So, the N.J. Senate proposes asking voters if they want a constitutional convention to overhaul the property tax system. Seems like a no-brainer, at first. The unending hue and cry for relief ought to make that clear. But it could be dangerous.

If what is decided is not true reform but merely is a reworking, a modification, of the present system, then any anticipated relief for the taxpayer will be short lived, while the new system will be enshrined in our constitution. That is a dangerous outcome.

Those beleaguered by oppressive property taxes may wonder how the outcome of a convention could result in anything but an improvement. The answer is simple: the property tax could be allowed to remain as a source of tax revenue. That would not be an improvement, it would be tragic. A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get rid of an anachronism will be wasted.

This concern points to what should be the topic of the debate: is the property tax a fair tax at all? That is, should the property tax ever be used as a source for any government revenue?

If we start with the presupposition that the property tax is sacrosanct and only can be modified and not eliminated, we have already lost the purpose of reform, to bring fairness to a tax system which is inherently unfair and unjust. It victimizes those least able to bear the burden.

It is most disconcerting to see the various tax reform groups each trying to come up with solutions which invariably include the property tax. Why? It is a system that only worked when people earned their income from the property they owned. We no longer do that as a society.

My neighbor may make 10 times what I do, but pays essentially the same property tax as I do. Where is the equity there?

Those who want to continue the present system must show how it is actually fair and just. They must prove why it is indispensable. They cannot win that argument. But the danger is they may win the day.

Another danger in a proposed convention is that those put on as delegates would likely be from the politically connected. Instinctively, they will be committed to the idea that we cannot eliminate the property tax.

They are also likely to be those who are relatively wealthy and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

They may not say "let them eat cake," but that does not mean they are not out of touch with those of us who struggle to get by. Their tune might be different if they were paying 10, 20, 30, even 40 percent of their income in property taxes, as do many. But they do not, and so cannot even conceive of the inequity of this system.

The only good thing that could possibly come out of a constitutional convention on property tax reform would be if it were declared unconstitutional at all times and in all forms. It is a simple solution. Then the legislature would have to come up with alternative funding for all government services, for schools, municipalities and counties. But they could not turn to the property tax.

A constitutional convention to address the property tax system presents an opportunity to truly reform it. But without a conclusion that includes elimination of the property tax, it will mean the attempted goal was not reached and the endeavor was a failure.

John C. Hendrickson is a resident of Red Bank