The continued drumbeat for property tax reform is reflected today on our Commentary page where a civic leader and a state legislator advocate dramatic changes in the system. No question local tax increases around the state in this reassessment year have triggered an explosion of protests. But caution also is in order. Some of the relief proposals that are being floated are so polarizing, particularly those tied to constitutional amendments, that their advocates risk dooming any real chance of reform.

There is one straightforward idea that could provide substantial homeowner relief without even requiring a constitutional change. That proposal would increase the state sales tax by 2 percent with the money earmarked as a new source for funding education.

Unlike other local governments, school boards rely exclusively on the property tax to supplement the money they get from the state. In Charleston and Berkeley counties, for example, big hikes in school budgets, coupled with reassessment, hit many taxpayers particularly hard this year.

The new sales tax funds would be used to supplant much of the local school tax paid by homeowners, which represents more than half of most countywide tax bills. Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn F. McConnell, a strong advocate of homeowner relief, tells us that from a legal standpoint it does appear owners of single-family dwellings still would have to pay the debt service on previously issued capital improvement bonds.

That legal point is only one of many that must be carefully considered when lawmakers start trying to revolutionize the most basic form of taxation in the state. The state constitution is very clear in its requirement that property be assessed at fair market value for tax purposes.

Previous efforts by lawmakers to tinker with that requirement through state law rather than allowing voters to decide if they want to change the constitution have been struck down by the state Supreme Court. Most legislative leaders now seem to acknowledge that sweeping reform would require constitutional changes. But it takes a super majority to put such proposed changes on the ballot. Proposals that would take away long-standing property tax authority from cities and towns are in for some rough sledding.

The fact is that the state constitution makes education a state responsibility. A good argument can be made - indeed a judge hearing a school financing case may soon dictate - that the state should pay the entire education tab. The proposed increase in the state sales tax to supplant the property tax is a justifiable move to relieve the homeowner's tax burden.

But a House proposal to take away the right of cities and counties to impose a property tax on residences is a far different matter. Under that plan, money from an increased sales tax would be sent back to local governments on a formula basis. According to our report, Sen. Hugh Leatherman recognized the political appeal of the idea. But he also recognized the pitfalls. 'I have real concerns,' he said, 'about taking over city and county financing.' As well he should.

Education is a clear state responsibility. The constitution says so. Running cities and counties is not a role for the state Legislature. Past legislative efforts to parcel out money to local governments have been mired in politics and bizarre formulas.

We don't doubt that there will be some sort of constitutional amendment on the November ballot aimed at altering the fair-market-value test of taxing real property. But that may not be as easily sold to the voters as some lawmakers now seem to think.

There is a fail-safe, time tested way to provide reassessment relief that worked until a decade ago when it was repealed by the General Assembly. State law used to force local governments to roll back taxes to be virtually revenue neutral in reassessment years, a provision that would have prevented the kind of school tax increases seen this year in many counties. But for no good reason, lawmakers revised that law to allow local governments to increase their budgets in reassessment years if they held public hearings.

That was a mistake that can be easily remedied and that would resolve much of the reassessment-year pain.

Lawmakers who are aiming for more sweeping reform would also be wise to look at what is legislatively attainable next year, without reliance on major constitutional changes that conceivably could go down in flames at the ballot box.