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 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 inform you there have been loopholes discovered by the attorneys and accountants for the rich which have main implications for state income.
It isn’t the lowered taxes paid by owners; it’s the failure to reassess the taxes on industrial properties that leaves the biggest gap. That, together with the flexibility for households to hire out inherited property and never pay market-rate taxes.
I’m not in opposition to 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
