Emerald Greene Parsons, emerald@greenepublishing.com
Official Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.
While some citizens like to wait until THE DAY to go cast their vote at the polls, others need to mail in their absentee ballots or they choose to go “early vote.”
We all have some very important decisions to make for the state of Florida: Florida Governor, US Representative, US Senator, State Senator, Attorney General, State Justices, etc. But, let’s not forget we have an important School Board Member local election to vote on, also.
The most confusing decisions, however, seem to be the pesky amendments that keep showing up every two years. The language in these amendments can be confusing.
Each amendment proposal needs at least 60 percent of the votes to be enshrined in the Florida Constitution.
Every two years, I read and research each amendment; and study the pros and cons. In some instances, my first initial “gut feeling” of a certain way to vote is changed after a long hard study of each one and what they will “give” or “take” as an end result. Sometimes, even though something sounds good on the surface, in the long run, it may not be what Florida truly needs.
Here are this year’s three Florida Amendments: spelled out; broken down; pros and cons listed; what supporters say is good about the amendment; what opponents say is bad about the amendment; and how I’m voting and why I’m voting that way.
Here are my recommendations:
AMENDMENT 1:
Limitation on the Assessment of Real Property Used for Residential Purposes
“Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution, effective January 1, 2023, to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit the consideration of any change or improvement made to real property used for residential purposes to improve the property’s resistance to flood damage in determining the assessed value of such property for ad valorem taxation purposes.”
In short, when you make major changes to a home, those changes can affect the assessed value of your property, causing it to go up or down. This amendment would prevent a property’s assessed value from going up because of improvements aimed at combating flooding.
Supporters that back this amendment argue that this will help Florida residents because of our storms and flooding potential in many cities. They say this MAY be offset by lower losses to state-owned insurance that have to cover flood damage across the state. They also argue there are already provisions in the state constitution that allow the legislature to exempt wind damage, property changes, or solar or renewable energy devices, from property assessments. This amendment creates the same exemption for changes that protect property from flood damage.
Opponents of this amendment say the passage of this amendment could have a negative impact on local revenues, while providing minimal savings to the homeowner. Others point out that property tax exemptions can shift the tax savings enjoyed by those who qualify to the other taxpayers in the jurisdiction since reductions in taxable property value put upward pressure on millage rates.
Both supporters and opponents use the following analysis: A 2021 Senate staff analysis said the amendment would reduce local government property-tax revenues by $5.8 million during the 2023-2024 fiscal year, with the amount growing to $25.1 million annually.
Supporters use this statement as a win scenario for the Florida taxpayers. Opponents use this scenario to show what fiscal impact the future lack of income to the counties and state will have on raising taxes and millage rates in other areas.
A YES vote - Authorizes the Florida State Legislature to pass laws prohibiting flood resistance improvements to residential property from being considered when determining that residential property’s assessed value for property taxes.
A NO vote - Permits flood resistance improvements to residential property to continue to be considered when determining that residential property’s assessed value for property taxes.
My opinion - VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1
My Reasoning: One of the problems here is the amendment attempts to legislate homeowners' intent to some degree. It presupposes all of those types of home upgrades would be made solely for the purpose of hardening structures against flood damage, when (some) homeowners might undertake them for a variety of reasons. Allowing “any change or improvement” to qualify for a tax break is an invitation to abuse.
Also, determining how much flood-related improvements would impact home values is highly subjective. For example, a homeowner might undertake a top-to-bottom renovation that includes some of the work contemplated by the amendment. After the renovation project is complete, it would be reasonable to expect the assessed property value to be higher.
But figuring out how much the flood-related improvements contributed to the overall increase in value would be tough to do.
This amendment is too vague (as are most amendments) and will only lead to more confusion and future problems. If this amendment is something that needs to be passed, then the supporters should go back to the drawing board and make it complete and detailed on what is tax exemptible and what is not! And then bring it back again in two years.
AMENDMENT 2:
Abolishing the Constitution Revision Commission
“Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission, which meets at 20-year intervals and is scheduled to next convene in 2037, as a method of submitting proposed amendments or revisions to the State Constitution to electors of the state for approval. This amendment does not affect the ability to revise or amend the State Constitution through citizen initiative, constitutional convention, the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, or legislative joint resolution.”
Supporters of this amendment argue that Florida is the only state that has a Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) that meets every 20 years. Calls to abolish the Florida Constitution Revision Commission came after the CRC referred eight amendments to the ballot for the election on Nov. 6, 2018, of which, seven were involved in lawsuits alleging they were composed of multiple subjects bundled into one or that their ballot language was inaccurate or misleading. Supporters of this amendment say that by abolishing the CRC it will eliminate one of the only methods of compounding amendments; and if the CRC is abolished, there would still be four ways to propose amendments to Florida’s Constitution (constitutional convention, joint legislative resolution, citizen petition, and the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission), all of which require voter approval. Supporters also say: That for the 19 years the CRC is not meeting, constitutional amendments can still be placed on the ballot, either by the Legislature or citizen initiative.
Opponents of this amendment argue that making it harder for citizens to amend the Constitution would concentrate too much power in the Legislature. Thus, giving the government even more control; and there has to be an ability for the People to bring issues to the voters that the legislature will not address or when the legislature does not act. Opponents also say that the answer lies more in requiring future CRC’s to only allow single-subject provisions, instead of “bundling” so many unrelated topics into one amendment (such as new ethics standards for public officials and a ban on greyhound racing, in one amendment; and a proposal to ban offshore oil drilling and indoor vaping, in one amendment). Opponents also state that while the CRC may not be perfect, we should work to improve it rather than scrap it.
A YES vote - Supports abolishing the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC). The CRC meets every 20 years to propose changes to the state’s constitution and refer them to the statewide ballot for voter approval or rejection.
A NO vote - Opposes abolishing the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC).
My opinion - VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 2
My Reasoning: I, too, agree that abolishing the CRC would give even more power to our state’s government and take away yet one more way citizens’ voices can be heard. However, I also FULLY agree that amendments should NOT be bundled. It has been proven time and time again that bundling amendments cause more problems than good (example: Marcy’s Law). However, I believe the solution is to work to improve the CRC and make requirements that only SINGLE amendments can go on the ballot – no bundling.
AMENDMENT 3:
Additional Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Specified Critical Public Services Workforce
“Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to grant an additional homestead tax exemption for nonschool levies of up to $50,000 of the assessed value of homestead property owned by classroom teachers, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, child welfare services professionals, active duty members of the United States Armed Forces, and Florida National Guard members. This amendment shall take effect January 1, 2023.”
This amendment would apply to classroom teachers, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, child welfare services professionals, active-duty members of the armed force and members of the Florida National Guard. Guards at private prisons contracted by the state or local governments would also be eligible. (However, support staff at school districts and law enforcement agencies would not.) Also not covered — the many police officers, teachers and others who rent rather than own their homes.
Under current law, homeowners can qualify for homestead exemptions on the first $25,000 of the appraised value of the property. They can also qualify for $25,000 homestead exemptions on the value between $50,000 and $75,000. Any higher property value is taxable.
With the amendment, homeowners in the targeted professions could receive an additional $50,000 exemption, which would apply to the property value between $100,000 and $150,000.
Supporters argue that those critical front-line employees included in the “Specified Critical Public Services Workforce” are in lower-income positions and will benefit from the additional homestead exemption. As home values and property taxes continue to increase, Florida’s critical front-line public employees deserve a property tax break.
Opponents argue that Amendment 3 represents a “tax shift” and not a “tax cut.” Reducing the taxable value of homestead property for one segment of property owners can increase the property tax burden for all other property owners. This includes owners of all non-homestead properties (e.g., businesses, rental properties, secondary homes, etc.) and homestead property owners who are not included in the “Specified Critical Public Services Workforce.” Opponents also say that county property appraisers would be forced to verify thousands, if not tens of thousands of applications, creating another unfunded mandate. If approved, the measure is expected to sap local government revenues by about $86 million a year, growing to $96 million in 2026; and taxpayers across the state would have to backfill the losses (another $3 million annually) in Florida’s poorest counties, which currently make up nearly half of the 67 total counties in Florida.
A YES vote – means you approve giving public service employees an extra exemption on property taxes. It will authorize the Florida Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption of $50,000 of assessed value on property owned by certain public service workers, including teachers, law enforcement officers, emergency medical personnel, active-duty members of the military and Florida National Guard, and child welfare service employees.
A NO vote - Opposes authorizing the Florida Legislature to provide an additional homestead tax exemption on $50,000 of assessed value on property owned by certain public service workers.
My opinion - VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 3
My Reasoning: First, I want it to be known that military personnel, law enforcement officers and first responders are ALWAYS some of the most respected people in my life. I also revere school teachers, because I would never be able to do the job they do, nor would I ever have the patience. School teachers are much more than teachers, they are also “parents” to children that have bad/no parents.
However, adjusting homestead exemption is not the way to support them!!!
I fully believe that every profession listed in this amendment deserves a pay raise, beginning with the employees that have been there the longest. Too many times, our governments are raising the starting salary (in order to attract more workers) but leaving the high-ranking employees still at the bare minimum, causing animosity and resentment.
By putting this amendment on the ballot, I feel the Legislature wants credit for helping the critical workforce, without actually doing anything meaningful. They could easily pass a pay raise just as well.
When giving one person a tax break (or something for free; such as free college or debt forgiveness), the tax burden gets shifted elsewhere. The (shifted) extra taxes on other businesses, renters, sales tax, etc. would, in fact, include members of the same targeted professions. Thus, it’s not really a savings, it’s just “shifted.”
More importantly, what happens when someone quits a job in one of those professions? Who is going to make sure they will not keep getting a tax break they are no longer eligible to receive? Who will be the “homestead exemption police” of this amendment? (Answer - It would be an “honor system” for each citizen to actually let their property appraiser know they no longer work in that designated profession. Thus, hundreds of thousands of tax dollar savings could be “stolen” each and every year.)
This amendment is too vague (yet again)!!! There are many holes in this thought process that do not have a definite answer and will cause many problems in the following years, if not answered/determined beforehand.