Voting Under Prop. 218

The Times is right (“California Serfdom,” editorial, Aug. 27). Let’s get rid of Prop. 218 and go back to the system on assessments we had before--a system in which only property owners could send in a protest vote (if they were lucky enough to even learn about the proposed assessment); a system in which the votes were weighted, usually according to acreage (rather than according to the amount of tax the property owner must pay, as Prop. 218 requires); and, oh yes, a system that counted a lack of response from the property owner as a “yes” vote in favor of the assessment.

Prop. 218 is friendly to taxpayers. Why didn’t we ever read a Times editorial against the old, biased in favor of government assessment system?

JOEL FOX, President

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

Los Angeles

*

Recently, Torrance had a mail-in ballot election on whether a local fee district for street lighting should be continued. I was not surprised to find that we were having an election on this issue, as that is what the proponents of Prop. 218 specifically stated would happen. However, I was shocked to discover that the parcel owned by my wife and myself was allocated one vote.

I do not consider it to be a vote of the people when two people have to share the same ballot, as is now the case with community property in California. As it was, my wife and I agreed that the fee district should be supported, and the single ballot allocated to us was returned, having been marked accordingly. However, if we were not in agreement, how would that have been counted, other than to not return the ballot, or to return the ballot with the vote of only one of the property owners? This is a very disagreeable situation, only amplified by the fact that the ballot had my name on it! Secret ballot guarantees, indeed!

CHRISTOPHER D. COURTER

Torrance