SF Chronicle letters re Prop 13

Wednesday June 12, 2013, p. A11; Letters to the Editor in Open Forum

Letter 1: "Prop. 13's devastation," by Garth Keehan, Concord

"I have a problem with Jon Coupal's vision of fairness (c.f. "Protect CA businesses, protect Prop. 13" in Open Forum, June 7).
Prop 13 protects long-term property owners by shifting the burden to newer owners.  Neighbors can pay tax rates that differ by a factor of 10 (see the previous post, documenting a neighborhood with a factor of 17).  He implies that Prop. 13 protects business, but it's really about landlords.  Most small businesses rent their space, and commercial property rarely changes hands.  (Why sell when your tax rate is locked in forever?).  The cost of everything increases, including commercial property rents, but not commercial property taxes....
The most devastating aspect of Prop 13 is the two-thirds requirement for any tax increase.  Two-thirds of Californians agree on nothing.  Wealthy areas occasionally raise a local tax, poorer areas never, helping to create permanently under-performing schools and students.
Prior to 1978, California had the best roads, state parks, schools, low-cost university, and outlook toward the futures.  Take a good look now, Mr. Coupal.

Letter 2: "The proposition had no supermajority", by Revan Tranter, Berkeley

in "The Man who started an uprising" (Open Forum, June 7), James Lacy gets a significant thing wrong:  Prop 13 did not "pass 2-to-1 statewide".  It received only 64.8% of the valid votes cast.  The irony of this is that a measure requiring a two-thirds vote to approve local tax increases couldn't even manage to achieve that vote itself.    Surely it's time for a constitutional amendment requiring that any ballot measure handing power to a minority, by mandating a supermajority, must itself demonstrate such a level of support.