April 8, 1980, Page 2 |
Previous | 6 of 212 | Next |
|
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
Prop 10 - 'big money scheme g adroT As the seemingly endless exchange of charges and counter¬ charges over Howard Jarvis' Proposition 9 continues, an equally ominous piece of legislation before the June electorate is going virtually unnoticed. In a recent Fresno visit,. Jarvis badmouthed reporters and college professors and called those against the measure, "either stupid or liars or probably both." This self-proclaimed champion of tax reduc¬ tion told one adversary, "You 're so stupid that you ought to take your brain to a car wash." Opponents are quick to point out the faults of the measure, hoping to educate the public before the June3 vote. "No on 9' posters are stapled up along the campus hallways. As one prominant local political activist said privately of the tax cutting initiative, "We 're going to beat that f er." . But while pro and con debate continues full-time over Proposition. 9, Jarvis is quietly marshalling support for another unequitable and one-sided measure-Proposition 10, an anti-rent control initiative which could also have strong repercussions in the student commu¬ nity ifpassed. -L-.- ■ i*—r ' V ■ ■ The measure would nullify current rent control lotos unless a popular vote enacts new ordinances at the. next local election. But any new ordinances would have to conform to guidelines allowing cost-of-living rent increases and permitting landlords to pass through other costs to tenants. What the measure lacks is a realistic and fair view of the land¬ lord/tenant situation: Proposition 10 would not, as the blatantly misleading ads tell us, allow for "reasonable controls and fair rents," but it would strip away any restrictions meant to stop rent gouging and would tie tenants to a misguided spiral of rent increases. That spiral is what concerns tenant groups throughout the state and should raise some questions among the nearly 7,000 CSUF students who pay a monthly rent. - jiiiadBjsJgfl.: Jarvis authorship of the measure can easily be tied to his own private interests. As executive director of the Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, he represents owners of apartment build¬ ings. Last week he asked state landlords to send him $25 to help push the measure, but.he would not share these gains with the official pro-Proposition 10 committee. One southern California official, Joel Wachs, recently said with much truth, "(Proposition 10) is really nothing more than part of a big money scheme by the state's largest landlords, realtors, build¬ ers and mortgage lenders to kill every rent control law which has already been passed." , Proposition 10 should be defeated in June. While landlords have legitimate concerns, this measure goes too far in addressing that concern because it could"prove too costly for renters statewide. The statement by Wachs may seem strong, but it's needed when going against a man who calls his foes "stupid or liars." -Steve Schmidt Letters to the Editor Editor's note: Due to some of the lengthy re¬ sponses we have been receiving,, we are employing a new editorial \ policy with regard to letters to the, editor. These letters must not ex-' ceed three type-written pages, ■ double spaced If the letters exceed this limit, the Daily Collegian will use its discretion in editing the ma¬ terial . Collegian commended Tothe-ditor, I should like to congratulate you and your staff on the excellent job you are doing this year. (Compared with the pre¬ vious years (and especially last year when the Collegian was filled with un¬ readable, half-witted trash) you have managed to make the paper into a respectable forum which both the stu¬ dents and the faculty can enjoy. Keep up the good work! Stephen Benko Dept. of History t Irresponsible Taid TotheEditor: Many of us here at the CSUF dormi¬ tories feel that the CSUF Police Depart- ment and two housing supervisors, John Wetzel and Charles Miller, are guilty of flagrant irresponsibility regarding their actions in connection with the recent drug raids at the dormitories: the PD for carrying out the raid in the first place, and Miller and Wetzel for sub¬ jecting the sii arrested students to need- less, pain and untold damage to their future uvea. The raid, misleadingly termed by the Collegian the "biggest' dorm bust,* took place after a four month investiga¬ tion and involved an undercover nitre placed in the halls by Wetzel, Miller, andtheCSuTPO. It resulted in six arrests and, despite the sensational press this case has been receiving, the confiscation of an embar¬ rassingly small amount of contraband material-none of which can be called a narcotic. In purely economic terms, the hand¬ ling of this case by Miller, Wetzel, and the CSUFPD can be deemed nothing less than unmitigated folly. Taxpayers would do well to consider that the state will spend thousands in court costs trying these kids, who are hardly more than weekend marijuana smokers, guilty at most of supplying their friends with very small amounts of marijuana on request. The civic-minded individual would do wan to consider also that the already clogged courts will be forced to waste valuable time on these cases, important only in the respect that they will be need¬ lessly costly and hurtful to the arrested individuals and their families. . But when we examine the human aspects of this case, we find the real tragedy. We feel that the action taken by Wetzel and Miller shows their indiscre¬ tion and their callous attitude toward students in general. Was it really necessary that this raid be conducted in the noisy manner it was? Couldn't Wetzel and Miller have them¬ selves carried out this investigation quietly, thus avoiding the irreparable hurt they have already caused these. students? Couldn't they have warned the in¬ volved students that their illegal doings were known and that legal action would be forthcoming if those doings did not cease? No, rather than take the above men¬ tioned more quiet and prudent mea¬ sures, Miller and Wetzel chose the harshest possible solution to this prob¬ lem. Miller, in fact, having led one of the students to his arrest, laughed in the student's face as officers hand¬ cuffed him. In light of other dealings of these two supervisors, their actions in connec¬ tion with this case have only served to confirm my belief, as a dorm resident, that these two men are not fit to be dormitory supervisors. Concerned Questionable ethics TotheEditor: 'Six arrested in biggest dorm bust', 'Extensive drug dealing in dorms'. Before you have visions of piles of dope and scores of D.E.A. agents, relax. Our valiant campus police, that" having cleaned up the rampant I problem, have set their sights on 1 game. Having concluded a {our investigation, the campus police ■ at the stunning conclusion many as' 16% of the dorm are involved "in some form of activity." Armed with the facta, set out with the aid of "well-t and qualified agents', to trap the > active of the culprits. Acting with the full of the director of housing, campus police managed to come up with four¬ teen buys. Chief of Police Anderson admits the amounts were small, but maintains: "we were thinking in terms of protecting people (the sellers)". Is it possible that the police, once embarked on their noble attempt to stamp out drugs, were unable to find any rampant dealing? Would our campus police stoop to pressuring people into making nickel and dime sales in order to justify their activi¬ ties? It is undeniable that the;' and or sale of marijuana is afth£j ent time illegal. As long as ' remain unchanged, to see basically dec the price of their i The question we can condemn t activities, while < of the campus police department I «_>„ — ~ tm— smcerely, »'.• ■!, . v. Pierre Hurler ,-v .-. .. :■ :■ -■ vvr.v vAw ';! ">""' >','v .vv.w'-T.'Ktr.'xi.T.-iV-.'. JW ■ vV
Object Description
Title | 1980_04 The Daily Collegian April 1980 |
Alternative Title | Daily Collegian (California State University, Fresno) |
Publisher | Associated Students of Fresno State, Fresno, Calif. |
Publication Date | 1980 |
Description | Daily (except weedends) during the school year. Microfilm. Palo Alto, Calif.: BMI Library Microfilms, 1986- microfilm reels; 35 mm. Vol.1, no.1 (Feb 8, 1922)- |
Subject | California State University, Fresno -- Periodicals. |
Contributors | Associated Students of Fresno State. |
Coverage | Vol.1 no.1 (Feb 8, 1922)- to present |
Format | Microfilm reels, 35 mm. |
Technical Information | Scanned at 600 dpi; TIFF; Microfilm ScanPro 2000 "E-image data" |
Language | eng |
Description
Title | April 8, 1980, Page 2 |
Alternative Title | Daily Collegian (California State University, Fresno) |
Publisher | Associated Students of Fresno State, Fresno, Calif. |
Publication Date | 1980 |
Description | Daily (except weedends) during the school year. Microfilm. Palo Alto, Calif.: BMI Library Microfilms, 1986- microfilm reels; 35 mm. Vol.1, no.1 (Feb 8, 1922)- |
Subject | California State University, Fresno -- Periodicals. |
Contributors | Associated Students of Fresno State. |
Coverage | Vol.1 no.1 (Feb 8, 1922)- to present |
Format | Microfilm reels, 35 mm. |
Technical Information | Scanned at 600 dpi; TIFF; Microfilm ScanPro 2000 "E-image data" |
Language | eng |
Full-Text-Search | Prop 10 - 'big money scheme g adroT As the seemingly endless exchange of charges and counter¬ charges over Howard Jarvis' Proposition 9 continues, an equally ominous piece of legislation before the June electorate is going virtually unnoticed. In a recent Fresno visit,. Jarvis badmouthed reporters and college professors and called those against the measure, "either stupid or liars or probably both." This self-proclaimed champion of tax reduc¬ tion told one adversary, "You 're so stupid that you ought to take your brain to a car wash." Opponents are quick to point out the faults of the measure, hoping to educate the public before the June3 vote. "No on 9' posters are stapled up along the campus hallways. As one prominant local political activist said privately of the tax cutting initiative, "We 're going to beat that f er." . But while pro and con debate continues full-time over Proposition. 9, Jarvis is quietly marshalling support for another unequitable and one-sided measure-Proposition 10, an anti-rent control initiative which could also have strong repercussions in the student commu¬ nity ifpassed. -L-.- ■ i*—r ' V ■ ■ The measure would nullify current rent control lotos unless a popular vote enacts new ordinances at the. next local election. But any new ordinances would have to conform to guidelines allowing cost-of-living rent increases and permitting landlords to pass through other costs to tenants. What the measure lacks is a realistic and fair view of the land¬ lord/tenant situation: Proposition 10 would not, as the blatantly misleading ads tell us, allow for "reasonable controls and fair rents," but it would strip away any restrictions meant to stop rent gouging and would tie tenants to a misguided spiral of rent increases. That spiral is what concerns tenant groups throughout the state and should raise some questions among the nearly 7,000 CSUF students who pay a monthly rent. - jiiiadBjsJgfl.: Jarvis authorship of the measure can easily be tied to his own private interests. As executive director of the Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, he represents owners of apartment build¬ ings. Last week he asked state landlords to send him $25 to help push the measure, but.he would not share these gains with the official pro-Proposition 10 committee. One southern California official, Joel Wachs, recently said with much truth, "(Proposition 10) is really nothing more than part of a big money scheme by the state's largest landlords, realtors, build¬ ers and mortgage lenders to kill every rent control law which has already been passed." , Proposition 10 should be defeated in June. While landlords have legitimate concerns, this measure goes too far in addressing that concern because it could"prove too costly for renters statewide. The statement by Wachs may seem strong, but it's needed when going against a man who calls his foes "stupid or liars." -Steve Schmidt Letters to the Editor Editor's note: Due to some of the lengthy re¬ sponses we have been receiving,, we are employing a new editorial \ policy with regard to letters to the, editor. These letters must not ex-' ceed three type-written pages, ■ double spaced If the letters exceed this limit, the Daily Collegian will use its discretion in editing the ma¬ terial . Collegian commended Tothe-ditor, I should like to congratulate you and your staff on the excellent job you are doing this year. (Compared with the pre¬ vious years (and especially last year when the Collegian was filled with un¬ readable, half-witted trash) you have managed to make the paper into a respectable forum which both the stu¬ dents and the faculty can enjoy. Keep up the good work! Stephen Benko Dept. of History t Irresponsible Taid TotheEditor: Many of us here at the CSUF dormi¬ tories feel that the CSUF Police Depart- ment and two housing supervisors, John Wetzel and Charles Miller, are guilty of flagrant irresponsibility regarding their actions in connection with the recent drug raids at the dormitories: the PD for carrying out the raid in the first place, and Miller and Wetzel for sub¬ jecting the sii arrested students to need- less, pain and untold damage to their future uvea. The raid, misleadingly termed by the Collegian the "biggest' dorm bust,* took place after a four month investiga¬ tion and involved an undercover nitre placed in the halls by Wetzel, Miller, andtheCSuTPO. It resulted in six arrests and, despite the sensational press this case has been receiving, the confiscation of an embar¬ rassingly small amount of contraband material-none of which can be called a narcotic. In purely economic terms, the hand¬ ling of this case by Miller, Wetzel, and the CSUFPD can be deemed nothing less than unmitigated folly. Taxpayers would do well to consider that the state will spend thousands in court costs trying these kids, who are hardly more than weekend marijuana smokers, guilty at most of supplying their friends with very small amounts of marijuana on request. The civic-minded individual would do wan to consider also that the already clogged courts will be forced to waste valuable time on these cases, important only in the respect that they will be need¬ lessly costly and hurtful to the arrested individuals and their families. . But when we examine the human aspects of this case, we find the real tragedy. We feel that the action taken by Wetzel and Miller shows their indiscre¬ tion and their callous attitude toward students in general. Was it really necessary that this raid be conducted in the noisy manner it was? Couldn't Wetzel and Miller have them¬ selves carried out this investigation quietly, thus avoiding the irreparable hurt they have already caused these. students? Couldn't they have warned the in¬ volved students that their illegal doings were known and that legal action would be forthcoming if those doings did not cease? No, rather than take the above men¬ tioned more quiet and prudent mea¬ sures, Miller and Wetzel chose the harshest possible solution to this prob¬ lem. Miller, in fact, having led one of the students to his arrest, laughed in the student's face as officers hand¬ cuffed him. In light of other dealings of these two supervisors, their actions in connec¬ tion with this case have only served to confirm my belief, as a dorm resident, that these two men are not fit to be dormitory supervisors. Concerned Questionable ethics TotheEditor: 'Six arrested in biggest dorm bust', 'Extensive drug dealing in dorms'. Before you have visions of piles of dope and scores of D.E.A. agents, relax. Our valiant campus police, that" having cleaned up the rampant I problem, have set their sights on 1 game. Having concluded a {our investigation, the campus police ■ at the stunning conclusion many as' 16% of the dorm are involved "in some form of activity." Armed with the facta, set out with the aid of "well-t and qualified agents', to trap the > active of the culprits. Acting with the full of the director of housing, campus police managed to come up with four¬ teen buys. Chief of Police Anderson admits the amounts were small, but maintains: "we were thinking in terms of protecting people (the sellers)". Is it possible that the police, once embarked on their noble attempt to stamp out drugs, were unable to find any rampant dealing? Would our campus police stoop to pressuring people into making nickel and dime sales in order to justify their activi¬ ties? It is undeniable that the;' and or sale of marijuana is afth£j ent time illegal. As long as ' remain unchanged, to see basically dec the price of their i The question we can condemn t activities, while < of the campus police department I «_>„ — ~ tm— smcerely, »'.• ■!, . v. Pierre Hurler ,-v .-. .. :■ :■ -■ vvr.v vAw ';! ">""' >','v .vv.w'-T.'Ktr.'xi.T.-iV-.'. JW ■ vV |