Related: Amendment 3: Power struggle?
Readers of The Coastal Star have often commented to me that they appreciate our balanced news coverage. I pray you take this column as a discussion of the merits of a plan, not the politics behind it.
Five months ago our governor put forward a plan to rapidly raise the homestead exemption over the next few years, saving homesteaded taxpayers money and drastically cutting the tax revenue of every town, city and county in the state. It gained traction, and a variation of the governor’s idea got onto the November ballot as Amendment 3, requiring 60% voter approval to pass.
In theory this rewards people who choose to call Florida their full-time home and shifts the tax burden onto tourists, renters and snowbirds. But the plan calls for the state to have more control over taxes, taking away control from locals. This could basically end home rule on tax rates as we know it.
Claims of tax abuse
The idea also claims to be a way to end local tax collection abuse. I was having a hard time finding a local example of overt tax abuse, until news broke in September that the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office has used more than $6 million in recent years to bring back 41 retired and loyal department heads at inflated “salaries” after they already had generous pensions in place. The sheriff now says he is ending the program in October. No wonder residents think there is tax waste.
For Amendment 3
The Florida Realtors political action committee has set aside $10 million to promote Amendment 3, with its president saying that Floridians need “meaningful relief” from the high cost of living. So far the Realtors is the only organization to put money into this campaign. It’s hard to argue about the needs of each home-buying family, but what about the communities they live in?
Against Amendment 3
Palm Beach County Administrator Joe Abruzzo calls Amendment 3 “a blatant gut punch to local government.”
Some municipalities wouldn’t survive the loss of revenue and the county would have to take over running them and take on their debt, he says.
“Knowing the impact to first responders, the impact to county services and what it will mean to residents has kept me up at night,” Abruzzo said.
Against the plan are most of the city and town managers in The Coastal Star communities, plus dozens of county and state agencies that serve health, educational and safety needs.
Eroding home rule
Our cities and towns are well run by professional staffers, and they are directed by our neighbors: the mayors, council members and commissioners whom we elected.
One way we enjoy local control of our taxes is in how much is spent on public safety.
I live in Ocean Ridge, and we choose to have more police per capita than in most other small towns. Shouldn’t we be able to control what we spend on ourselves?
Amendment 3 would strip away too much local control of tax spending. Do we want to erode home rule, let the state set a standard on spending, and see what kind of public services we get? No thanks.
What to do?
It’s hard to argue that saving Florida residents money on their tax bills is a bad idea. I would love to see our state, county and local governments find ways to spend less of our money on things we don’t need.
Amendment 3 would reduce taxes for some, but it would create more chaos than many of Florida’s towns, cities and counties could handle.
Vote no, and let’s come back after the election and look for better ways to improve accountability.
— Jerry Lower
Publisher
Replies
COASTAL STAR EDITORIAL REBUTTAL
To the editor:
The publisher asks readers to treat his September 30 column as a discussion of merits, not politics. On the merits, the case for voting no does not hold.
Amendment 3 does not hand millage rates to Tallahassee. It raises the homestead exemption on non-school taxes, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, for owners who have made Florida home for five years. Cities, towns, and the county still set their own rates, still choose their own priorities, and still answer to the neighbors who elect them. A smaller tax base is not the end of home rule. It is a limit on how much of a primary residence can be taxed. Calling that a state takeover confuses a constitutional exemption with a loss of local authority.
The same edition of this paper undercuts the claim that coastal governments are already at the breaking point. Ocean Ridge held its rate at $5.40 and still expects about $1 million more because values rose. Gulf Stream kept $3.67, the rate it has used since 2021, and bills will still be higher. Highland Beach held its rate for a fifth year, and most owners will pay more. Delray Beach raised its rate over the mayor’s objection. South Palm Beach held its rate and cut the bill only because values fell. That is not a portrait of towns stripped to the bone. It is a portrait of revenue that has grown with assessments, and of commissions that have not had to cut.
The Ocean Ridge police example makes the same point. A town that wants more officers per resident can still tax, still budget, and still hire. What it cannot do under Amendment 3 is treat the first $250,000 of a full-time resident’s home as if it were a commercial parcel. In towns where taxable values commonly run far above that figure, the exemption is a share of the bill, not the disappearance of the bill. Renters, snowbirds, and commercial property remain on the roll. Schools are outside this exemption. The specter of towns dissolving into the county is a prediction, not a demonstrated result.
The column’s own example of waste cuts the other way. More than $6 million in recent years went to rehiring retired Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office department heads on top of pensions already earned. The program is ending only after it became public. That is the record of the system the publisher wants preserved while everyone agrees to “look for better ways” after the election. There is no ballot mechanism in that promise. There is only the same budget process that funded the double dip.
Relief for full-time homeowners is not a favor to Realtors. It is a correction for people who live here year round, carry the homestead, and have watched taxable values and bills climb while rates were held flat and described as restraint. Voting no keeps that arrangement in place and postpones accountability to a conversation with no deadline.
Amendment 3 is a blunt tool. Blunt is not the same as chaotic. The alternative on offer is another cycle of rising assessments, flat rates, and a pledge to revisit spending later.
Vote yes on Amendment 3!
Make them stop wasting our hard earned money. It’s always easy to spend other people’s money.