This November, voters have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment to fundamentally change property taxes in the state. At the urging of the governor, the leadership of the Florida Legislature passed the ballot language using the flawed premise that property taxes were the largest pain point for Florida homeowners, instead of the real culprit, which is property insurance premiums.
A lot of the property tax hubbub comes from the influx of new Floridians who move to the "free state of Florida," pay three times the national average for property insurance, and then compare their annual property tax bill with their similarly housed neighbors' and learn they're not paying the same amount. In fact, the newer Floridian could be paying significantly
more.
Amendment 3, as the proposal will appear on ballots across the state, asks voters to agree to change the homestead exemption codified in the Florida Constitution from the current $50,000 tax exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 by 2028. As an example, if a home has a taxable value of $400,000 today, the homeowner would pay tax on $350,000. If the amendment passes, the taxable value would become $150,000 in 2028.
But those new Floridians who are paying more now won't be eligible for the new exemption until they've homesteaded their property for a minimum of five years, making the gap between neighbors even greater.
The question voting homeowners have to ask themselves is not just what they might be "saving" but what it will cost in terms of the services that will no longer be available. Property taxes pay for essential services, and while the proposal defines which essential services are allowed to continue to be paid with property tax revenues, it does not offer a plan to cities and counties that lose more than the cost of those essential services ― like police officers, firefighters, emergency medical services, 911 operators, public hospitals, road maintenance, and storm water infrastructure.
Let's remember that local governments are limited on how much they can increase millage and what alternate ways they can charge for services. Then there are other services that will have their funding eviscerated, like parks, libraries, garbage pickup, after-school programs, veterans' services, and senior programs. I don't know about everyone, but I know I don't want to have to negotiate the cost and frequency of my garbage pickup as an individual.
The need for all those services does not evaporate along with the funding. Most communities will need to find new ways to charge for those services through fees and assessments. If you do the math, understanding that school taxes will stay intact, and homeowners will likely pay differently for the remaining services, is there a worthwhile savings? Are we being offered a tax break or is it really a tax shift?
While we all want our local governments to be efficient and effective stewards of our tax dollars, this proposal dictates the reduction with no plan for the shortfall and no solution to the many small and rural communities that will lose their entire source of funding, leaving property rich communities, businesses, and non-homesteaded owners paying the price.
Remember the adage, "When you fail to plan, you plan to fail?" That's the summary of Amendment 3. Are there improvements needed to the property tax structure? Undoubtedly. But Amendment 3 is undoubtedly not the answer.
Kelly Skidmore is a Democrat, representing the 92th District in the Florida House, which includes portions of unincorporated Palm Beach County west of Boynton Beach, Delray Beach and Boca Raton.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Amendment 3 won't improve Florida's tax structure | Opinion
