To the editor: With all due respect to city planner William Fulton, does he actually suppose it might be simpler to persuade the voters to tackle $100 billion in further bond debt to pay for infrastructure somewhat than persuade those self same voters to shut the loopholes in Proposition 13? (“California relied on rising to pay for its wants. What occurs now that it’s not?” Opinion, Feb. 27)
Not like the U.S. Structure or the Bible (additionally sacred texts in California), among the framers of Proposition 13 are nonetheless alive and may let you know there have been loopholes discovered by the legal professionals and accountants for the rich which have main implications for state income.
It isn’t the lowered taxes paid by householders; it’s the failure to reassess the taxes on business properties that leaves the most important gap. That, together with the power for households to lease out inherited property and never pay market-rate taxes.
I’m not towards progress. However earlier than we tackle extra debt to fund infrastructure, let’s at the least attempt to modify a working system.
Jeff Heister, Chatsworth
