1000 Friends of Florida, a statewide organization advocating conservation and sustainable growth, has publicly announced its opposition to Florida’s property tax measure, Amendment 3.
Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Legislature have placed an initiative on the Nov. 3 general election ballot that would raise the homestead exemption on primary residences from $50,000, as it is now, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. If passed by 60% of voters, it will significantly impact traditional revenue of local communities.
In a news release, 1000 Friends of Florida said the elimination of Florida’s property taxes would “sharply reduce” local revenue that supports infrastructure projects such as roads, public safety, parks and conservation while “offering limited and unevenly distributed relief to homeowners.”
Projecting roughly $5 billion in revenue losses in the first year and $12 billion by the fifth year, 1000 Friends said that a single, statewide law will unfairly impact less affluent rural areas and full-time, homesteaded residents.
“To close the gap, local leaders could be forced to cut essential services, drain reserves, raise taxes on non-homesteaded properties and add or increase sales taxes and fees,” the group said. “Slashed city and county budgets would shrink funding for local and regional planning – which directs public investment where communities need it – along with affordable housing, parks and green spaces that protect Florida’s water supply, rivers and wildlife.
Paul Owens, president of 1000 Friends said that if passed, Amendment 3 would threaten the quality of life for Floridians.
1000 Friends also said Amendment 3 may slash revenues for the five regional water management districts responsible for flood control, water quality and Everglades restoration.
“Credit rating agencies have warned they may downgrade local governments if the measure passes, making borrowing for infrastructure and conservation land more expensive,” the group said.
Misleading language?
1000 Friends also said that the amendment’s ballot summary does not clearly convey the amendment’s consequences to voters. On Aug. 3, a Tallahassee judge said the same in an order stemming from three consolidated lawsuits challenging the amendment.
According to the Tallahassee Democrat, Circuit Judge David Frank wrote in his order: “Specifically, (the) Constitution and (state law) require this Court to … determine whether the language fairly informs the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment and does not mislead. They fail both prerequisites and must be rewritten.”
Attorney General James Uthmeier now must redraft Amendment 3’s title and summary language. It will need no less than 60% approval from voters statewide to be added to the Florida Constitution.
In his order, Frank wrote that he title – “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes” – “is more akin to a political slogan. It is not fair or neutral. It advocates a policy position: to stop excessive property taxes.”
Among his many issues with the summary, he wrote it “sets forth three political taglines – ‘Ensuring funding for core services,’ ‘Protecting small businesses,’ and ‘Ensuring fairness for Florida residents’ – giving reasons why voters should vote for the proposal.”
“But the purpose of a ballot summary is to explain what an amendment would do, not to advocate for its adoption,” he added.
Information from an article by Jim Rosica of the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida was used in this report.
This article originally appeared on St. Augustine Record: Conservation group warns of the risks from Amendment 3.