The article about Nicolai Kuminoff’s economic study of Measure G
in Monday’s issue of the Free Lance was sadly inadequate. The
article naively gave unwarranted credence to the study that
opponents of Measure G paid a college student from North Carolina
$8,000 to write. Is anyone surprised it concluded what opponents of
Measure G and their developer friends expected it to conclude?
Most people see the purported study for what it is: a political
document written by a hired gun. Big deal.
The article about Nicolai Kuminoff’s economic study of Measure G in Monday’s issue of the Free Lance was sadly inadequate. The article naively gave unwarranted credence to the study that opponents of Measure G paid a college student from North Carolina $8,000 to write. Is anyone surprised it concluded what opponents of Measure G and their developer friends expected it to conclude?
Most people see the purported study for what it is: a political document written by a hired gun. Big deal.
Does anyone think Measure G supporters couldn’t find a friendly economist to defend the opposite position if they paid $8,000 for it? Of course they could, but they don’t need to. The people of San Benito County already have an analysis prepared by capable people in our County Planning Department. It’s the Growth Control Initiative Review written for our Board of Supervisors last March.
The Kuminoff report makes many extravagant claims such as the catastrophic losses of tax revenue. The county report concluded that under the Growth Control Initiative, “it appears that the impact would be stabilization of property tax values” in the county at an annual increase of about 5 percent.
If you’d like to read an unbiased analysis of the effects of Measure G written for the benefit of the community by people who actually live here, you should read the county’s own report. I did and that’s why I’m a supporter of Measure G.
Richard Pitschka,
San Juan Bautista
