More Time Needed for Housing Solution

Many voters rely on the information in the state ballot pamphlet. Unfortunately, the secretary of state cannot guarantee that the pro and con arguments are accurate and substantiated. He has to remain neutral. This means that all but the legislative analyst’s part can be false or misleading.

A case in point is the statement on Proposition 199 that says that administering rent controls costs “tens of millions” of dollars. A study of 1994 costs in the 89 jurisdictions that have controls shows a statewide cost of $2.1 million, or less than 5 cents per California resident. I checked with our own jurisdiction. The reported costs were exactly correct. The costs claimed by the proponents seem to be a “big lie.”

Other arguments also appear to be false--that tenants and seniors are for 199; that the law of supply and demand means we must pay speculator, predatory rents to get more built; and that current tenants will be protected, when only those with dollar ceilings will be.

Two parks owned by Jeff Kaplan, the chief proponent, are already up to triple the state average the ballot argument quotes (to $950 per space).

We should be able to solve the affordable space problem by a better approach than throwing present homeowners to the wolves. How about a no vote to give us time to work out a better solution?

HUGH M. PEASE

Simi Valley