The head of Audubon Florida makes a case against the proposed tax cuts on the November ballot.
From rural communities to Florida’s largest cities, from the Keys to Pensacola, Floridians are universally angry about sprawl. Poorly planned development is gobbling up habitat for wildlife and the farms that grow our food, straining water supplies, snarling traffic and forever changing the face and character of our communities.
And if you think it is bad now, it will be so much worse if Amendment 3 on this November’s ballot passes.
During a three-day special legislative session called by the governor in June, a majority of the legislature voted to place this amendment on the ballot to dramatically lower property taxes for many homeowners. They approved it without a complete economic analysis, meaningful committee discussions to explore unintended consequences, or adequate opportunity for public input.
The State’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research has now completed an analysis of the impacts to city and county budgets across the state—in the first year, the hit to local governments will be $5 billion. Five years out, it will be an annual shortfall of $12 billion.
Faced with a budget shortfall of this magnitude, cities and counties would have to make hard choices, and few services would avoid reductions. Many could be eliminated entirely. As a result, Amendment 3 is opposed by a broad coalition of groups ranging from police, sheriffs, hospitals, libraries, local governments, and even fiscal responsibility watchdogs like the nonprofit Florida TaxWatch.
At Audubon, we are especially concerned about the grim implications of Amendment 3 for sprawl, water and parks.
Floridians alarmed by the prospect of sprawl going from bad to worse should vote No on 3
Over the last 15 years, the Legislature has been systematically dismantling our state’s ability to fight sprawl, first by abolishing the state Department of Community Affairs in 2011. Nearly every year since, the Legislature has further restricted the ability of cities and counties to reject bad development proposals. Amendment 3 would deal a final blow by taking away the local revenue needed to employ planners, engineers, environmental specialists and other staff who review development proposals. Development applications will not stop coming because local governments have less money. State-imposed approval deadlines will not become more flexible. Local staff will simply have less time to consider traffic, flooding, water supplies, wildlife habitat and the effects on neighboring communities before those deadlines run out. Without enough staff for rigorous reviews before approval time clocks run out, Florida’s sprawl problem will go from bad to worse.