What homeowner doesn’t like the sound of a property-tax cut? More money in the bank account. A little breathing room.
Here’s the catch: Amendment 3 doesn’t make the cost of local government disappear. It changes who pays for it. The “tax cut” is likely to become a tax shift, the kind of decision we usually regret, like a drunk text or a bad karaoke video. But a constitutional amendment can’t be deleted. This one’s permanent — a face tattoo, not a haircut.
Amendment 3 would increase the homestead exemption to $150,000 next year and $250,000 in 2028. That shields a lot more property from non-school taxes. The amendment would blow a $12 billion hole in local government budgets.
Some of you already see the danger. Maybe you support tax cuts, just not this rush job. Maybe you see it as a power grab, with Tallahassee deciding how your city spends. You understand that local government can’t do “more with less.” When money disappears, so do services — or your tax rate goes up.
Defeating this slipshod proposal will take a coalition. That means showing a wide range of voters how they might end up on the wrong side of the ledger.
Here are five groups who should pay attention:
1. Owners of higher-value homes. Consider two homeowners: Sara’s home is worth $250,000 for tax purposes. Next door, John’s home is worth $750,000.
Under Amendment 3, Sara pays essentially nothing for non-school property taxes. John pays on $500,000 of his home’s value — $750,000 minus the boosted exemption.
Now suppose their county needs to raise the tax rate to replace some of the lost revenue. Sara remains protected. John isn’t; he still pays on the remaining $500,000, and at the higher tax rate.
Great for Sara. Not so good for John, or any other homeowner who owns a home not fully exempted.
That can make government services feel artificially cheap to Sara. Why wouldn’t she insist on more police and parks and better sewers and flood protection when she isn’t really paying for them — John is.
2. Landlords. Their rental properties remain taxable.
The amendment does reduce the maximum annual increase in value for certain residential and commercial properties from 10% to 5%. That’s a real benefit. But landlords don’t get the $250,000 shield provided to homeowners.
If a county wants to make up some of the revenue lost from now-exempted homesteaded property, the landlord’s property remains fully in the tax base, while much of a homeowner’s has been removed.
That’s a straightforward tax shift.
3. Renters. Some landlords will eat the cost of higher taxes. Most won’t. They will raise rents instead.
If local leaders replace lost property-tax revenue with higher fees, assessments or utility costs, renters could pay those costs, too.
And roughly a third of Floridians rent, and many already feel financially maxed out. That’s a lot of people who should be wary of Amendment 3.
4. Owners of vacation homes. Owners of vacation and second homes don’t get the $250,000 exemption either. They’re still fully on the tax hook and an obvious target for governments looking to fill budget holes. You might not have much empathy for anyone fortunate enough to own a vacation home. But remember this is about building a coalition. Everyone is welcome as long as they have a reason to oppose Amendment 3.
5. Supporters of local control. Local leaders know your parks. They know your flood zones. The overlords in Tallahassee don’t. Amendment 3 hands them more power anyway.
Many other reasons exist to vote no. Amendment 3 increasingly taxes property based on legal status and ownership history, not its actual value. It also cements the tax cut in the Constitution — but how could we knowthe state’s fiscal needs in coming decades? And the latest iteration does little to prevent large cuts to public safety, one of the reasons the Florida Sheriffs Association, the Florida State Fraternal Order of Police and the Florida Professional Firefighters all oppose the amendment.
Florida needs to make living here more affordable, and property taxes are a legitimate part of the conversation. But Amendment 3 isn’t the answer. It’s less of a tax cut than a bill with a blank space for who gets to pay. Before you vote, ask whose name that’ll be.
Read the full column by Graham Brink, the Viewpoints Editor for the Tampa Bay Times.