To the editor: With all due respect to city planner William Fulton, does he actually assume it might be simpler to persuade the voters to tackle $100 billion in extra bond debt to pay for infrastructure somewhat than persuade those self same voters to shut the loopholes in Proposition 13? (“California relied on growing to pay for its needs. What happens now that it’s not?” Opinion, Feb. 27)
In contrast to the U.S. Structure or the Bible (additionally sacred texts in California), a number of the framers of Proposition 13 are nonetheless alive and might let you know there have been loopholes discovered by the attorneys and accountants for the rich which have main implications for state income.
It’s not the lowered taxes paid by householders; it’s the failure to reassess the taxes on industrial properties that leaves the most important gap. That, together with the power for households to hire 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 a minimum of attempt to modify a working system.
Jeff Heister, Chatsworth
