I work in Florida real estate. I want homeownership to be attainable, property taxes to be reasonable, and families to be able to remain in the homes and communities they have worked to build.
That is precisely why I am uncomfortable with Florida Realtors’ campaign for Amendment 3.
The association’s argument is appealingly simple: costs are rising, property taxes are part of those costs, so cutting property taxes will make Florida more affordable.
Its campaign promises to “Lower Your Property Taxes,” “Make Homeownership More Affordable,” and “Keep Money In YOUR Pocket!”
Those are good political slogans. They are not yet a fiscal policy.
Amendment 3 would increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments beginning in 2029. It would also cut the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5% and require the Legislature to create a uniform procedure allowing counties and municipalities to increase homestead exemptions still further, potentially to a home’s full assessed value.
The question is not whether lower taxes are desirable in the abstract. The question is whether a statewide constitutional formula is a sensible way to govern a major part of local finance in one of the largest, fastest-growing and most economically diverse states in America.
I do not think it is.
Florida is not one housing market — or one community
Pensacola is not Miami. Miami is not Ocala. Orlando is not Tallahassee. A rapidly growing suburban county facing major road, stormwater and public-safety needs does not occupy the same fiscal position as a small rural county with slow growth. An older coastal municipality maintaining aging infrastructure has different needs from a newly incorporated community.
Florida’s constitutional tradition of home rule recognizes that reality. Many public questions are best answered closest to the citizens who bear both the benefits and the costs.
Yet Florida Realtors’ own campaign acknowledges the central problem with its statewide solution. Asked about local-government budgets, the campaign concedes that “the impact will vary by community” and that each city and county will have to evaluate its own budget and priorities. It then argues that uncertainty about those decisions should not prevent the state from acting.
That strikes me as exactly backward.
If the fiscal impact varies substantially by community, that is an argument for preserving meaningful local discretion, not for placing a substantially more restrictive statewide tax structure in the Constitution.
A constitution should establish durable rules of government. It should be approached cautiously when asked to function as a tax code.