Challenge to Proposition 13

What a pity that Macy’s, which had the financial muscle to do so, has fled the battlefield, leaving a lady like Stephanie Nordlinger, alone and unafraid, to join the battle (“Prop. 13 Fighter Seeks a Fair Shake,” June 30). We have learned that Proposition 13 is a mixed blessing, at best. Curiously, the largest body that voted against it was the vast array of state and local government employees who envisioned less money becoming available to pay them under Proposition 13. The reverse has occurred, which is why Ms. Nordlinger is in court.

We’ve lost sight of the fact that historically property taxes were based upon how much money the county needed to function throughout the year. Proposition 13’s purpose was to curb the county supervisors’ appetite; but applying the proposition’s terms not only generated unfair inequities between similar, similarly located properties’ tax obligations but it defeated the basis that the tax is to be determined by need. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize that inequities are unfair and unconstitutional, while giving due consideration to the curbs that were the well-intentioned characteristics of Proposition 13.

OLIVER BERLINER, Beverly Hills