California faces great danger if proposition 13 protections are removed. Mostly on homes, where we have our most personal needs met.

This state has faced great economic trial in most regions. I urge you, Governor Edmund G. Brown, to please re focus in tax reduction or at least current level maintenance; additionally so, in taking inflation into accounting.

I urge you to not increase taxes on home owners. In Sacramento legislation, not removing protections would deserve great gratitude statewide, and, my personal compliments. I understand that you are unfortunately looking to tax increases through the courts at this time. That is a mistake.

According to Wikipedia, the view was stated (with regard to public pension projection in 30 years) that pension reform is already now part of your task and agenda. Budget concerns for families – the engine of our state, could be augmented if homeowners are to be perpetrated against most personally, by increased property taxes beyond the current 1% tax rate on property:

Separate of that, with pension reform, you are evidently implementing (it was said by a third-party, in a view about this, that “Part of the funding gap is self-inflicted. As a soaring stock market gave pension funds surpluses around 2000, CalSTRS joined the California Public Employees Retirement System in raising pension benefits and lowering contributions.”-Wikipedia. That is a tabulated fact also.

We desperately need to get back on track, to raising contributions among members of public employees, to a level that would follow such corrective measure in response to the Wikipedia reference quoted just above. Such corrective measure should not severely harm the state property owners however, via any property tax increase in addition to, by any relative logic and fairness. “In the future, we advise policymakers to avoid changing pension contributions or benefits based on any short period of strong investment gains,” the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said in a report on CalSTRS funding last year.:-Wikipedia. I agree. Further, in your own administration’s words, printed on the proposed budget:
[The governor’s proposed budget said “school districts and community colleges should anticipate absorbing much of any new CalSTRS funding requirement” because retirement benefits are part of compensation.]-Wikipedia. We agree with you on this quote governor… however you should treat CalSTRS in the same fashion with regard to remedy as you have Calpers.

No one said governing was easy. I know every governor tackles budget and I understand that. Staying within means and not raising property taxes as you promised before; nor removing the legal protections that protect property owners, is a first course of action. Pension support beyond 30 years is important too, but secondary, due to the fact that projections (some of your own) show another 30 years of solvency, and that so as a minimum figure. That’s quite a long time. By comparison, CA families would be out of a home, after small tax increases with regular cost of living inflation within less than one year! We need priority today, and well into 30 years from now.

Tax protections are not only a sound tradition in our state. Other action has brought other states down before into troubles. The tradition is also a barrier against wild expenditure. Do we not see that? Particularly after the housing crisis of recent years with banks and speculation? Are we supposed to allow for property tax to increase? No! Furthermore, CA residents are the reason we legislate. We are those who also innovate beyond red tape, as other places call us on, and we are those who need your protection. Most of ‘we’, are not the ueber wealthy groups who in terms of capacity, could afford property tax hikes with liquid assets. No; in fact, state legislators need to think of the majority class, if CA is to stay out of more severe problems in the near and late future.