Placing a tax on property has always been the most consistently reliable method of financing local government operations, especially schools. But politicians know that voters loathe property taxes. And this year, they are under seige in Georgia.

Proposals to freeze or end property taxes altogether are dominating the 2008 General Assembly. Gov. Sonny Perdue wants to end the minuscule tax that the state levies on property, a measure that is likely to encounter no opposition. House Speaker Glenn Richardson, meanwhile, has a more sweeping measure —- wiping out property taxes for schools and replacing them with an increased state sales tax. While Richardson's fellow legislators are understandably reluctant to do something so drastic, his proposal at least has the merit of supplying a method for making up for some of the revenue that schools would lose.

Other proposals wouldn't do that. The Georgia Senate last week swept two measures through the upper chamber that, if approved by voters, would freeze the assessed value for residential property at 2008 levels and cap any future increases to the rate of inflation or no more than 2 percent or 3 percent annually. One of the bills would extend the freeze to nonresidential property as well.

If that measure becomes law, it could cripple the ability of schools, cities and county governments to keep pace with growth and demands for services. It will also be patently unfair to new homeowners.

Under the plans, next-door neighbors in homes of equal value would face different tax bills —- depending on who purchased his house first. In effect, new homeowners and businesses must finance all the growth of government services —- paying significantly higher tax bills to make up for the years in which the property increased in value but taxes for the former owners stayed frozen.

The revenue flow used by cities and counties for basic services —- putting more cops on the street and keeping criminals in jail —- will be jeopardized. Municipal officials will be left with no other choice but to raise millage rates to make up for lost revenue.

Compounding the problem for school districts is this: They are already restricted by state law to millage rates below a 20-mill ceiling. All the large metro Atlanta school districts are already bumping up against that limit or —- in the case of Atlanta, DeKalb and Decatur's systems —- well past it. (Those districts were exempted from the ceiling when it was enacted.)

Proponents of caps on property assessments claim that they are needed to protect taxpayers from "back door" tax hikes, the result of increasing property values. When that happens, governments collect more in taxes without raising the millage rate.

But there is an exisiting mechanism —- voted on by several metro counties already —- to deal with that. In some counties, voters have approved a "floating homestead exemption." It mandates that county officials must roll back tax rates each year equal to the amount of the increased value of homes. The counties can only keep their existing rates or raise them after advertising their plans to do so.

Voter antipathy for property taxes is understandable. The assessment process is, by its very nature, both subjective and subject to abuse. Fulton County's problems with accurate and timely reassessments in recent years forced the state to intervene in order to clean up the mess.

But in most counties the process is carried out fairly and efficiently. And the burden caused by property taxes in Georgia is relatively low compared with other states; 30 states saw per capita property taxes go up faster than Georgia's from 2000 to 2005, according to the nonprofit Tax Foundation.

Still, in an election year, politicians find denouncing property taxes irresistible. The question voters need to ask is, by restricting how much revenue can be raised by them, what services would they like to do without?

Mike King, for the editorial board