Ballot Issues Generate O.C. Debate

Re “The Maverick at Center of Mobile Home Rent Battle,” Feb. 16:

As treasurer of the Bayside Village Homeowners Assn. in Newport Beach, I have been asked to thank The Times for the informative exposure to the voters who may be unaware of the importance of defeating Proposition 199.

Our mobile homes are not mobile, and in the past two years our space rents increased up to 47%--in a declining market.

Our space rents this year range from $750 to $1,900 monthly and will automatically be raised again in 1997. Added expenses include maintenance, repairs, insurance, etc.

Some might say, “If you can’t afford it, move,” but it costs up to $10,000 to move large mobile homes. There are many empty lots and empty homes here in our village where the homeowners have either been evicted or abandoned their homes, thereby losing their investment and shattering their dreams of owning an affordable home in Newport Beach.

JONNIE BROOKS

Newport Beach

* Whether you are a mobile home owner or not, you should oppose Proposition 199, the so-called Mobile Home Rental Assistance Initiative, when you vote on March 26.

The primary reason for rejecting this measure is that, if it is approved, it will deny local governments the right to make local decisions regarding local citizens. It is not a matter of free enterprise, it is not a matter of fairness regarding rent control, it is a matter of preserving a viable, affordable housing alternative.

If one wishes to discuss free enterprise, there are an average of 188 investors in the ownership of their homes in mobile home parks. There is but one owner of the land. In rent controlled jurisdictions, the free enterprise system favors the homeowner. In jurisdictions that do not have rent control, the free enterprise system favors the park owner.

If the discussion centers on fairness, this is easy. The average investment of mobile homeowners in their homes is three times the investment of the park owner in the space on which the mobile homes sit. Help is needed from those who do not live in mobile home parks but are voters in Orange County. This initiative is a “scam.”

WILLIAM P. BERNARD

RON LARAMIE

Huntington Beach

* As a California mobile park owner, I was deeply distressed to read the March 19 editorial on Proposition 199, which was seriously misleading.

Proposition 199 does not eliminate rent control as to existing residents. It does remove rent control as to existing spaces when the resident moves from his home.

We always have been a low-cost housing industry. Most park owners are reasonable businessmen. You’ve painted us as greedy landlords. A few there may be.

ALEXANDER ALEX

President, Dunex Inc.

Irvine

* In addition to all the right reasons that exist for the state of California to support Proposition 203 [authorizing a state bond issue for school construction], to the residents of Orange County there is also the very real issue of enlightened self-interest.

Of all regions of the state, no area will benefit more from the passage of Proposition 203 than Orange County. Rough estimates are that Orange County K-12 schools, community colleges and universities will receive roughly 20% of the revenue that would flow from the bonds.

Orange County schools and colleges will receive an immediate infusion of $126 million for renovation or construction projects that have already been approved. This $126 million will have the effect of shifting a significant amount of state money into our home county, will create 2,000 new Orange County jobs, and will add $66 million in additional Orange County wages. Since we live in a county that traditionally sees a disproportionate share of its tax dollars flowing outside of our boundaries to other parts of the state, it would be nice to be on the receiving end for a change.

JAMES A. FLEMING, Chair

Californians for Schools

Superintendent

Capistrano Unified School District

* Your March 17 editorial, “The 67th Needs a Fresh Start,” made me sick to my stomach. Cecilia Age, the candidate running against incumbent Scott Baugh, is known as the “Wicked Witch of Cypress” by her constituents, who shudder to think of the embarrassment of having this Doris Allen protege and clone represent us in Sacramento.

Cecilia Age represents everything that is wrong with politicians in America today. She was elected to the Cypress City Council not by an informed populace, but rather the money provided by her outside business backers who needed her support. She supported the construction of a 24-hour truck warehouse in a residential neighborhood in the face of tremendous opposition by the community. She also approved a 20-year exclusive contract for her garbage company friend without taking competitive bids. She survived two grass-roots attempts to recall her from office only because she outspent her opposition with the heavy contributions of her business benefactors.

I only hope that the voters in the 67th Assembly District have the good sense to talk to the people who live in Cypress, rather than rely on the misinformed advice of a newspaper editor who obviously doesn’t know much about Cecilia Age.

TONY SMITH

Cypress

* As you know, I am a candidate in the open Superior Court judgeship race in which The Times endorsed Barbara Schumann among three candidates. I have no quarrel with your opinion: As I informed your editors during the candidate interview process, either of us would fit well into Presiding Judge Ted Millard’s plans to cope with the court’s present fiscal and caseload difficulties.

What I take strong exception to is the egregiously inaccurate (and clearly misleading to the electorate) statement that she “narrowly lost” her bid for Superior Court election in 1994. The margin in that race was 60-plus percent for Judge Ryan and less than 40% for Schumann. If that is “narrowly,” then the term “landslide” is plainly missing from The Times’ editorial staff’s lexicon.

Recommend to the voters whomever you choose. But be honest in doing so.

DANIEL CHARLES DUTCHER

Santa Ana

* In light of The Times’ usual opposition to tyrannical governments, I was surprised to read your endorsement of the disastrous Measure T, being falsely sold as Orange County reform (“Measure T: A Small, Good Change,” March 13 editorial).

The addition of a “strong executive officer--you call it a plus--is a zinger whose consequences you don’t go into. Have you read the powers granted this CEO under Measure T? No governor, mayor or supervisor in this nation, not even the president of the United States, in fact, has such unchecked power over constituents.

Under Measure T the balance of county power would shift from five elected supervisors to a single CEO, nonelective and untouchable by the public. He couldn’t be voted out or recalled. He would essentially run the county.

Most administrators would be hired and fired by this individual and would report to him. The vital independence of treasurer would be compromised: He would no longer be elected by the public, but would also be appointed by, and under the thumb of, the CEO.

This CEO could single-handedly decide who would be awarded county contracts and on what terms. And he could meet behind closed doors with paid lobbyists and other operatives for special interests, as an elected Board of Supervisors cannot.

Everyone wants county reform. Most of us want to hang onto democracy. The Times should have noticed that the “small, good change” in Measure T can be done easily without a ballot measure--but the large, horrendous change that does need a ballot measure is a giant step away from accountable and democratic government.

JANET REMINGTON

Costa Mesa

* Your editorial incorrectly states that the Board of Supervisors’ charter proposal would permit the board to appoint the treasurer, clerk and public administrator. In fact, these currently elective offices would be appointed by the CEO. By assigning all supervisorial duties to an unelected super-bureaucrat, the direct responsibility of elected offices required under general law would be eliminated. Had this proposal been in effect prior to the bankruptcy, there would have been no retirements, resignations or criminal charges.

Thirty cities and 100 school and special districts in the county operate with strong CEOs. Yet not a single city manager, chancellor, superintendent, or director has been censured for recommending investment of public funds in the county pool. Measure T is not reform of county government; it is an attempt by elected officials to evade public accountability.

Term limits and flexibility in contracting out do not require a change to charter status. And it remains unclear whether Proposition 62 will be applied by the courts to charter counties. [Proposition 62 mandates a public vote whenever cities want to raise taxes on business licenses, hotel rooms, certain real estate transactions and other items.] General law status provides adequate safeguards; once the voters remove their right to vote on significant county officers you can bet it will never be returned. This deceptive and undemocratic measure should and will be rejected on March 26.

STEVE WHITE

Committees of Correspondence

Anaheim

* I would like to respond to the letter from Stuart Stitch and Snow Hume that appeared March 10. Their letter stated that citizens of Orange County could lose the protection of Proposition 62 if Measure T, which would make Orange County a charter county, is approved by the voters.

I find it insulting that Stitch and Hume would insinuate that the Board of Supervisors would try to abrogate the taxpayers’ right by placing a charter measure on the ballot that would provide an avenue for increasing taxes.

The board would never have approved the placement of the charter measure on the ballot if the protection of Proposition 62 were in question.

It is unfortunate that these two individuals have not read the two Legislative Counsel of California opinions which have been issued on this topic. Both opinions conclude that Proposition 62 would continue to apply to the county even if the proposed charter were to be adopted.

DONALD J. SALTARELLI

Supervisor, 3rd District