Increasing the Homestead Exemption

[fsu813]

Spoke with someone involved in local business thought leadership regarding this referendum. They said there's consensus among business that it's a net negative, but no consensus on how to dissuade it. Searching for the right voice/message, and searching for any type of statewide coordinated opposition - which there doesn't appear to be at the moment. I imagine various Chambers of Commerce may feel too intimidated to publicly oppose now... we'll see in a couple months as it becomes more real.

[Jankelope]

It would be nice if the Chamber of Commerce had the balls to just go ahead and come out against it with the simple message of "This will drain our public services, which the business community depends on to exist and operate at all"

Is it that hard to say? What exactly is the issue with talking about how the private sector requires a funded and functional public sector to exist?

Also, I know that a lot of the Chamber's are really only thinking about business interests (as that is their job) but they should absolutely be aware that money for public budgets has to come from somewhere, and don't be surprised if citizens respond to funding shortfalls with pushing increased corporate taxes/levies...maybe that's not the worst outcome.

[fsu813]

It would be nice if the Chamber of Commerce had the balls to just go ahead and come out against it with the simple message of "This will drain our public services, which the business community depends on to exist and operate at all"

Is it that hard to say? What exactly is the issue with talking about how the private sector requires a funded and functional public sector to exist?

Also, I know that a lot of the Chamber's are really only thinking about business interests (as that is their job) but they should absolutely be aware that money for public budgets has to come from somewhere, and don't be surprised if citizens respond to funding shortfalls with pushing increased corporate taxes/levies...maybe that's not the worst outcome.

Also, if Jacksonville (and other FL cities) are competing for HQ relocations with similar metros in our region, divesting in quality of life services and the capacity to have nice things is a gigantic disadvantage vs other states/cities that are able to provide.

[jaxoNOLE]

It would be nice if the Chamber of Commerce had the balls to just go ahead and come out against it with the simple message of "This will drain our public services, which the business community depends on to exist and operate at all"

Is it that hard to say? What exactly is the issue with talking about how the private sector requires a funded and functional public sector to exist?

Also, I know that a lot of the Chamber's are really only thinking about business interests (as that is their job) but they should absolutely be aware that money for public budgets has to come from somewhere, and don't be surprised if citizens respond to funding shortfalls with pushing increased corporate taxes/levies...maybe that's not the worst outcome.

Also, if Jacksonville (and other FL cities) are competing for HQ relocations with similar metros in our region, divesting in quality of life services and the capacity to have nice things is a gigantic disadvantage vs other states/cities that are able to provide.

It's a double-whammy, because there will be less available for cash incentives to overcome the QOL differential as well.

[Aristocles]

Spoke with someone involved in local business thought leadership regarding this referendum. They said there's consensus among business that it's a net negative, but no consensus on how to dissuade it. Searching for the right voice/message, and searching for any type of statewide coordinated opposition - which there doesn't appear to be at the moment. 

Here's the right message: this isn't a tax cut but it's disguised as one. It's really a power grab. It makes it hard for local governments to raise sufficient funds for legit government services. Then, to make up shortfalls, local governments have to beg Tallahassee - the state level - for the funds. The plan has a fund to do this, and the money will be used to fund local government shortfalls - if the local governments do as Tallahassee wants. Right message: power grab. You won't just be able to complain to your city councilman or county commissioner about particular issues the way you can now because their hands'll be tied; they'd love to help you but can't because if you want something Tallahassee says "no" to, and consequently if our local government votes to fund it anyway, they'll run out of money and won't get reimbursed from Tallahassee. This is Mayor Deegan's argument.

[jaxlongtimer]

Spoke with someone involved in local business thought leadership regarding this referendum. They said there's consensus among business that it's a net negative, but no consensus on how to dissuade it. Searching for the right voice/message, and searching for any type of statewide coordinated opposition - which there doesn't appear to be at the moment. 

Here's the right message: this isn't a tax cut but it's disguised as one. It's really a power grab. It makes it hard for local governments to raise sufficient funds for legit government services. Then, to make up shortfalls, local governments have to beg Tallahassee - the state level - for the funds. The plan has a fund to do this, and the money will be used to fund local government shortfalls - if the local governments do as Tallahassee wants. Right message: power grab. You won't just be able to complain to your city councilman or county commissioner about particular issues the way you can now because their hands'll be tied; they'd love to help you but can't because if you want something Tallahassee says "no" to, and consequently if our local government votes to fund it anyway, they'll run out of money and won't get reimbursed from Tallahassee. This is Mayor Deegan's argument.

Aristocles, agree with this.  The power grab began years ago and all the gradual steps to erode local control should be force multipliers for this bill's effects.  Ironic that Republicans talk LOCAL control and are doing more to CENTRALIZE it in Tallahassee and Washington than anyone ever has.  Highlighting this grab should appeal to their majority base and hopefully convince enough to turn on their leadership.

The first people that will complain about reduced City services will be the GOPers... worried about crime, trash, overgrown weeds, dumping, poorly maintained roads and parks, broken sidewalks, degraded public marinas, poor traffic management, reduced animal control, etc.  Will be interesting to see if it leads to building moratoriums constraining developers due to a jurisdiction unable to fully fund permitting offices, building inspections, extension of City services to growth areas, etc.  Lower income neighborhoods are already underserved so they won't see as much impact as "nicer" parts of town where the GOP base lives.  So, this also needs to be messaged.

Cities need to also enlist first responders to play up the impact on safety, emergency services, fire protections, etc. as this is half or more of many budgets.  Reduction in these services may also lead to increased insurance premiums.

Lastly, for those who complain about affordable taxes, consider that property taxes hit higher income citizens due to them typically living in higher valued properties.  They are the ones who will enjoy much of the tax break.  Meanwhile, fees to replace the lost revenue will impact all income levels equally but will make up a greater proportion of lower incomes than higher ones.

I go back to my suggestion that the millage rate should be tiered on higher value homes owned for less than 20 consecutive years if we want to spare some people from some portion of the property tax burden.  This would mostly impact newcomers who create the most stress on infrastructure along with those non-committal transients and up-scalers who clearly have the means to pay current pricing of homes and, thus, are likely to also be able to bear the property tax burden of those recent purchases.

There is no perfect tax system but at least property taxes correlate on some level with the alleged resources of the taxed.

[Charles Hunter]

Snip from jaxlongtimer

The first people that will complain about reduced City services will be the GOPers... worried about crime, trash, overgrown weeds, dumping, poorly maintained roads and parks, broken sidewalks, degraded public marinas, poor traffic management, reduced animal control, etc. Will be interesting to see if it leads to building moratoriums constraining developers due to a jurisdiction unable to fully fund permitting offices, building inspections, extension of City services to growth areas, etc.  Lower income neighborhoods are already underserved so they won't see as much impact as "nicer" parts of town where the GOP base lives.  So, this also needs to be messaged.

Cities not having the staff to appropriately review development plans won't be a problem. The develpers will direct their employees in Tallahassee (aka "The Legislature") to pass laws saying that if a city doesn't reject a development in a certain number of days, it is deemed 'approved.'

[Charles Hunter]

For property tax purposes, is the Consolidated City of Jacksonville/Duval County treated as both a city and a county? State law limits county assessments to 10 mills, and city assessments to 10 mills. Jacksonville levied 11.something mills last year. Could Jacksonville go up to 20 mills?