To the editor: With all due respect to urban planner William Fulton, does he honestly think it would be easier to convince the voters to take on $100 billion in additional bond debt to pay for infrastructure rather than convince those same voters to close the loopholes in Proposition 13? (“California relied on growing to pay for its needs. What happens now that it’s not?” Opinion, Feb. 27)
Unlike the U.S. Constitution or the Bible (also sacred texts in California), some of the framers of Proposition 13 are still alive and can tell you there were loopholes found by the lawyers and accountants for the wealthy that have major implications for state revenue.
It is not the lowered taxes paid by homeowners; it’s the failure to reassess the taxes on commercial properties that leaves the largest hole. That, along with the ability for families to rent out inherited property and not pay market-rate taxes.
I am not against growth. But before we take on more debt to fund infrastructure, let’s at least try to modify a working system.
Jeff Heister, Chatsworth
