Ron Brown and Belle Haven Apts.

As the party with the most accurate knowledge of the history of Belle Haven Apartments in Prince George’s County, Md., and of its current operations, I must strongly object to the recent, unwarranted mischaracterization of the apartment complex in “Secretary of Commerce Linked to Slum Housing” (April 9). Belle Haven is a thriving apartment community, home to 250 families of mostly low and moderate income. The community is composed primarily of hard-working families who are a genuine aid to management in maintaining Belle Haven as a desirable place to live.

It is fair to say that Belle Haven is reasonably typical in age, physical condition and resident composition compared to many of the apartment communities in the Washington suburbs of Prince Georges County. To categorize this property as a “slum,” with numerous housing code violations, is completely inaccurate and highly unfair to the families who choose to make it their home. The property has no current outstanding housing violations and recently passed its biannual county housing inspection. In fact, Belle Haven Apartments was recently chosen by Prince Georges County as one of three area apartment complexes to participate in a demonstration transitional housing program. The property also supports an active outreach center, which serves the property and the surrounding community. LESTER D. SEVERE Executive Vice President

CT Management, Silver Spring, Md.

Your article reached a new low in journalistic distortion and half-truths. Your reporter questioned me extensively about Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s investments in partnerships involving our company. Dredging up select derogatory statements about me and then attempting to connect that information to Brown’s investment is clearly wrong. None of Brown’s investments involve HUD properties. My disputes with HUD do not involve Brown. I believe I am right in my position regarding HUD policy and that the criticisms of me are not justified by the facts.

The Belle Haven property involves us only as a limited partner. We have never had any say or involvement in management or any aspect of that property’s operation. This 276-unit property is 90% occupied by working families who pay rents of $495 to $725 per month. They receive no government assistance. Belle Haven does have financial problems and some physical needs, but it is not a “slum property.”

Brown did nothing wrong in this investment or his disclosure and your writers know that. A. BRUCE ROZET Associated Financial Corp. Los Angeles

Your recent articles on Brown’s investment in a partnership created by me are distorted and misleading.

In 1983, Brown made a passive investment in a partnership called Potomac Housing Fund. He was a limited partner (i.e., devoid of any managerial role). The partnership itself invested as a limited (i.e., passive) investor in an apartment complex in Landover, Md., a Washington suburb. Everything Brown received thereafter, whether status report or IRS Form K1, was captioned Potomac. Some reference might have existed to Landover, but Potomac was the partnership name. So, identifying the project as being in Potomac, Md. (also a D.C. suburb) was an unintended error of no consequence.

Brown is an honest and decent public servant. He deserves better treatment than you have given him. STEPHEN D. MOSES Los Angeles