Dear Editor,

In your Nov. 28 editorial, “Port Authority funding freeze necessary,” you… Dear Editor,

In your Nov. 28 editorial, “Port Authority funding freeze necessary,” you restated your opposition to Onorato’s drink tax proposal. While I agree with your support of the car rental tax and Onorato’s dealing with the Port Authority labor unions, I disagree with your viewpoint on the drink tax. Onorato has been diligently working to reduce Port Authority’s costs, yet a budget deficit remains.

Regardless of Port Authority’s cuts, Allegheny County must supply $28 million to fund our mass transit system. Where do you expect the money to fund Port Authority to come from? Raising property taxes to continue funding mass transit is a terrible idea.

Upon researching other cities’ mass transit systems, none utilize property taxes for mass transit funding as we currently do. If the county continues to use property taxes to fund the Port Authority, it would be required to raise property taxes.

As college students, this might not affectus immediately, but higher property taxes are extremely detrimental to Pittsburgh area residents. You state that, “It (the drink tax) has nothing to do with mass transit.”

The issue at hand is that as Allegheny County residents, we must pay taxes, whether they be drink taxes, property taxes, rental car taxes, etc. By proposing a drink tax, the burden would be placed not only on Allegheny County residents, but also on tourists and visitors.

Onorato holds strong on his belief that Allegheny County residents currently pay more than enough for property taxes. As Pitt students, I am sure you realize how vital the Port Authority is to transportation in Pittsburgh. Without the drink tax and rental car tax, this essential service will go bankrupt and be unable to serve Pitt students and other Allegheny County residents. If you are willing to pay $9 for a drink, what’s another 90 cents?

Zach Morris School of Arts and Sciences