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
Comments