Readers React: The question Prop. 13 opponents don’t answer: How do you expect seniors to afford rising tax bills?

To the editor: Some of us old people can remember when and why Proposition 13 was voted into law in 1978. We were warned about seniors and other homeowners in similar situations being forced from their homes because of wildly fluctuating property tax bills.

Without Proposition 13, the property taxes on my house could have jumped to almost $40,000 a year by now if they floated based on the assessed value of my house. My wife bought this home in the late 1970s. Since 2011, taxes would have jumped from around $8,000 per year to that amount.

Should we be forced to move from our home simply because our retirement funds won’t allow us to cover a tax bill so high?

Reggie Kenner, Manhattan Beach

..

To the editor: After years of inaction by the California Legislature on rising property taxes, a frustrated electorate voted for Proposition 13 in 1978. Even today, property owners view their artificially low home values almost as a sacred inalienable right.

Extraordinarily low assessments can now be passed down from parents to children, their children and so on through generations. Seniors can transfer their low assessments to new properties under limited conditions, but the California Assn. of Realtors wants to expand those conditions based on “helping families” get a home.

Young people, who are shouldering the property tax burden in California, need to take action to get us away from this regressive system. They should contact their legislators about this and ask lawmakers to do something constructive to help them.

Steve Grimm, Long Beach

..

To the editor: I suppose op-ed article writer Conor Friedersdorf has read about the origin of Proposition 13. However, he clearly has no personal recollection. There was really only one reason it passed: inflation.

As inflation took off, so did property taxes. Homeowners on fixed incomes, having planned on stable money (which was all they knew), were overwhelmed with bills they could not pay. (For those who don’t remember or never knew, today’s money is only worth a dime on the dollar. In 1972 gas was usually 35 cents a gallon, a new Corvette could be had for $6,000 off the lot, tax and license included —true story).

One distortion (inflation) led to another (Proposition 13) and probably many others. Inflation is the most regressive form of taxation.

Bob Wieting, Simi Valley

..

To the editor: Proposition 13 does create some inequities, but Friedersdorf’s assertion that the law makes it harder to become a homeowner is wrong.

As he reminisces, he should revisit the passage of the California Environmental Quality Act in 1970. Local agencies, opposition groups and NIMBYs have used this legislation to stall, dilute and even stop development, driving up housing costs for everyone.

New homes are taxed at current market rates, and a home’s value is reassessed when it is sold. While there are always a number of concerns, from a tax standpoint cities are highly incentivized to approve new housing.

Tim Mayeda, Yorba Linda

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook