One of the most striking things about Florida’s Amendment 3 is that almost everybody who’s actually studied this plan thinks it’s a bad idea.
Read more Thanks to vouchers, Orange’s private school enrollment soars
Fiscal watchdogs and Wall Street Analysts. Sheriffs and first responders. Republican and Democratic leaders of cities and counties both rural and urban.
The proposal is billed as a tax cut, but will actually jack up housing costs for millions of Floridians.
And it was so poorly thought out — rushed through a 48-hour special legislative session without analysis — that even fiscally conservative groups that normally promote tax breaks have said this one’s flawed.
I think everyone instinctively likes a tax cut. I sure do. And I’d theoretically benefit. But my children’s housing costs would likely skyrocket, as would that of millions of other renters in Florida who are already struggling to make ends meet.
If it passes, some homeowners would end up paying zero property taxes for police services — yet still expect first responders to come running in an emergency.
In some ways, the proposal appeals to people who want something for nothing. Yet it also appeals to Floridians understandably frustrated by rising costs of living. I can hardly blame a family struggling to pay its bills for grasping at a proposal that might give them some breathing room.
Republicans in Tallahassee know you’re frustrated. But they didn’t want to tighten their own belts. So they advanced this plan to force other governments to make cuts while Tallahassee politicians continue spending as they please.
But don’t take all this from me. Listen to what others have to say about this proposal to increase the homestead exemption from $50,000 to $250,000 for all non-school taxes on owner-occupied homes over the next three years.
Defunding the police
Amendment 3 is the largest “Defund the Police” proposal ever advanced in Florida. That’s why sheriffs — mainly Republican ones — have been leading opponents.
Seminole County Sheriff Dennis Lemma described the impact as “devastating,” saying his office’s staffing would be cut and responses to 911 calls would be delayed.
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said it will “endanger public safety.” Judd said GOP legislators conducted “zero fiscal analysis” before passing the bill and that property taxes aren’t most people’s main problem. “My insurance is sky-high. My fuel is sky-high,” he said last week. “None of that has to do with ad valorem taxes.”
Florida sheriffs, firefighters slam property tax amendment as a ‘train wreck’
No taxes for some
If Amendment 3 passes, many homeowners would pay no property taxes at all for police and other local government services. And some of those houses could actually be worth $400,000 or $500,000.
Why? Many long-time owners who locked in “Save Our Homes” caps on tax increases long ago have homes that are now worth half-a-million dollars yet “valued for taxation” at $250,000 or less. Estimates show some small cities would have as many as 90% of all owner-occupied homes paying no taxes for non-school services if this passes.
So who pays? Renters
Money doesn’t grow on trees. It has to come from somewhere. So if counties are banned from collecting it on many owner-occupied homes, they’ll start collecting more of it from apartments and rental homes.
Read more Christa Pike’s lawyer says she has not regained consciousness since her failed Tennessee execution
While your typical homeowner might save about $1,100 a year by 2028 under Amendment 3, an analyst from the right-leaning Tax Foundation estimated that corresponding tax increases on rental units would drive up costs by $406 a year for apartments and by $1,081 on rental homes.
That’s why many describe this as a tax “shift” rather than cut.
Fiscal watchdogs object
Among the fiscally conservative groups that studied Florida’s Amendment 3 and concluded it’s misguided are the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and Florida TaxWatch. A trio of Wall Street analytical groups, including Standard & Poor’s, also concluded it would hurt government credit ratings throughout Florida.
Institutional support for this amendment has come from only two main quarters — the Florida Realtors and Republican politicians in Tallahassee who wanted to offer a tax cut they wouldn’t have to pay for.
Some cities will fold
Even GOP legislators who back this amendment acknowledge some cities will flat-out cease to exist if this passes.
While big, urban areas will still have plenty of businesses and apartment complexes to tax, some bedroom communities and rural counties will lose the bulk of their taxable property base. And if you can’t pay for a police or parks department, you can’t have one.
The Palm Beach County administrator predicted “multiple municipalities will fold” there. Some lawmakers estimate 100 Florida cities would have to shutter their police departments altogether.
Property tax amendment could force multiple cities to fold in Palm Beach County, administrator says
A better way
I genuinely believe some people in this state are overtaxed. Especially first-time homebuyers who don’t have “Save our homes” tax break locked in and pay triple the taxes that long-time homeowners pay. But this will only worsen that disparity.
A better solution would be a comprehensive overhaul of the tax structure in this state — one that would help all residents, but especially those who need it most. Right now, Floridians face above-average sales taxes, high gas taxes and the most miles of tolled roads of any state in America. (In addition to high property taxes in many instances.) Meanwhile, fewer than 5% of Florida corporations pay any corporate taxes at all. A more equitable solution would be to equal out the tax burden.
This proposal pits homeowners against renters while tax-dodging corporations laugh at the both of them.
Endorsement: No on Amendment 3. It’s a recipe for disaster
Also no on 1 and 2
Since so many people have asked, I’m also voting no on the other two amendments — Nos. 1 and 2. The Sentinel’s editorial board did a more thorough job Wednesday of explaining why it finds these two amendments flawed. But in short …
No. 1 is theoretically about putting more money into a “rainy day fund.” But it’s an unnecessary attempt to wedge a hyper-specific budgeting rule into the state constitution. It could tie up money needed for serious problems now so that politicians later spend it for questionable reasons. For those reasons, opponents of Amendment 1 include both the AFL-CIO and Gov. Ron DeSantis … an institution and politician who rarely agree on much else.
No. 2 is a tax break that would primarily benefit big ag companies. It’s the kind of lobbyist-designed break that benefits only one industry, bypassing thousands of other industries and small businesses that wouldn’t get squat. Most constitutions don’t include such things.
One last reason to be skeptical of all three amendments: None were placed there by citizens. All three financial schemes were crafted by the politicians in Tallahassee — who often try to obstruct amendments authored and passed by you, the citizens of this state.
Read more He’s blind, and he’s called Rays baseball on the radio for 3 decades
Endorsement: Vote “no” on Amendments 1 and 2