November 2026 Elections

[jaxlongtimer]

About time we discussed this a bit...

I will start with Byron Donalds.  Aside from his terrible overly exposed ad campaign that says almost nothing about issues but instead plays on his image building (wife, kids, mom, poor upbringing...), he also ties his wagon to DeSantis and Trump.  Not one independent minded position in his pronouncements.

Today in Jax, he provided these non-answer and/or parroted answers:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Republican Congressman and Florida gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds addressed several issues affecting Jacksonville during a roundtable discussion focused on affordability.

During his stop in Jacksonville, Donalds was asked about affordable housing, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority's financial challenges, and the potential impact of Amendment 3 on cities across Florida.

On housing, Donalds said he believes local and state governments need to streamline the permitting process to help increase the supply of affordable housing.

"It does start with governmental permitting operations at the local level and at the state level. They've got to be modernized. We modernize them, shrink those timelines down, it helps us to be able to deliver more affordable housing in the state," Donalds said.

This is coded language to developers, I have your back.  I will continue to let you roll over local governments to build whatever and wherever you want. The heck with local zoning, planning and land use rules.

Nothing here about affordability, supporting low income housing, increasing density in areas already developed, fighting Trump's tariffs, immigration and energy moves that are raising construction costs beyond the pale...

Regarding the JTA deficit, it appears he knows almost nothing about it per the below wishy-washy answer.  My concern is the lack of honesty to admit he isn't familiar with the details.  Giving glib answers on the fly on any subject is the sign of a politician telling you what you want to hear, not being interested in studying an issue and taking a thoughtful leadership position.

"We want to make sure that these agencies have a consistent ability to operate and deliver on the mission that they were created to do in the first place, so if we're going to have to go through and trim some operations and make some adjustments we will do that, because at the end of the day we have to be mindful of the taxpayer who pays for all of it," Donalds said.

Regarding Amendment 3:

"Government, what we're doing is spending other people's money. But the people whose money that we're taking through taxes ... their budgets have not grown, and we have to respect the taxpayer," Donalds said.

Yes, we are taking peoples money.  But, we are giving it back in services and amenities that no one else can deliver as effectively.  Government may not be perfect but neither is the private sector.  There is a reason governments have existed from the beginning of time and it is because there is no better way to get community benefits delivered more appropriately.

Donalds says nothing about the likely impact of increased taxes on businesses and landlords/tenants to replace the lost revenue from homeowners and the impact it would have on lower income people.  Again, this is just another bone to throw to Realtors (who are spending $18 million to support Amendment 3) and housing builders (who are not going to lower selling prices or build cheaper homes with this but rather build more expensive homes since buyers will redeploy tax savings into bigger and fancier houses that generate fatter home builder profits).

Low income people either rent, missing out on this and getting harmed as their landlords pay more taxes, or have houses of lower values such that they will benefit from the tax savings far less than those in more expensive homes.  Any fees (which are not deductible for Federal income tax like property taxes) cities and counties implement will also harm lower income people more, along with cutbacks in services and amenities that low income people will have more difficulty replacing.

Quotes at: https://www.wokv.com/news/local/byron-donalds-weighs-housing-jta-finances-amendment-3-during-jacksonville-stop/ZLVXXFBV3ZHJDNII23GTZKEETM/

[jaxlongtimer]

Regarding Amendment 3:

Donalds says nothing about the likely impact of increased taxes on businesses and landlords/tenants to replace the lost revenue from homeowners and the impact it would have on lower income people.  Again, this is just another bone to throw to Realtors (who are spending $18 million to support Amendment 3) and housing builders (who are not going to lower selling prices or build cheaper homes with this but rather build more expensive homes since buyers will redeploy tax savings into bigger and fancier houses that generate fatter home builder profits).

Low income people either rent, missing out on this and getting harmed as their landlords pay more taxes, or have houses of lower values such that they will benefit from the tax savings far less than those in more expensive homes.  Any fees (which are not deductible for Federal income tax like property taxes) cities and counties implement will also harm lower income people more, along with cutbacks in services and amenities that low income people will have more difficulty replacing.

The Realtors' (who are spending $18 million to support Amendment 3) own economist just stated what I said above:

Florida Realtors is bankrolling Amendment 3 and pitching the property tax cut as relief for Floridians priced out of homeownership. The Senior Economist at Realtor.com, the listings site that operates under license from the group's national parent, says cutting property taxes pushes home prices higher and makes it harder for first-time buyers to get in.

In a new piece, Realtor.com's Tristan Navera reports that the site has estimated Florida home values would jump 7% to 9% almost immediately if property taxes were eliminated, adding $200 billion to $250 billion to the aggregate value of the state's housing stock.

Realtor.com Senior Economist Joel Berner, who produced the estimate, says the gain would come at the expense of first-time buyers, who would face higher prices. "It would be a boon to existing property owners," Berner said when the analysis was released in 2025.

The estimate models full elimination, which is further than Amendment 3 goes. The amendment raises the homestead exemption on non-school property taxes from roughly $51,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments starting in 2029. Gov. Ron DeSantis has said that would wipe out non-school property taxes for about 60% of homesteaded owners.

Realtor.com presented the price estimate as the catch for buyers if the amendment passes.

The mechanism is capitalization. When the annual cost of owning a home falls, buyers can carry a larger mortgage on the same monthly budget, and sellers price to meet them. The savings show up in the sale price, and whoever owns the home when the cut takes effect captures the difference.

Florida Realtors has put $18 million into Vote Yes on 3, every dollar the committee reported raising through Sept. 25, beginning with a $10 million contribution the first week of September. The two committees opposing the amendment, Vote No on 3 Florida and Floridians for Shared Prosperity, reported a combined $537,357 over the same period....

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/824765-realtor-com-economists-price-warning-complicates-florida-realtors-affordability-case-for-amendment-3/

[jaxlongtimer]

If you care about Duval County quality of education, support continuing for 4 more years the Ad Valorem Millage Election on the November ballot.

Duval has one of the lowest teacher salaries in the State/Country and without this supplemental revenue to boost their pay, we will lose many good teachers and have a hard time recruiting replacements.

Students are our future doctors, nurses, leaders, trades people, professionals, manufacturing and office workers, etc.  We need to invest in them and, thus, our own futures.

[tufsu1]

Bike Walk Jax put out some good and concise information on potential impacts of Amendment 3 to local bike and pedestrian issues

https://www.instagram.com/p/Dewku8FlvXO/?img_index=1

About Bike Walk Jax
https://bikewalkjax.org/about

[jaxoNOLE]

I support, theoretically, a path to zero-property-tax for long-term property owners. The issue of people never owning their homes outright is a valid criticism.  But Amendment 3 is rushed, lazy work akin to Congress trying to rein in the national debt by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. By extension, any candidate who embraces Amendment 3 is not someone I would trust to craft responsible tax relief.

Donalds has almost no specific and concrete policy suggestions to judge, which is an issue unto itself. By contrast, Jolly's idea of a state-sponsored cat risk pool is noble-intentioned but poorly conceived. Floridians despise their experiences with Citizens, and NFIP and California's FAIR plans hardly offer experience supportive of a Florida equivalent cat fund.

My inclination is to see a divided state government, with Jolly as governor and a Republican majority in the legislature to insulate against the worst ideas from each.

[CityLife]

Regarding Amendment 3, Jacksonville's independent agencies like JTA, JEA, and JHA are likely swaying some uninformed Northeast Florida voters into voting yes. At least the Amendment 3 supporters are pushing this hard online. Interestingly, none of those agencies are actually funded through property taxes, but that doesn't stop misinformation from impacting voters. All they see is well paid government employees behaving poorly.

JEA's rates continue rising while many residents struggle to afford increases; obviously we all know of JTA's issues; and now JHA's CEO had the audacity to try to collect a 12% developer fee on projects the JHA completes. That is 12% in addition to the $300k she is already paid. She also wanted an additional 13% for other JHA "execs". Thankfully the JHA board shot it down, but the optics of it are absolutely terrible.

https://jaxtoday.org/2026/10/20/housing-board-scraps-bonuses/
 
I doubt these local controversies will determine the statewide outcome of Amendment 3, but they certainly don't help. When voters see one government agency after another making headlines for questionable spending and management decisions, it's easy to see why public confidence in local government in Northeast Florida continues to erode.

[vicupstate]

I support, theoretically, a path to zero-property-tax for long-term property owners. The issue of people never owning their homes outright is a valid criticism.

I am so sick of this silly canard.

I guess since I don't own my home if I have to pay property taxes, then I don't own my home when it has a mortgage either. If the mortgage company owns part (or very often a majority) of my home, shouldn't THEY pay their share of the property taxes? 

I guess since I have to pay Federal (and in my case, state) income taxes then I don't own my paycheck either. I am not gainfully employed by that logic, at least not full-time.

If I don't pay my property taxes I could lose my home but I would not lose the ability to earn money and buy a new one.   

If I don't pay income taxes I can go to prison where I will 100% lose the ability to ever pay the taxes or improve my financial condition until I am released.

See how silly this argument is?

How long someone has lived in their home is irrelevant to property taxes. Property taxes pay for a policeman or fireman to come to your home if needed. It also pays for your garbage to be picked up and the lifeguard to work at the pool you swim laps at. It pays for animal control, the jail, the health department and all the other services that you receive. How does length of living in one location affect that in ANY way?  It does not.

I personally have never heard of ANYONE losing their home [their RESIDENCE, not an investment property] for not paying taxes on it. Having the process start, yes, but taken all the way to loss of property, no. Maybe if happens more than I know of, but I suspect it is extremely rare. What few case there may be likely involve a property that isn't worth much more than the taxes owed.         

[jaxlongtimer]

The real crux of Amendment 3 is the "Cat in the Hat" scenario where you move the pink (tax) blob and it just shows up somewhere else.

Government is going to get its needed revenue come hell or high water.  Exempt or reduce property taxes and you will get increased millage rates, user fees, etc. out the yazoo.  You are NOT going to save taxes/fees overall, just pay it through other ways and more bureaucracy.  Further, the burden will shift more to the very ones Amendment 3 is supposed to help, lower or fixed income persons.  People in more expensive homes, who are capped on the upside with Save Our Homes, will benefit the most from larger homesteads, but fees, etc. will be paid equally by rich and poor alike.  Houses, as I posted, will increase in value due to buyers using tax savings to pay more for a house, pushing many further away from first time ownership. 

If the revenue is recovered by increased millage rates, this will hit landlords and businesses that already pay the most property taxes and employ large numbers of us the most.  It will, thus, impact rents and paychecks along with negating part of the exemption savings on homeowners.

[jaxoNOLE]

I support, theoretically, a path to zero-property-tax for long-term property owners. The issue of people never owning their homes outright is a valid criticism.

I am so sick of this silly canard.

I guess since I don't own my home if I have to pay property taxes, then I don't own my home when it has a mortgage either. If the mortgage company owns part (or very often a majority) of my home, shouldn't THEY pay their share of the property taxes? 

I guess since I have to pay Federal (and in my case, state) income taxes then I don't own my paycheck either. I am not gainfully employed by that logic, at least not full-time.

If I don't pay my property taxes I could lose my home but I would not lose the ability to earn money and buy a new one.   

If I don't pay income taxes I can go to prison where I will 100% lose the ability to ever pay the taxes or improve my financial condition until I am released.

See how silly this argument is?

How long someone has lived in their home is irrelevant to property taxes. Property taxes pay for a policeman or fireman to come to your home if needed. It also pays for your garbage to be picked up and the lifeguard to work at the pool you swim laps at. It pays for animal control, the jail, the health department and all the other services that you receive. How does length of living in one location affect that in ANY way?  It does not.

I personally have never heard of ANYONE losing their home [their RESIDENCE, not an investment property] for not paying taxes on it. Having the process start, yes, but taken all the way to loss of property, no. Maybe if happens more than I know of, but I suspect it is extremely rare. What few case there may be likely involve a property that isn't worth much more than the taxes owed.       

In the interest of brevity, I did not offer nuance to my position, especially considering my commentary was more related to candidates' positions.

I'd be happy to engage in more specifics in good faith, but it doesn't appear that you're really looking for an actual conversation based on the tone of your post. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be happy to reply.

[jaxoNOLE]

The real crux of Amendment 3 is the "Cat in the Hat" scenario where you move the pink (tax) blob and it just shows up somewhere else.

Government is going to get its needed revenue come hell or high water.  Exempt or reduce property taxes and you will get increased millage rates, user fees, etc. out the yazoo.  You are NOT going to save taxes/fees overall, just pay it through other ways and more bureaucracy.  Further, the burden will shift more to the very ones Amendment 3 is supposed to help, lower or fixed income persons.  People in more expensive homes, who are capped on the upside with Save Our Homes, will benefit the most from larger homesteads, but fees, etc. will be paid equally by rich and poor alike.  Houses, as I posted, will increase in value due to buyers using tax savings to pay more for a house, pushing many further away from first time ownership. 

If the revenue is recovered by increased millage rates, this will hit landlords and businesses that already pay the most property taxes and employ large numbers of us the most.  It will, thus, impact rents and paychecks along with negating part of the exemption savings on homeowners.

Very much agreed. The honest path to tax relief starts with identifying the cuts that accompany reductions in revenue, and to the extent substitute revenues are raised, they should also be identified and simultaneously disclosed. It's cowardly and lazy to revoke the revenues at a state level and leave the dirty work to localities.

[vicupstate]

I support, theoretically, a path to zero-property-tax for long-term property owners. The issue of people never owning their homes outright is a valid criticism.

I am so sick of this silly canard.

I guess since I don't own my home if I have to pay property taxes, then I don't own my home when it has a mortgage either. If the mortgage company owns part (or very often a majority) of my home, shouldn't THEY pay their share of the property taxes? 

I guess since I have to pay Federal (and in my case, state) income taxes then I don't own my paycheck either. I am not gainfully employed by that logic, at least not full-time.

If I don't pay my property taxes I could lose my home but I would not lose the ability to earn money and buy a new one.   

If I don't pay income taxes I can go to prison where I will 100% lose the ability to ever pay the taxes or improve my financial condition until I am released.

See how silly this argument is?

How long someone has lived in their home is irrelevant to property taxes. Property taxes pay for a policeman or fireman to come to your home if needed. It also pays for your garbage to be picked up and the lifeguard to work at the pool you swim laps at. It pays for animal control, the jail, the health department and all the other services that you receive. How does length of living in one location affect that in ANY way?  It does not.

I personally have never heard of ANYONE losing their home [their RESIDENCE, not an investment property] for not paying taxes on it. Having the process start, yes, but taken all the way to loss of property, no. Maybe if happens more than I know of, but I suspect it is extremely rare. What few case there may be likely involve a property that isn't worth much more than the taxes owed.       

In the interest of brevity, I did not offer nuance to my position, especially considering my commentary was more related to candidates' positions.

I'd be happy to engage in more specifics in good faith, but it doesn't appear that you're really looking for an actual conversation based on the tone of your post. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be happy to reply.

I don't think the logic of your argument holds up under scrutiny. I have provided my proof of such. If I am missing something I would be more than willing to listen to any further logic you care to provide.   

[Steve]

I support, theoretically, a path to zero-property-tax for long-term property owners. The issue of people never owning their homes outright is a valid criticism.

I am so sick of this silly canard.

I guess since I don't own my home if I have to pay property taxes, then I don't own my home when it has a mortgage either. If the mortgage company owns part (or very often a majority) of my home, shouldn't THEY pay their share of the property taxes? 

I guess since I have to pay Federal (and in my case, state) income taxes then I don't own my paycheck either. I am not gainfully employed by that logic, at least not full-time.

If I don't pay my property taxes I could lose my home but I would not lose the ability to earn money and buy a new one.   

If I don't pay income taxes I can go to prison where I will 100% lose the ability to ever pay the taxes or improve my financial condition until I am released.

See how silly this argument is?

How long someone has lived in their home is irrelevant to property taxes. Property taxes pay for a policeman or fireman to come to your home if needed. It also pays for your garbage to be picked up and the lifeguard to work at the pool you swim laps at. It pays for animal control, the jail, the health department and all the other services that you receive. How does length of living in one location affect that in ANY way?  It does not.

I personally have never heard of ANYONE losing their home [their RESIDENCE, not an investment property] for not paying taxes on it. Having the process start, yes, but taken all the way to loss of property, no. Maybe if happens more than I know of, but I suspect it is extremely rare. What few case there may be likely involve a property that isn't worth much more than the taxes owed.         

I'm probably going to regret jumping in here but why not....

Two things can be true: I think Property Tax is a dumb way to tax, AND the revenue drop is going to be bad for municipal services. To me the income tax argument is apples and oranges, as your income isn't a tangible asset, but (assuming you own your property free and clear), your land and structure on it, IS an asset that you own. Yes, you pay a registration fee for your car and boat that you may own outright, but you have to operate both of those in the public domain, thus using public services in order to operate them.

Now, I do think we need to replace the revenue, and what would have made more sense would be to eliminate property tax altogether and replace it by raising Sales Tax proportionately vs. this amendment that just cuts taxes with no plan. Florida is uniquely advantaged with a very large tourist and transient population, though that advantage has costs (example - cars on roads from tourists who buy all kinds of stuff in our state but use our highways which creates traffic and wear and tear on our public roads), so I think Florida is in a unique position to be a leader in taxing based on consumption.

[Charles Hunter]

Now, I do think we need to replace the revenue, and what would have made more sense would be to eliminate property tax altogether and replace it by raising Sales Tax proportionately vs. this amendment that just cuts taxes with no plan. Florida is uniquely advantaged with a very large tourist and transient population, though that advantage has costs (example - cars on roads from tourists who buy all kinds of stuff in our state but use our highways which creates traffic and wear and tear on our public roads), so I think Florida is in a unique position to be a leader in taxing based on consumption.

Has anyone done a calculation on what the sales tax rate would have to be to replace property taxes?

[jaxlongtimer]

^ The problem with sales tax is it is a mostly regressive tax, falling disproportionately on those who are at lower incomes.  Regressive taxes just increase the wealth disparity which is already at an all time high in this country. 

I would venture to say that, particularly in South Florida, many of the wealthy spend half or more of their time out of state and so wouldn't even pay the sales tax much of the time.  But, they do pay taxes on their $10 to $100+ million homes there.  "Regular" locals are going to spend most or all of their money in Florida, not having much chance to evade a sales tax.

If we want to target tourists, we need to raise taxes on hotel rooms, theme parks, taxis/Uber/Lyft, maybe souvenir shops and entertainment venues tourists ply, etc.  Maybe increase fees on cruise and airline tickets and create "tourist's zones" where sales taxes are higher such as on International Drive in Orlando or on select businesses within 1 mile of an interstate interchange.  But not sure if that would make up for cutting property taxes.

Comparing property taxes to car registration fees, buildings and real estate do consume public services such as fire, police, parks, schools, sanitation, utilities/drainage/flood control, road/transit access, zoning, inspections, code enforcement, etc.  A lot, if not most, of the value in real estate is created by government services and investment so there is a return on property taxes.  There is somewhat of a correlation between property values and higher tax jurisdictions for a reason.

[jaxoNOLE]

I don't think the logic of your argument holds up under scrutiny. I have provided my proof of such. If I am missing something I would be more than willing to listen to any further logic you care to provide. 

I don't think I asserted a logical argument at all -- I expressed an opinion on policy preference. However, my logic is that in much the same way we have people in our country who pay no income tax but still receive the benefit of public goods and services, I don't think it's patently ridiculous nor is it unprecedented to suggest some people be exempt from property tax despite the fact they still receive local services (totally disabled veterans already enjoy such an exemption in FL).

I am so sick of this silly canard.

I guess since I don't own my home if I have to pay property taxes, then I don't own my home when it has a mortgage either.

I said "own outright." Of course your name is on the deed and you legally own the house...as long as you make the agreed payments. Otherwise, the bank can and will take your house. If you sell with a mortgage outstanding, you owe a portion of the proceeds to satisfy the balance. You do not own your home outright as long as a mortgage or any other lien exists.

If the mortgage company owns part (or very often a majority) of my home, shouldn't THEY pay their share of the property taxes? 

Their claim to your property is subordinate and conditional. In the event of foreclosure, their interest becomes primary and they do become responsible for property taxes. But of course, you know this.

I guess since I have to pay Federal (and in my case, state) income taxes then I don't own my paycheck either.

You definitely don't own your whole paycheck. Unlike a home, where even multiple deeded owners share the same asset, a sum of money can be easily subdivided and separately possessed, so this is a poor comparison and irrelevant to my original position.

I am not gainfully employed by that logic, at least not full-time.

Full-time is a measurement of time at work, not money earned during that time, and is irrelevant. You keep part of your paycheck, so you're obviously gainfully employed even if you don't own your whole paycheck.

If I don't pay my property taxes I could lose my home but I would not lose the ability to earn money and buy a new one.   

If I don't pay income taxes I can go to prison where I will 100% lose the ability to ever pay the taxes or improve my financial condition until I am released.

See how silly this argument is?

Both loss of a home and jail time seem pretty serious to me. I seriously doubt any person who loses their home to property tax lien has the financial prospects to simply replace it, or they'd likely have paid the tax in the first place. The silly part is the apparent strawman of income tax, which differs fundamentally from property tax and hasn't been  part of the broader Amendment 3 debate.

How long someone has lived in their home is irrelevant to property taxes. Property taxes pay for a policeman or fireman to come to your home if needed. It also pays for your garbage to be picked up and the lifeguard to work at the pool you swim laps at. It pays for animal control, the jail, the health department and all the other services that you receive. How does length of living in one location affect that in ANY way?  It does not.

I can agree with you here – length of residence is about as relevant as assessed property value, which, lo and behold, is nevertheless the entire basis for determining how much tax is owed currently. It's not as if the current system is actuarially sound with respect to individual consumption, so I'm not sure why that's suddenly being suggested as the criteria for any new policy.

I personally have never heard of ANYONE losing their home [their RESIDENCE, not an investment property] for not paying taxes on it. Having the process start, yes, but taken all the way to loss of property, no. Maybe if happens more than I know of, but I suspect it is extremely rare. What few case there may be likely involve a property that isn't worth much more than the taxes owed.       

Well, that settles it then—this must be the "proof" you were referring to. Sarcasm aside, I do suspect actual foreclosures are rare, because most people will make alternate arrangements to avoid being suddenly put on the street. However, I consider the scenario of a retiree or unemployed person who has to sell a home they otherwise own because they can't afford the taxes on it to be the equivalent of being forced out, even if a lien is never actually placed. This may technically be a choice, but when it's heavily informed by the threat of government action, it certainly doesn't feel like one.