PROP. 88 TAXES ARE UNTENABLE BURDEN.

Byline: JON COUPAL

IF David and Goliath were alive today, they would likely take time out from their battle to cast a ballot against Proposition 88. So, too, would the feuding Hatfields and McCoys. Such is the diversity and unanimity of opposition to this ill-conceived tax increase.

Proposition 88 on the November ballot would raise property taxes. This tax would be imposed by the state and would be in addition to the local property taxes that homeowners already pay. Considering that

10 million property owners would face higher property taxes if

Proposition 88 passes, it's easy to understand why all the taxpayer advocacy groups oppose it.

But there's more.

Proposition 88 creates a whole new kind of statewide property tax. Currently all property taxes are collected locally and are used for local services, such as improving local schools, reducing traffic congestion and improving health care. The Proposition 88 property parcel tax goes to the state.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why the League of Women Voters recommends voting no.

The promoters of Proposition 88 claim it would help education, but the nonpartisan state legislative analyst says only 1 percent of noncharter schools and one-quarter of charter schools would be eligible to apply for facilities grants from the measure's proceeds.

This helps explain why education interests such as the state PTA, the California Federation of Teachers and the California School Boards Association oppose Proposition 88.

To start out, Proposition 88 would impose a uniform $50 parcel tax on all parcels of property, regardless of value or the owners' ability to pay. But Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell has already declared his support for doubling the tax in four years and adding another $50 every four years after that. This helps explain why the California Labor Federation, the California Republican Party and the California Democratic Party all say no. Proposition 88's new taxes would not only injure taxpayers but would also make California businesses less competitive. That could fuel an exodus of jobs and taxpayers and severely damage the state economy and state tax revenue.

That's probably why California business is not taking the threat lightly. The California Chamber of Commerce, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, the Small Business Action Committee, and the California Business Properties Association are urging rejection of Proposition 88.

They say politics makes strange bedfellows, and when you have Democrats and Republicans, business and labor, education and taxpayers all opposing Proposition 88, it shows that these diverse interests do, in fact, share many common values.

Just like all Californians, they want better schools for our children, good value for taxes paid and fairness in taxation. And on each count, Proposition 88 is an abysmal failure.

And those in favor of Proposition 88? < In addition to Jack O'Connell, there are only two ultra-wealthy, elitist, Silicon Valley charter-school advocates. Reed Hastings, whose company Netflix rents DVDs over the Internet, and John Doerr, a billionaire venture capitalist, have put up $9 million to advance their effort to raise taxes that will fall disproportionately on homeowners of modest means. The added tax burden on the mansions of Hastings, Doerr and their wealthy friends will be no higher than that which will fall on a couple buying a starter home.

If Proposition 88 passes, it would compel Californians to pay to advance the public policy visions of these tax-raising dilettantes. Promoters of Proposition 88 must think we're stupid.