any way the City Council sees fit.

With a new local sales tax already passed earlier this year and more bonds on the November ballot, sooner or later one has to say enough is enough. Protect the pocketbooks of Santa Cruz voters and join me in voting no on Measure Z.

— Amy Sullivan, Santa Cruz

For children’s long-term health — Yes on Z

At our school, we emphasize the value of healthy food choices with families. By encouraging parents to check labels, we help ensure their children consume no more than 12 grams of sugar in their lunches each day — a limit recommended by the American Heart Association.

Research by Dr. Jean Welsh, professor of pediatrics, and Mary Toscano, author of “Sweet Fire,” shows that frequent consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages not only leads to chronic diseases lasting into adulthood but also results in nutritional deficiencies that can harm a child’s neural development. Studies have shown that poor, high-sugar nutrition can impair cognitive abilities such as learning, problem solving and memory. Early malnutrition can even lead to deficiencies in vision, fine motor skills and language.

Cutting out sugar-sweetened beverages and prioritizing water consumption is one easy way to promote the long-term health and development of our children — and this is why we all should be voting Yes on Measure Z.

— Karyn Schmidt, Director of local preschool, Santa Cruz

Lawyers will make a lot of money if Z passes

Measure Z sounds great to me, promoting health in our community nothing wrong with that. My concern is how will Santa Cruz afford to fight the big corporations involved and the state of California? I lost my irrevocable rent control in 2005, because the city of Santa Cruz could no long fight the big corporation that bought De Anza mobile home park.

Measure Z is much bigger than our rent control ordinance. It seems to be counter productive to fight our state. I feel like the lawyers in the litigation will be making a lot of money before our city has to stop fighting.

— Phyllis Galvan, Santa Cruz