Officials Deal With Prop. 218 Changes

I do not understand the argument contained in the editorial about the “unfortunate passage of Prop. 218,” Nov. 19.

Prop. 218 won by a 13% margin. It was supported by 30% of the state’s registered voters. Is there an assumption that 70% of the voters opposed this issue? Why isn’t it an equally [plausible] conclusion that if more voters had turned out, the 13% margin would have been maintained or possibly increased?

Does it not make sense that the people who own property should have some greater ability to prevent the increase in their taxes for the benefit of those who do not pay property taxes?

JAMES D. LIA

Los Alamitos

* The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. may have had a hidden agenda--privatization--when it drafted and then succeeded in getting Prop. 218 passed. By requiring majority or two-thirds votes for new general or special-purpose taxes, respectively, Prop. 218 has the effect of forcing cities, counties, school districts etc. to search for new sources of funds. Local governments and agencies may eventually need to delete some services to remain financially sound.

Who will then provide those services? Private companies!

GERALD M. BORDIN

Del Mar

* Regarding possible curtailment of library services due to Prop. 218, a $10 annual user fee would not be unreasonable, students excepted.

BARBARA SNADER

Los Angeles

* Life in Los Angeles would certainly be easier for our politicians and bureaucrats if they could put a clamp on the public’s predilection for sticking their noses into things that don’t concern them. Like when the majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of Prop. 218. Waiting in the wings is an aroused constituency ready to take to the streets carrying banners bearing such legends as “Implement, Don’t Circumvent.”

JOSEPH DENKER

Studio City