Column on Prop. 13 splits readers

About 300 readers responded to David Lazarus’ Jan. 9 Consumer Confidential column, “We can’t afford Prop. 13 anymore.” Most took him to task for suggesting that legislators rethink the 1% cap on property taxes, even for commercial properties. But many others supported the idea. Here is a sampling:

--

Right on, partner! Remove the Prop. 13 tax shield on commercial property. It shouldn’t have become law for such property in the first place. This is the tax on the rich that is needed. This state houses half of this nation’s billionaires and multimillionaires. Make them pay or run them away as they are not doing the state all that much good anyway. Great column, Mr. Lazarus, you make my heart sing.

D.J. Ponder

Torrance

David Lazarus couldn’t be more wrong! I am not sure what special-interest group he has crawled out from behind, but he certainly does not have the best interest of the California homeowners and taxpayers at heart.

To change the one law that allows most citizens of California to remain homeowners to benefit the free-spending politicians is just wrong. To push a larger burden on homeowners would only succeed in helping cause more homeowners to default on their obligations.

Marilee Terrell

Irvine

Your recent column is an affront to hardworking and retired Californians. Prop. 13 was adopted to make homeownership possible by having predictable property taxes over time.

The problem is the deficit, high taxes and out of control spending, not revenue.

R.H. Warren

Santa Barbara

I agree with you completely about Prop. 13. I opposed it from the beginning. I supported Prop. 8, which separated business property from residential so that corporations would have to pay market value no matter how long they stayed put.

Though we have owned our Beverlywood house since 1971, and pay very little property tax, I think the situation is completely unfair.

I don’t know how it could be done, but I would be delighted to see Prop. 13 repealed and a more equitable system put in its place.

Julie May

Los Angeles

Commercial property should not come under Prop. 13. Sure, the increase in taxes would be passed on to consumers, but what tax isn’t? The consumer always ends up paying the tax.

The answer is controlled spending. Wow! What a concept!

Richard A. Martin

Rossmoor

David Lazarus’ column was a winner. Back in 1978, there was a Prop. 8 on the ballot that my husband and I voted for because it was solely for residential property. Howard Jarvis had such a smoke screen blowing at the time that completely overshadowed the difference between the two propositions.

Unfortunately, Americans are crybabies about taxes. And Schwarzenegger is a “girlie man” for not raising taxes instead of putting us in such tremendous debt.

Nan Lewis

Los Angeles

I read your article. It makes sense. It really does. But I still don’t think that getting rid of Prop. 13 would make things “fair.”

I’m one of those people who bought my house 11 years ago, so I do enjoy the benefit of paying property taxes based on a price that is at now at least one-third of the current value.

We bought this house, knowing what we could afford, and are able to stay here because of that.

Can you imagine, in the midst of this sub-prime mortgage mess, adding volatile property tax bills on top of it all?

Deborah Lopez

Agoura Hills

As a native Californian, and longtime homeowner, I opposed Proposition 13 in 1978 and voted against it.

While I have benefited from its implementation over the years, I always thought it unfairly shifted the tax burden to new homeowners and deprived the state and local governments of the tax revenue needed to provide the services that all of us demand from them.

Stephen Hutchinson

Glendale