Calls to Revamp Prop. 13

* A survey of Californians who know the provisions of Prop. 13 would show far wider support for it than you acknowledge in “Calls for Prop. 13 Revision Gain Momentum” (March 14). You write, “Now, even its most ardent backers are conceding that it went too far.” But the only statement from a clearly pro-Prop. 13 source--Joel Fox, past president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.--is that the Jarvis group could favor a constitutional amendment to ensure that property tax collections don’t go to Sacramento. That doesn’t say or imply that Prop. 13 “went too far.”

Prop. 13 is in the best tradition of representative government, as is the initiative process. Prop. 13 was passed because state legislators would not give voters what we wanted: a cap on tax rates that were threatening ownership of our homes. Under Prop. 13, state government is representing the will of the people.

FRED GROH

Los Angeles

* Prop. 13 was a bad idea, and it has reaped exactly what it sowed: loss of local control and revenues for local services, switching billions of dollars to Sacramento. Term limits is a bad idea and unconstitutional too. If you don’t want someone in office, don’t vote for him, but don’t take away my right to vote for whomever I choose. Government by initiative is the king of bad ideas.

But the juxtaposition of these three bad ideas may actually be producing some good--even if it’s only to get rid of one of the bad ideas: Prop. 13.

ROBERT D. McCONNELL

Manhattan Beach

* We should be cautious as we look to amend Prop. 13. The local governments were very crafty in the years since its passage in trying to gain access to tax dollars through other means, such as auto registration fees. All of us should remember that the hidden benefit of Prop. 13, beyond a stabilization of the growth of property taxes, was that it forced the local governments to run their operations with fiscal responsibility.

LARRY ZINI

Camarillo