Dear Editor,

Ron Paul's suggestion, that we stop assessing property on a regular basis, strikes me as one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. He proposes it as a solution to protect the elderly from rising property taxes. It might do that -- but it would offer far greater "protection" to the large property holders -- that is, the folks who own city lots and city blocks, which are likely to appreciate far faster than the lot on which a modest home is located on the fringe of town. Further, it places the burden of paying the taxes which provide the services which make property within a district valuable on the backs of the newest homeowners, who have already paid the previous owner a hefty sum for the right to occupy that site, and then must pay a mortgage lender for the next 30 or 40 years.

No, frequent and honest assessments are the fairest way to share the burden of the costs of government services justly among those whose property appreciates wildly and those whose property appreciates more slowly. Doing otherwise is unjust.

Will a few elderly people find themselves needing to downsize from the homes in which they raised their families? Yes, quite possibly. Their heirs may be saddened at the prospect of not inheriting that valuable property. But it isn't simply the property taxes that cause them to need to move. It is also the cost to maintain, clean, cool and heat those too-large homes.

Attributing that to property taxes alone is a lie. It is known as "hiding behind the widow's skirts." (Check out this site for more on that, including a Winston Churchill riff on the subject!) That kind of lie accrues to the benefit of big landholders and speculators, the folks who own choice city sites.

If you still think Mr. Paul has a good idea, take a look at California's experience with Proposition 13. Their realtors have stopped issuing the housing affordability index, which used to come out monthly. At year end, they announced it would become quarterly. First Quarter never showed up, and Second Quarter hasn't yet either. But if you had to report that only 14% of households had sufficient income to pay the mortgage and property taxes (at 1%) on the median house (putting aside whether or not they also had the 20% down payment the calculation assumes!), you'd probably turn to doing golfing fundraisers for housing affordability too! 14% was the year-end figure, and some counties were lower.

Texas, don't go there. And other intelligent states should not either.

Wyn Achenbaum
Stamford, CT