School Bond Proposal

* Professor Peter Navarro’s analysis of Gov. Pete Wilson’s school bond proposal is befuddled at its best and subtle extreme environmentalism at its worst (Commentary, Jan. 10).

To suggest that a developer will knowingly eat costs is to suggest that a developer will knowingly agree to eliminate profit or incur loss. Such a entrepreneur will have a very short career. Home builders typically work on a 10% profit margin. On a $300,000 house, a potential profit of $30,000 can disappear very quick if you “eat costs” in any part of the development process, and most certainly if you add the costs to the sales price, resulting in an overpriced property. Fees to build just one home in some parts of California are now in excess of $30,000. In my opinion, that is far too high.

As a businessman and as a public official, I’ve always believed that long-term capital improvements and infrastructure should be financed on a long-term basis as long as the debt service can be prudently and conservatively managed. California can easily afford to make this long-term investment for its kids. Wilson should be commended for his leadership and political courage to suggest that one small piece of Prop. 13 might be changed with voter approval.

JOHN SEYMOUR

Indian Wells