Prop. 13’s Impact on California

Re “20 Years Later, Prop. 13 Still Marks California Life,” May 26: Prop. 13 came into being because onerous property taxes were putting people out of their homes. I was one of them. My taxes were more than my house payment and scheduled to double at the next reassessment. Property taxes had no relationship to your ability to pay them. Today’s home buyers know what they will pay in taxes. There are no ugly surprises.

Prop. 13 was not a good law, but unresponsive legislators ignored the pleas for relief. It was their selfish interests that led to this situation, not the voters.

JOYCE FRANCISCLO

Manhattan Beach

*

Everything has a cost. My modest gain in tax savings under Prop. 13 was paid for by a shift in the property tax burden from industry to homeowners, increased taxes on my kids, school economics dependent on a lottery, a police force inadequate to its task, the transfer of mental patients from hospitals to jails, part-time libraries and potholes in the streets. It was, and is, penny-wise and pound-foolish. It also clearly illustrates that P.T. Barnum was right.

ARTHUR YUWILER

Woodland Hills

*

A quote from your article: “Does your car bump from pothole to pothole on ragged city streets? Blame it on Prop. 13.” Have you forgotten the gas tax we all voted for to fix the potholes? I believe it was five cents a gallon. It passed with flying colors because we were so anxious to have the roads fixed. Our officials like to blame Prop. 13 instead of the bureaucratic government waste.

PATRICIA GURAK

Malibu

*

The May 25 editorial, “The Legacy of Prop. 13,” was right on the mark. In the early ‘70s, property values were rising, and taxes, at a rate of 2%-2.5% of value, were becoming onerous even before the rapid increases in property values in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. Every year the Legislature promised tax reform but couldn’t reach an agreement. Assessor Philip Watson backed a reasonable, revenue-neutral property tax initiative, which was voted down when the Legislature promised a better alternative but failed to act. This resulted in Prop. 13 (a poorly written initiative) becoming the public’s only choice.

Prop. 13 has allowed many middle-class senior citizens, who today could not afford to buy the homes they purchased 30-40 years ago, to maintain their standard of living. Eventually, these homes will be sold and taxed at current values.

A rarely addressed problem is the redevelopment districts that freeze the tax base in certain areas, supposedly temporarily but in practice forever, giving politicians huge off-budget tax dollars to use for pet projects. These districts deprive cities and school districts of millions of dollars.

(I was a deputy assessor from 1957-’80.)

GARY A. ROBB

Los Angeles

*

As long as Sacramento can periodically declare a substantial budget surplus, and so long as our state legislators approve pay increases for themselves, all seems to be well in California. So why even think of tampering with Prop. 13?

GORDON L. FROEDE

Los Angeles