Increasing the Homestead Exemption

[Charles Hunter]

Putting it here so I don't lose it
The link to see what effect the stupid law will have on your property taxes
https://www.propertyexemption.com/save-our-homes-amendment/

I get a message that flashes for about a half-second that says they don't have a record for my address. Am I unique, or is this a Duval County thing? I tried the addresses of six family members, and only two came back with the savings. Tellingly, they say the School Tax amount is unchanged. It doesn't appear the governor's campaign website (any tax dollars in this thing?) takes into account existing Save Our Homes assessment limits.

[jaxoNOLE]

My address returned results that looked fairly accurate.

Nevertheless, this issue--which is a valid topic for policy debate--has been co-opted into a MAGA extremist position I can't support as a conservative. It's deeply disappointing, because it poisons the well for good faith conversations on the merits of limited government.

I've voted for multiple tax increases locally and watched those dollars largely get pissed away. So at a personal level, I understand the anger. But I also recognize this gambit for what it is, and hope it doesn't pass. Because the honest way to cut taxes is for council to reduce spending, and then pass a millage cut. But it's less accountable for them personally to let the State dictate terms, and then play victim.

As an aside, it's extremely unfortunate that Deegan has to take a "pro-tax" stance heading into re-election. Republicans will pounce, regardless of the fact they too want the funding available for police and fire (MURICA!  And all that).

[Charles Hunter]

My address returned results that looked fairly accurate.


As an aside, it's extremely unfortunate that Deegan has to take a "pro-tax" stance heading into re-election. Republicans will pounce, regardless of the fact they too want the funding available for police and fire (MURICA!  And all that).

But, the language of the amendment lists "Public Safety" as the first of the seven "only used for" uses of the proceeds of ad valorem taxes. Public safety are: law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical service. So, funding for police and fire (and EMTs) is guaranteed.

The full list, from Article VII - Finance and Taxation, Section 9 - Local Taxes

(a) (2) Ad valorem taxes levied by counties and municipalities shall be used only to:
a. Provide for public safety, including law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical service;
b. Provide funding for education and public schools;
c. Finance or refinance infrastructure, including expenditures on road and bridge construction and maintenance and stormwater control;
d. Finance or refinance natural resource projects, including flood control measures;
e. Issue local bonds for uses consistent with this paragraph and to make debt service payments for existing
obligations;
f. Meet obligations for retirement benefits of local government employees; or
g. Fund the operations and administration of county officers and commissioners established under Article VIII and municipalities, and the expenditures approved by such county officers or county or municipal governing bodies, except those expenditures prohibited by general law.

None of that 'woke' stuff like feeding the hungry, housing the unhoused, providing and maintaining parks or the arts, development incentives, sports stadiums, and so on.

[Ken_FSU]

My address returned results that looked fairly accurate.

Nevertheless, this issue--which is a valid topic for policy debate--has been co-opted into a MAGA extremist position I can't support as a conservative. It's deeply disappointing, because it poisons the well for good faith conversations on the merits of limited government.

I've voted for multiple tax increases locally and watched those dollars largely get pissed away. So at a personal level, I understand the anger. But I also recognize this gambit for what it is, and hope it doesn't pass. Because the honest way to cut taxes is for council to reduce spending, and then pass a millage cut. But it's less accountable for them personally to let the State dictate terms, and then play victim.

As an aside, it's extremely unfortunate that Deegan has to take a "pro-tax" stance heading into re-election. Republicans will pounce, regardless of the fact they too want the funding available for police and fire (MURICA!  And all that).

I wish more people on all sides of the political spectrum spoke about these things this rationally.

[jcjohnpaint]

Agreed. It is refreshing👏

[Aristocles]

I certainly don't want anyone to be overconfident, but I think the homestead exemption increase support is beginning to come apart a bit as people analyze this thing and aren't happy with what they're finding. The Miami Herald points out what Mayor Deegan and I have been saying: It will take away local government control by making it hard for local governments to raise money and then force them to beg Tallahassee for shortfalls, which will be granted on Tallahassee's terms. The Herald also pointed out that many tax cutters are actually opposed to this measure because of something else hit on previously: this isn't really a tax cut as much as it is a change in the way tax revenue is raised. And the way it will raise revenue will be highly unproductive and regressive, hitting the poor, renters, and businesses.
With all this, hopefully we're on the way to repeating North Dakota, which turned down a measure like this one a couple years back. But that doesn't mean to stop talking up the issue. I've been doing that and have been getting a few raised eyebrows, especially when I get them to think about if not from property taxes, then from where? Like C&C Music Factory sang in the 1990's, things that make you go Hmmmm.

[Charles Hunter]

Sherry McGill's substack JaxLookout takes a look at the proposed referendum: https://open.substack.com/pub/sherrymagill/p/why-cant-we-be-friends?r=6uwb9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Highlights

Not every person's local pocketbook will benefit, mind you. Just those lucky enough to own their residential homes outright or those purchasing a home. Homesteaders.

No doubt, Floridians need relief. Half our people cannot afford rent; tourist industry wages do not keep pace with the cost of living, yet we keep investing in tourism with its corresponding production of low wage jobs; and those purchasing or owning homes pay larger home owners' insurance premiums than we pay in local property taxes. When it comes to owning a Florida home, something's gotta give, right?
...
What at first blush looks like much needed relief for some individual Floridians—but not all—is an unfriendly and callous attack on local control, local elected officials, and on the people who live in local communities, homeowners and renters alike. Should voters approve the amendment, Tallahassee will bear no responsibility for the outcome.
...
New language the legislature proposes specifies that

    "Ad valorem taxes levied by counties and municipalities shall be used only to" fund:
        public safety, including law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical service;
        education and public schools;
        infrastructure, including expenditures on road and bridge construction and maintenance and stormwater control;
        natural resource projects, including flood control measures;
        local bonds for uses consistent with this paragraph and to make debt service payments for existing obligations;
        retirement benefits of local government employees;
        the operations and administration of county officers and commissioners"

What does that "shall be used only to" phrase mean? No children, no libraries, no public parks? But salaries for county officers—that is, City Council members?
...
In this latest attack on we local folks, we the people will decide how much of individual homeowner property to exempt from taxation, but we won't get to decide what we can fund with the dollars we do collect.

In effect, our Tallahassee dictators tie local hands and wag their collective middle finger at us. Friends don't treat friends this way.
...
We could, on the other hand, just cut to the chase. Let's abolish local government. Would be quicker. Besides, we would be able to hold state legislators and governors accountable for our local services and quality of life.

[Charles Hunter]

My address still doesn't return anything from the state's campaign site.

Mark Woods wrote about the proposal on June 2 (thanks for the link in McGill's article)

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2026/06/03/what-would-property-tax-overhaul-mean-for-florida-cities/90380745007/

Would I like to stop paying property taxes?

Of course I would.
...
I'd also like to eat a giant bowl of ice cream every day and not gain a single pound. Or stay up late, have a beer or two, and not feel sluggish in the morning. And to get away with a lot of other things I could when I was younger.

But that's another story for another day.
...
One point some have made: It isn't just that cities will collect substantially less money. It's the unanswered questions of what this might mean. Will taxpayers simply end up paying in other ways?

"I'd love to get rid of property taxes," U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, former governor of Florida, said on Fox News before the session. "Unfortunately, you gotta think about, OK, what are you going to replace it with? We are a very efficient state, so you've got to come up with, how are you going to fund education, the environment, things like that."

OMG! I agree with Rick Scott on something!

And then there's the simple fact that a lot of Floridians who aren't homeowners wouldn't see any benefit from a property tax cut — but might feel the impact of cuts to social services and increased fees elsewhere. For these Floridians, this could be a double-whammy.

Jeff Brandes, a former Republican lawmaker who is now director of the Florida Policy Project, was among those pushing back for a reason beyond the tax cut itself — saying this could dramatically shift power away from local governments and to the state.
...
Brandes said there is an irony here that should give conservatives pause: a proposal intended to shrink government could ultimately centralize it. And by centralizing it, local officials — and, in turn, local citizens — lose control of what happens in their backyard. The governor of Florida, whoever that is in the future, effectively becomes the mayor of communities he or she was never elected to run.

So much for home rule.

For decades, Tallahassee has been chipping away at home rule, passing laws that forbid cities and counties from enacting local ordinances about cruise ships, tree preservation, Styrofoam containers, DEI and, perhaps more than anything, land use and growth management.
...
The Legislature spent less than two days debating what the Tampa Bay Times said "could become the most sweeping restructuring of the state's tax system — and city and county governments — in a generation."

Would I like my property taxes cut dramatically? Who wouldn't? But I want to know what that would mean for my city and future generations here.

[jaxlongtimer]

I want to repeat my "compromise" idea... if you have lived in Florida for at least, say, 20 or 25 consecutive years, you get a little bit higher homestead exemption.  Could boost it again after 30, 40, 50, etc. years straight.  All new Florida residents get no break (maybe even reduce from the current $50,000 down to $25,000 to offset the above some) until they hit the 20 or 25 year threshold.  A big part of spending is to accommodate growth and this ensures those driving that pay their fair share.

Another way to pay for any cuts above, is to have tiered rates.  Properties valued over $1, $5, $10, $20 million or more get higher millage rates.  This ensures a progressive tax and the proceeds could maybe also be used to subsidize rental properties renting below a certain level to promote more affordable housing.

Bottom line, the knee jerk proposal the legislature passed after less than 2 days of debate shows a total lack of thoughtfulness or exploration of possible alternatives that would retain the property tax as a continuing source of revenue so local government budgets don't get gutted.

[marcuscnelson]

^ I think this makes a lot of assumptions about the motivations of those pushing for these exemptions that there is no reason to make. The goal here is people trying to pay little or no property tax because they've essentially convinced themselves that public services aren't real and that they shouldn't have to pay for them. The number of people who kicked this off by declaring that once a mortgage is paid off, they should simply not have to pay property taxes makes that evident.

[marcuscnelson]

City Councilman Rory Diamond is posting on Facebook one idea per day this month for cutting programs he appears to dislike.

Diamond's latest idea is that the City should not build new Downtown parks, because "no Jax families want them."