Opinion: Amendment 3 is appealing, but likely comes at a high cost
Key Points(5)
- While most Floridians are focused on the highly competitive races for governor and the U.S.
- 3 general election, there is another ballot item of critical importance that voters should pay close attention to and try not to overlook: Florida Amendment 3.
- The amendment has distinct implications for the cost of living for Florida homeowners and the revenue budgets of just about every county and city in the state.
- Amendment 3 is a proposed constitutional change to Florida’s property tax system.
- If passed, meaning it receives approval from at least 60% of Florida voters, it would increase the state’s homestead exemption.
While most Floridians are focused on the highly competitive races for governor and the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 3 general election, there is another ballot item of critical importance that voters should pay close attention to and try not to overlook: Florida Amendment 3.
The amendment has distinct implications for the cost of living for Florida homeowners and the revenue budgets of just about every county and city in the state.
Amendment 3 is a proposed constitutional change to Florida’s property tax system. If passed, meaning it receives approval from at least 60% of Florida voters, it would increase the state’s homestead exemption. The exemption for property taxes on a qualifying primary residence would rise to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments afterward.
The annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties, including rental and commercial properties, would fall from 10% to 5%.
The amendment would restrict how property tax revenue is used while allowing some additional exemptions and leaving important spending decisions to local governments and state lawmakers.
The school property tax exemption would not increase in the same way, so homeowners would continue to pay school property taxes.
Supporters of the amendment claim Florida homeowners need relief from rising property taxes. A larger exemption could reduce the tax burden on eligible owner-occupied homes, while the lower assessment cap could help businesses and other property owners manage future increases.
On the other hand, opponents argue that local governments depend on property taxes to fund police, fire rescue, emergency services, roads, parks and other services. Lower revenues could lead to service reductions, higher fees or pressure to raise other taxes. The amendment does not guarantee a minimum level of funding for police or fire departments.
An important distinction is that a reduction in property taxes does not necessarily mean an equal reduction in a homeowner’s total cost of living. The ultimate impact depends on the tax savings, changes in local services and whether other fees or taxes rise.
According to a poll commissioned by Associated Industries of Florida, a business organization with an interest in the issue, as of Oct. 14, there was strong support for the amendment, with 53% saying they would vote yes and 28% saying they would vote no. The remaining 19% were undecided.
The critical point is that Florida requires 60% approval for a constitutional amendment to pass, not a simple majority. The reported 53% support is therefore seven percentage points short of the required threshold.
Over the next three weeks, undecided voters are certain to be relentlessly targeted by campaigns seeking to persuade them to support or oppose the amendment. Are these voters undecided because they cannot make up their minds about whether to take advantage of the property tax savings and keep more money in their pockets, or whether to be concerned about losing local services?
Opponents, in their campaigns, are suggesting that the savings are overstated because they depend on the assessed values of homeowners’ properties and local tax rates, and because school property taxes would remain. They are also questioning who would bear the cost of the revenue reduction. Local governments might have to reduce services, increase fees or adjust taxes elsewhere. The amendment does not guarantee that public safety budgets will be preserved.
For homeowners, immediate tax savings could be meaningful, but the longer-term effects on municipal finances and other taxpayers also deserve attention.
Once a constitutional amendment is passed, reversing it is not easy. Doing so would require another constitutional amendment approved by at least 60% of voters.
In the current difficult economic climate, property tax savings can be very appealing to voters. But should those savings come at the expense of vital services provided by local governments?
Because some of these services are essential to most Floridians, and the amendment’s proponents have not provided a meaningful explanation of how municipal services would be funded, this newspaper finds it difficult to support the measure.
