After 14 years of debate, it appears that State College Borough may never have a fair housing proposal acceptable to everyone.

The newest housing ordinance draft is intended to be simple, avoiding all the red flags that scared or angered people in the past -- but student leaders in favor of an all-inclusive ordinance and some council members are still unhappy.

The proposal, designed by the Community Development Block Grant Citizens Advisory Committee, does not include a list of groups that are protected from discrimination. It states that an individual can only be denied housing because of "a negative past rental history."

Last summer Mayor Arnold Addison vetoed a fair housing ordinance narrowly passed by council because it failed to protect gay men and lesbians as well as marital status.

The new ordinance, by not listing whom it protects, is designed to protect everyone, say its supporters, such as Councilmen Peter Lang, Gary Wiser and Bill Welch.

"As far as I am concerned (the proposed ordinance) would cover gays and vegetarians and you name it," said Welch.

However, others say the ordinance is simplistic and needs to be spelled out more.

Councilwoman Jean McManis, a supporter of the all-inclusive bill said: "My main concern is lack of definition."

"It certainly would be a comfortable out, but I think we have some serious problems of vagueness," she added.

Still others, such as Councilwoman Ruth Lavin, who came under controversy last year when she proposed the ordinance vetoed by Addison, refused to comment until tomorrow night's meeting when the proposal will be discussed.

"There are other things in this community besides fair housing," she said.

The new ordinance will not apply to owner-occupied buildings containing three units or less or buildings designed for use by the elderly. Also, the legislation would allow landlords to deny leases to people with pets.

Councilman R. Thomas Berner said the new ordinance, like its predecessors, is eliminating special housing projects that could be beneficial to the community, such as those aimed at middle-aged people.

"It seems to me that the last group being discriminated against in this town is students; they have no trouble getting apartments," he said.

The recent proposal's biggest problem is its lack of definition, especially in defining whom are to be considered elderly people.

Welch said it is not uncommon for this problem to occur in rough draft proposals and that these problems will probably be ironed out before it is passed by council.

Carl Hess, borough planning director, said, "I have a feeling we are going to end up adding a definition section . . . it may not mean eliminating (certain groups), it may just mean spelling out."

Some student leaders who have long been supportive of an all-inclusive ordinance would like to see something bolder on the books but realize the current draft may be the strongest one they will get.

"I'm not really supporting it but it's better than nothing," said Jeff McCarty, co-director of the Lesbian Gay Student Alliance. "It is going to be open to interpretation forever," he added.

Ron Marlow, Undergraduate Student Government Senate President, voiced similar concerns.

"I support the ordinance if it does provide the protection that its proponents claim it does. But it just seems a little too simplistic," he said.

The borough stands to lose its Community Block Grant from the federal Housing and Urban Development department if it does not adopt an ordinance at least mirroring the federal guidelines which do not protect gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

This year the borough will receive $558,000, which can be used to help finance human, public and housing service programs, Hess said.

Addison said if this bill passes through council, he would not veto it, but would make sure the groups protected are included in the meeting minutes for reference.

It is doubtful the new proposal will pass but the council might be able to put the issue behind it by passing a slightly modified version.

"I think it is a sign that we are growing up as a community that we are even discussing this," Hess said.

Although a council vote tomorrow is possible, Hess said a final decision is unlikely. Any citizens who wish to comment on the proposal may do so, he added.