Let me make one thing perfectly clear, hopefully once and for all: By state law, millage must be rolled back to ensure there is no increase in the total property revenue to a county or city due to periodic reassessments [of real property].

Stopping periodic reassessments is a change in the property tax code that is not covered by The Sun News editorial statement ("Greasing squeaky wheels," Aug. 4): "Any change in the property tax code would have a ripple effect across every local government budget and the entire state budget."

Ending the need for reappraisals would lower county expenses and thus should lower property taxes a bit. Current state bills also would remove the need for reappraisals upon sale required by current law, by having homes reassessed at the sales price. There is no surer and fairer assessment of ability to pay and fair value.

Any increased taxes that people living in any home, including a "$49,000 inland double-wide," have to pay is because of the increased cost of government - in Horry County, primarily the increased infrastructure required by population growth.

Periodic reassessments merely shift a greater share of the burden of growth to businesses and higher appreciating homes - including owner-occupied homes that require no added public facilities or services. Owners of these last do not necessarily have an increased ability to pay; they are the focus of one state bill, H3264.

Especially those older than 65 and the permanently disabled who must live within a fixed budget cannot, necessarily, qualify for and pay for an increased mortgage to pay their taxes and might have no choice but to sell their home. Stopping periodic reassessment of permanent resident homeowners older than 65, and the permanently and totally disabled, by amending the current homestead exemption provisions, is what state bill H3183 proposes.

As the S.C. Constitution allows the legislature to change the homestead exemption, bill H3183 would be supported by the courts. It would certainly stand a better chance of court approval than H3264, which exempts only owner-occupied residences, so all classes of properties are not treated equally as required by the constitution. The latter bill might well end up simply making legislators look good to their constituents while allowing them to blame judges for overruling them.

Just laws are based on right or wrong. As it is, dollar increases in the taxes on homes valued greater than $100,000 receive no protection from the property tax-reduction act. So that act already disproportionately taxes those with higher-value homes and encourages immigration of those with a lower income who frequently require more public facilities and services. Should laws strive to protect our permanent residents from losing their homes that require no additional public facilities or services or should we further subsidize lower value homes that already require more public facilities and services than their taxes cover?

The General Assembly should at least pass bill H3183, which exempts homes occupied by those older than 65 or totally and permanently disabled from periodic reassessments alone or with any other bill it may propose stopping periodic reassessments. Bill H3183 protects those with the least ability to pay and is the one most likely to receive court approval.