San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
No one entitled to Supreme Court seat
In his Oct. 3 column (“Could Brett Kavanaugh’s anger actually be righteous indignation?”), Jonah Goldberg writes that perhaps Brett Kavanaugh feels “entitled to the job because, by all accounts, he is one of the most qualified judges in America and has spent a dozen years on the second-highest court in the country.” But being “qualified” entitles you to nothing. What if there are 10 qualified people? Do the nine who don’t get the job then get to explode in anger? If a black man and a white man are equally qualified but the white man gets hired by a white boss, do we then forgive the black man for exploding in anger against white people on national television?
The problem isn’t why Brett Kavanaugh feels entitled. The problem is that he feels entitled.
Tom Wood, San Francisco
Wrong temperament
A Supreme Court justice should be a mature, thoughtful, careful, respectful person. Brett Kavanaugh is none of those things.
Jim Heldberg, Pacifica
Realtors respond
The Chronicle is right (“Unequal proposition,” editorial, Sept. 20) when it says that building more housing is a key solution to the state’s affordability crisis. But backers of Proposition 5 strongly disagree with the newspaper’s opinion that the measure doesn’t provide tax fairness or address the shortage of homes on the market.
Baby Boomers in California who want to downsize from their three- or fourbedroom home, now that their children are gone, face a difficult choice. If they sell, they lose their longtime property tax protections and face a substantial “moving penalty” that could double or even triple their property tax bill.
Instead of moving to downsize and relocate close to their children, grandchildren or health care facilities, these empty nesters are locked into staying in a home that no longer suits their needs. That’s another reason California faces such a squeeze on affordable housing. These are homes that would be prime candidates for a young family looking to buy, creating stagnation in the marketplace.
Voters can address these problems and eliminate California’s property tax moving penalty by approving Proposition 5. It would allow people 55 and older to take their property tax protections with them when they move. That protection would also be extended to the severely disabled, and victims of natural disasters, such as the wildfires that ravaged 10,000 California homes last year.
Proposition 5 has been carefully written to ensure that these homeowners continue to pay their fair share of taxes. If, for example, a senior sells a house assessed at $300,000 for $700,000 (which is the amount the new owner’s property taxes would be based upon) and then buys a new home for $800,000, the new tax assessment would be on $400,000. That represents the difference between the sale and purchase prices that is then added to the original assessed value.
Proposition 5 would clean up confusing and inconsistent law. Ballot measures passed in recent years allow residents to keep their assessment, as long as their new home’s value is the same or less than their old residence. But they can do this only once, and only if the property is in the same county, or in one of 11 counties that specifically allow it. Proposition 5 would change that to allow those eligible to move anywhere in California’s 58 counties as many times as needed.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office, in projecting property tax revenue losses, did not examine the broader picture. It stands to reason that more home sales at a higher assessment would offset projected revenue losses. Those sales would also result in other economic activity associated with sales, such as payment of fees and housing renovation.
Many longtime homeowners are not moving for the reasons described above. We can change that with Proposition 5, which represents a good-faith effort to expand housing opportunities by removing the moving penalty that seniors, the disabled and disaster victims face.
Steve White, president, California Association of Realtors
Causes of window’s crack
Here are three things that might have caused an “exterior impact” to crack a window on the 36th floor of the city’s sinking Millennium Tower: (1) a highflying drone, (2) a low-flying UFO, or (3) the ghost of Herb Caen registering disapproval of what’s become of his beloved Baghdad by the Bay.
Arthur Leibowitz, San Francisco
Lawful men needn’t fear
President Trump says that it is a scary time for young men in America. Not so for young men who learn to and respect all people, including all women. Not so for young men who conduct themselves in accordance with law. And as to becoming a United States Supreme Court Justice, yes, such a nominee should be held to a much higher standard than any other young man, or woman, because he or she seeks to have others vote them to be one of the nine most powerful people on Earth for the rest of his or her life.
Henry Wirta, Corte Madera