PUBLIC FORUM : PROP. 218 `WILL PUT THE TORCH' TO VITAL SERVICES.

As our firefighters mop up the remains of the Calabasas-Malibu wildfire, Los Angeles County residents can heave a sigh of relief that few structures and no lives were lost. But as they offer prayers and support for the injured firefighters and heap praise on the over 4,000 men and women from the more than 45 agencies who came to the county's rescue, they should be aware that another sort of disaster looms up ahead: Proposition 218, an initiative that would put the torch to a whole host of vital services, including fire suppression, libraries and parks.

Gov. Pete Wilson and state lawmakers have virtually eliminated local property taxes as a significant funding source for local services. Several years ago they began diverting billions of dollars of local government's remaining property tax revenues to pay off Sacramento's obligations to state education.

The Los Angeles County Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment District provides some $53 million a year in critical fire protection to residents in 54 of the county's 88 cities, and nearly a million more residing in the unincorporated area. The assessment is modest, less than $51 a year for the typical home, and was even recently reduced.

Proposition 218, however, if enacted, would completely wipe out this assessment, along with the county's library assessment and possibly others by July 1, 1997, unless the county successfully conducts a multimillion-dollar election using mail-in ballots and wins majority approval to retain them. And one other catch: Many of you who depend on our fire protection services won't even be able to vote.

Here's why: Proposition 218 limits participation to property owners alone - so the hundreds of thousands of renters who pay property taxes through their monthly rent, yet remain vulnerable to fires just like everyone else, are denied any say in this matter.

It is unacceptable to subject every local revenue decision to a costly, time-consuming public vote; government services would virtually grind to a halt.

The public-safety community strongly urges a no vote on Proposition 218.

- Dallas Jones, president

Los Angeles County

Firefighters Local 1014

South Gate

DA endorsement rebutted

I was disturbed to see your endorsement of District Attorney Gil Garcetti (Editorials, Oct. 30). Your arguments for supporting him are disputable.

First, you state that Garcetti holds a 93 percent conviction rate. This rate, though, is inherited. District attorneys Robert Philibosian and Ira Reiner also had 93 percent conviction rates, and that number will not change when Garcetti is finally voted out of office.

Moreover, your argument about Garcetti's successful collections from deadbeat parents must not have been well-researched. Los Angeles County ranks 57th out of 58 counties in child-support collections.

And by the way, Garcetti's handling of the O.J. Simpson trial is just a very public example of his inability to do his job professionally and ethically.

- Alison Andreas

Manhattan Beach 

Prop. 212 defended

Your Oct. 21 editorial recommending Proposition 208 over Proposition 212 is inadequate, to say the least. You openly admit Proposition 208 may ``flop'' - so why endorse something that will end up leaving voters more cynical than they are already?

Voluntary spending limits are a cruel joke. Unless every single candidate agrees to them, nobody will.

Your condemnation of CalPIRG, started by Ralph Nader, as an organization of ``do-gooders with a liberal agenda'' says more about your editorial posture than about CalPIRG. You apparently value corporate rights more than consumers' and your recommendation of 208 confirms it.

- Tobi Dragert

Tarzana

Re ``The color of money,'' Opinions, Oct. 17:

Leave it to a couple of lawyers to craft a mind-numbing article, reasoning that we don't need the tough campaign finance reform in Proposition 212 to clean up corruption, because if we just have full disclosure of where politicians get their money, things will be fine.

We know where all the money comes from today - 80 percent flows to politicians from outside their districts, 97 percent comes in amounts of $100 or more and corporations gave $53 million directly to California candidates in the last election.

I'll bet the guys who wrote that article are lobbyists for some big corporate contributors who are quaking in their boots at the prospect of what Proposition 212 will do to their special interest influence. Proposition 212 stops out-of-district campaign donations, eliminates corporate contributions and banned gifts and contributions from lobbyists once and for all.

It's time for the people of California to take our democracy back from corrupt politicians and big money lobbyists by passing Proposition 212.

- Jon Golinger

Los Angeles

One-party government

As a well-informed high school student, I am concerned about the upcoming elections. According to what the media is forcing upon us, Bob Dole will be severely defeated in his attempt for the presidency.

That aside, it appears that a coattails effect may very well assist the Democrat congressional candidates. It is a wonder to me why it seems as if there is no alarm at the prospect of one-party domination of both the presidency and Congress. It is historically proven that Americans disapprove of such lopsided control of our government; in short, people prefer gridlock in order to prevent one side from overwhelming the other.

Why then is no effort being made to remind Americans of this latent undesired outcome? It's because our liberal media is successful at one thing above all else: obscuring from the people what it does not want them to recognize.

- Armen Berjikly

West Hills

Dole's `weak position'

Bob Dole insists his word is his bond, and that his integrity is stronger than President Clinton's.

Yet when asked a simple question that most voters could easily answer with one word, Dole responds that he doesn't know if cigarettes are addictive; that's a technical question, and he's no doctor.

That's a weak position for someone who stakes a claim for the presidency based on his strong character.

- Al Daly

Sherman Oaks

`Power of the dark side'

It is sad to see a decent man like Bob Dole, seduced by Pete Wilson and the power of the dark side. I have followed Dole for many years and I can't see him denying an education or emergency medical attention to a child regardless of his or her documented status.

Once again the airwaves are full of anti-immigrant commercials, the Willie Horton issue of the '90s.

It is better for Dole to lose like the real Bob Dole than to win like the real Pete Wilson.

- Albert Salas

Valley Village

Media and taxes

There is a disturbing unspoken meaning behind the media's unblinking response to Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole's unique tax-cut plan.

The fact that a meaningful tax cut like Dole has proposed is just shunted aside, not sufficiently questioned, explored or expounded upon - or even treated with the mild interest befitting a proposal impacting individual American incomes - is thoroughly shocking to me.

Why is this the case?

As frighteningly hard as it may be to believe, has American culture become so accepting of the federal government's ever-expanding role in the economic life of the individual that the idea of a tax cut seems passe?

Perhaps, sufficient interest and discussion of Dole's tax cut has been pre-emptively explained away by the use of the familiar refrain echoed from the Clinton camp and others: that taxes cannot be cut due to the problem of the growing deficit on the national debt.

Taxes should be cut, and, concomitantly, government spending should be cut, as well. This will allow progress toward a balanced budget, and this is what the Dole-Kemp ticket has proposed.

In Dole's words, ``It's your money.'' And he is right.

I, for one, am impressed with Dole's economic proposal. And I am also heartened that a person of his character has chosen to run for president of the United States.

- Erika M. Shepler

Canoga Park

Clinton `wants to frighten people'

Regarding the Page One story Oct. 30 about President Clinton taking on hecklers:

How can the president not have noticed that Big Bird hasn't been taken away from 5-year-olds, school lunches haven't been taken away from 10-year-olds, jobs haven't been taken away from 15-year-olds, and college loans haven't been taken away from 20-year-olds?

The answer is simple: Clinton was lying - again. He was on such a roll, in fact, I'm surprised he didn't keep going and accuse Republicans of killing seniors and destroying our environment.

Why not? The Daily News, and no doubt other news media, gave this ridiculous diatribe front-page coverage, lending credibility to his lies and more publicity for his campaign. This president wants to frighten people.

Republicans in general, and Bob Dole in particular, haven't harmed ``Sesame Street'' or any other public television programming, needy children, job-hunting teen-agers or college-bound Generation Xers - but Clinton wants voters to fear they might unless we have him to ``save'' us.

Well, he's succeeded in frightening me. He is one scary, lying and untrustworthy politician.

- A.E. Hamilton

Simi Valley