According to the Jacksonville Daily Record, the governor's plan to increase the homestead exemption will have a negative impact on downtown revitalization. Here's the article URL: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2026/jun/03/deegan-property-tax-vote-would-squelch-city-funding-for-downtown-revitalization/
Any thoughts on how accurate this is?
It will be a negative on just about anything being funded at the local level. The big projects relying on local public incentives will fizzle out when that financial faucet is turned off but the impact will be felt far outside of downtown.
Every neighborhood will take a hit as well. Its all simple math, once you remove the politics from the discussion. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
Eliminating a major revenue source, also eliminates or severely reduces what it currently funds.
Ultimately, we get what we pay for. The best way to be a slum and be raggedy is to not invest in your well being. My prediction is most people refuse to read or count, so we'll FAFO and then get nickel and dimed in other ways to make up for the budgeting gaps and frustration that follows.
Councilman Carlucci said there were other ways to make up the funding (fees), but held off on proposing anything definite because he wants to see how the voters treat the idea. Also, I'm assuming the UF Jacksonville campus in La Villa, being publicly funded, isn't going to be impacted by this -?
I have an idea where they can cut spending to protect downtown revitalization credits: nix the U2C.
Quote from: Aristocles on June 03, 2026, 04:58:16 PMCouncilman Carlucci said there were other ways to make up the funding (fees), but held off on proposing anything definite because he wants to see how the voters treat the idea. Also, I'm assuming the UF Jacksonville campus in La Villa, being publicly funded, isn't going to be impacted by this -?
I have an idea where they can cut spending to protect downtown revitalization credits: nix the U2C.
Incentives to UF might be affected. But, if you mean the UF doesn't pay property tax, so it won't be affected by the 'savings'.
Defunding the U2C won't counteract any losses from the property tax, as the U2C is funded from the Sales Tax.
Eliminating the property tax will result in massive fees everywhere. Government services are not going to be tolerated to shrink, especially public safety, parks and recreation, environment, garbage and cleanups, road and sidewalk maintenance, etc.
Expect sales tax, permit fees, park fees, parking fees, occupational license and other business fees, gas taxes, etc to mushroom. Also, real estate taxes on businesses and rental properties that would continue on. New fees and taxes will arise to replace the lost revenue too. Unfortunately, most of this will be regressive, hitting the poor the most heavily.
We already have a cap on residential property tax increases of 3% or inflation, whichever is lower, plus numerous exemptions. The best would be to exempt the first $100,000 or other amount of ALL residential living units including rental properties so renters don't take a hit either. Heck, go to exempting $250,000 or more, but don't eliminate the tax entirely. After all, residents are the main beneficiaries of City services so they should be willing to pay for what they get within reason.
DeSantis proposal is on par with Curry trying to sell JEA. One hit wonders leaving a trail of problems for others to clean up. So selfish.
Yeah, the U2C is a different pot of money and even if it is cut, that pot can't be used on random downtown revitalization projects and gimmicks.
As jaxlongtimer just stated and CM Carlucci hinted, expect getting hit with massive fees elsewhere.
At the end of the day, the person who actually needs help with affordability issues is going to get hit the hardest.
So much I'd like to say, but... too much to say. These politicians! It will be everyone else's problem when that asshole is running for president, again!
Quote from: thelakelander on June 03, 2026, 07:44:52 PMYeah, the U2C is a different pot of money and even if it is cut, that pot can't be used on random downtown revitalization projects and gimmicks.
As jaxlongtimer just stated and CM Carlucci hinted, expect getting hit with massive fees elsewhere.
At the end of the day, the person who actually needs help with affordability issues is going to get hit the hardest.
How about using the sales tax for whatever it can be legally used for to fund essential services (and raising it to make up for the loss in property tax revenue if needed, along with fee increases if we hit a cap on the sales tax - I think we can go up to 8 - 8.5%), and giving the property tax incentives for development just like we do now? In other words, just replace the lost property tax revenue with new sales tax or fee revenue to cover budget items?
And yes, absolutely the increased homestead exemption will hurt those who can afford it least. I'm thinking in particular of renters. Only homestead property gets the exemption, so owners of rental properties don't qualify. To make up for the losses from the increased exemption, local governments could put rental property owners in the bullseye for increased property taxes - and these owners will pass those costs along to tenants with higher rents.
I'm thinking, as a strategy to defeat this thing, get all renters to vote against it. They're about a third of Florida's population, and as a constitutional amendment it needs 60% to pass. That puts it pretty close. Also it needs to be stressed that this, though it looks like a tax cut, really isn't - it's just a change in the style of taxation. Six or one half dozen. We need governments to protect our rights, but governments cost money - and that money has to come from somewhere.
Also listening to the governor talking about wealthy foreigners and tourists paying the taxes instead of Florida homeowners, isn't particularly good for Jax. For Miami, Palm Beach, Orlando, Sarasota and Naples maybe, but not Jax. Jax isn't a hotspot for wealthy foreigners and tourists unlike those other places, so while their local governments can get rich from foreigners and tourists, it'll be hard for Jax to tap into that. We'll have to get the money some other way.
I'm a homeowner and pay property taxes, have a homestead exemption too, and want tax cuts. I'd be all for raising the homestead exemption modestly, to 60-70 thousand for relief from increasing property valuations, and other perks like further reductions for seniors, etc. But $250K??? Crazy
According to the Jax Daily Record article (linked above), if passed, the exemption increase "could eliminate more than $300 million in revenue for the city by fiscal year 2029, according to City Council auditor projections."
From the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research 2025 report, I found estimated revenue from one percent sales tax in Duval, and the sales tax ("surtax") authority still available.
1% sales surtax produced an estimted $258.8 million in FY2025.
There are four surtaxes available to be levied in Duval County:
Charter County or Regional Transit Surtax - up to 1.0% - Duval levies 0.5%
Local Government Infrastructure Surtax - up to 1.0% - Duval levies 0.5%
Two specialized taxes not levied in Duval:
Indigent Care and Trauma Center Surtax - up to 0.5%
Pension Liability Surtax - up to 0.5%
For a total of 1% levied, and 2% still available.
Now, I don't know what the budget, or costs, or needs, for Indigent Care and Pension Liability are, but there is $129.4 Million available for each.
And, going to the max on the Infrastructure Surtax would also add $129.4 Million.
We might be able to cover the first-year loss, but what about in subsequent years?
Observation I saw somewhere:
It is part of the MAGA goal, going back to Pres. Reagan and Grover Norquist, who said in a 2001 interview on NPR, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
The amendment referendum is probably "red meat" to draw MAGAts to the polls in November.
Quote from: Aristocles on June 03, 2026, 09:26:10 PMI'm a homeowner and pay property taxes, have a homestead exemption too, and want tax cuts. I'd be all for raising the homestead exemption modestly, to 60-70 thousand for relief from increasing property valuations, and other perks like further reductions for seniors, etc. But $250K??? Crazy
I agree on not wanting to go to a $250K exemption. I threw that out there to mitigate any surge in voters leaning toward approving the DeSantis plan.
In reality, with the escalation in housing prices over the last few years, even with a $250K exemption, mathematically, it might not be as financially damaging given an average house today starts at $400K or more in most parts of Florida. At $400K with a $250K exemption, it leaves $150k in taxable value. If that house sold for $200K 10 years ago with a $50K exemption, the taxable value would also have been $150K. Of course, adjusting for inflation, if the millage rate remains fixed, the taxable value does need to increase over time. The question then, is how much to tweak things to cover that.
I would only add that I believe higher priced homes have increased faster in value than lower priced ones so the above example might be even more favorable to a $250K exemption on the low end. Another possibility is tiered tax rates like the Federal income tax system. Higher values pay at increasingly higher rates to offset lowered rates for cheaper homes. Property taxes tend to be progressive vs. regressive (which fees, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. are) which should be the aim of most taxes other than those designed for social engineering (e.g. alcohol and cigarette taxes).
Just thinking that maybe property taxes for elders could be tied to Social Security increases as they are the ones most squeezed if on fixed incomes. Could further limit to only those living in a house for decades that is rapidly appreciating. Maybe only those owning a house for at least 20 consecutive years or more which would block out the wealthy retirees from other states that just showed up yesterday at the Villages and are the cause for all that expensive new infrastructure needed to support population growth 8) .
This will be disastrous for core services and life in Jacksonville, but positively deadly for smaller rural counties. There simply isn't enough room in local budgets to make cuts this serious without it really hurting the citizens. It's a terrible sign Tallahassee doesn't get that.
Actually, I'm feeling a lot better now - because what you folks are saying is making me think Deegan and friends can find ways of making up the funding. Of course I'd like to hear what the real estate wonks like Sifakis and Moll have to say about all this but they use mosquito philosophy for challenges: if God doesn't give you an opening, you make one. So I'm confident they'll figure something out also. It's true, Tallahassee is showing there's a lot they don't get. Nevertheless, this obstacle can be gotten around.
Even if Jax had to drop the incentives I still think downtown revitalization would happen for the most part anyway, although maybe more slowly than it is now. In Raleigh-Durham, where my dad lives, the boom occurred first in outlying areas while bypassing the downtowns. Now, however, the downtowns have caught up. I remember downtown Durham was a pimple on the butt of a black hole at the end of the universe somewhere, but now there are 30 story condos going up there. It really depends on the economic health of the area overall. And Jax, although it has always been a growing metro area, was always short of booming - until now. That may be the reason, ultimately, that the downtown revitalization is now finally for real.
I'm wondering: is the proposed downtown Publix eligible for any funding from the state or federal governments because it's the only full service supermarket in a large area that a lot of people consider a "food desert"?
Quote from: Aristocles on June 04, 2026, 10:16:09 AMActually, I'm feeling a lot better now - because what you folks are saying is making me think Deegan and friends can find ways of making up the funding. Of course I'd like to hear what the real estate wonks like Sifakis and Moll have to say about all this but they use mosquito philosophy for challenges: if God doesn't give you an opening, you make one. So I'm confident they'll figure something out also. It's true, Tallahassee is showing there's a lot they don't get. Nevertheless, this obstacle can be gotten around.
Even if Jax had to drop the incentives I still think downtown revitalization would happen for the most part anyway, although maybe more slowly than it is now. In Raleigh-Durham, where my dad lives, the boom occurred first in outlying areas while bypassing the downtowns. Now, however, the downtowns have caught up. I remember downtown Durham was a pimple on the butt of a black hole at the end of the universe somewhere, but now there are 30 story condos going up there. It really depends on the economic health of the area overall. And Jax, although it has always been a growing metro area, was always short of booming - until now. That may be the reason, ultimately, that the downtown revitalization is now finally for real.
Not to scare you, but there's no making up a $300 million hole without cutting services substantially. And it has to be recurring funding - you can't plug the gap by scaling back on one-time dollars like an economic incentive. The only way to avoid it is to vote the tax down.
If this passes, I would seriously consider leaving the city, and the state. There comes a point where you start to feel complicit sticking around. Smarter people than me have already pointed out the obvious in this thread - this "tax savings" would be deeply regressive, and the fees and cuts that would have to be enacted to make up for the shortfall would decimate the city's lower classes who we've already been failing for decades. Downtown revitalization is a first-world problem that should be 50th on our list of concerns with a cut this deep. Parks, libraries, public health, public transit, social services, police & fire, and countless other recurring services would be neutered. And at the same time, hikes in sales taxes, garbage fees, vehicle registrations, and all the other things would disproportionately hit the city's disadvantaged. Everyone wants to complain about public welfare, but it's never going to go away if we keep stacking the cards against those at the bottom.
City Councilman Rory Diamond is posting on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/rory.diamond.7) one idea per day this month for cutting programs he appears to dislike.
The State of Florida has launched a new website in defense of the increased exemption.
https://www.saveourhomesfl.com
The site includes a calculator where one can enter an address and see how much that location's property taxes might decrease, as well as various promotional materials claiming to debunk myths regarding the impact on local services.
Quote from: Aristocles on June 04, 2026, 04:28:25 PMI'm wondering: is the proposed downtown Publix eligible for any funding from the state or federal governments because it's the only full service supermarket in a large area that a lot of people consider a "food desert"?
There's an Aldi, Whole Foods and Fresh Market in the vicinity. Technically, downtown is not a food desert.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 04, 2026, 06:58:24 PMIf this passes, I would seriously consider leaving the city, and the state. There comes a point where you start to feel complicit sticking around. Smarter people than me have already pointed out the obvious in this thread - this "tax savings" would be deeply regressive, and the fees and cuts that would have to be enacted to make up for the shortfall would decimate the city's lower classes who we've already been failing for decades. Downtown revitalization is a first-world problem that should be 50th on our list of concerns with a cut this deep. Parks, libraries, public health, public transit, social services, police & fire, and countless other recurring services would be neutered. And at the same time, hikes in sales taxes, garbage fees, vehicle registrations, and all the other things would disproportionately hit the city's disadvantaged. Everyone wants to complain about public welfare, but it's never going to go away if we keep stacking the cards against those at the bottom.
It's unfortunate that the people who come up with this crazy stuff are typically the same ones that can't make it on their own in the private sector, so they make their living by sucking on the public teet.
"[Republican Council member] Lahnen said even if the city were to zero out all of its spending on nonprofits — a category that includes UF Health Jacksonville, Kids Hope Alliance, public service grants and arts and cultural grants — the city still would have to make 22% across-the-board cuts for non-public safety departments."
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2026/06/03/jacksonville-mayor-higher-homestead-exemption-will-hit-core-services/90383879007/
The argument against this is easy and potent. Depictions and descriptions of all your favorite/dependable services and amenities being shuttered, while simultaneously paying outrageously high new fees and taxes on other things.
All it takes is funding to spread the messaging...... hopefully it's there to spend.
Quote from: fsu813 on June 04, 2026, 08:50:57 PMThe argument against this is easy and potent. Depictions and descriptions of all your favorite/dependable services and amenities being shuddered, while simultaneously paying outrageously high new fees and taxes on other things.
All it takes is funding to spread the messaging...... hopefully it's there to spend.
Does anyone know of any PACs or other groups dedicated to opposing this travesty?
From the law enabling the referendum, these are the functions where counties can spend ad valorem 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 services;
b. Provide funding for education and public schools;
c. Finance or refinance infrastructure, including road and bridge construction and maintenance and stormwater control;
d. Finance and 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;
g. Fund the operations and administration of county officers and commissioners, and municipalities, and the expenditures approved by county officers, or county or municipal governing bodies
I don't see housing assistance, development incentives, feeding people, or the other functions that MAGA sees as woke.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 04, 2026, 08:09:27 PMThere's an Aldi, Whole Foods and Fresh Market in the vicinity. Technically, downtown is not a food desert.
The food desert's north of downtown, with Springfield having only one grocery store on a side street. But Aldi is on the border of that area, okay I guess, no food desert.
I heard that North Dakota defeated a similar proposal 2 to 1 in 2024, with the reason being that the proponents never gave an alternative means to fund services.
I also took a look at the proponents' website (and couldn't get it to work for my address, wouldn't ya know it!). I read through their "myth vs. truth" section. Not too persuasive. But what really got me ticked was the comment about a fund in Tallahassee for "essential services". Meaning, the State of Florida is engaging in a power grab. This proposal is building in local government funding shortages, forcing local governments to go to Tallahassee asking for money. Which Tallahassee will give if the local governments agree to further Tallahassee's interests. Big loss of local control that could severely hurt communities.
So, what needs to be done: get everyone with a dog in the fight - the EMS workers, city/county employees, renters associations, business owners (they'll be forced to pay increased taxes on their non-homestead properties), and anyone else who'll be adversely affected - to demand an alternative fundraising mechanism or encourage people to vote against it. My guess is the State won't have an alternative, and they'll sound like Rory Diamond by saying something to the effect of "governments can do with less." Whether or not that's true is a side issue because THIS IS NOT A TAX CUT OR EVEN ABOUT GOVERNMENT WASTE. It's a cosmetic measure designed to fool people into thinking "they're not going to pay taxes anymore" while giving Tallahassee ridiculous power over local governments.
I believe that, if this strategy is followed, this thing won't hit 60%.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 04, 2026, 09:08:13 PMQuote from: fsu813 on June 04, 2026, 08:50:57 PMThe argument against this is easy and potent. Depictions and descriptions of all your favorite/dependable services and amenities being shuddered, while simultaneously paying outrageously high new fees and taxes on other things.
All it takes is funding to spread the messaging...... hopefully it's there to spend.
Does anyone know of any PACs or other groups dedicated to opposing this travesty?
Quote from: Aristocles on June 04, 2026, 09:24:30 PM...
So, what needs to be done: get everyone with a dog in the fight - the EMS workers, city/county employees, renters associations, business owners (they'll be forced to pay increased taxes on their non-homestead properties), and anyone else who'll be adversely affected - to demand an alternative fundraising mechanism or encourage people to vote against it. My guess is the State won't have an alternative, and they'll sound like Rory Diamond by saying something to the effect of "governments can do with less." Whether or not that's true is a side issue because THIS IS NOT A TAX CUT OR EVEN ABOUT GOVERNMENT WASTE. It's a cosmetic measure designed to fool people into thinking "they're not going to pay taxes anymore" while giving Tallahassee ridiculous power over local governments.
I believe that, if this strategy is followed, this thing won't hit 60%.
These are some of the interests that should be opposed to this travesty.
First, let's gut-check the math that's being used to support the tax reduction/elimination. In Jacksonville's case, the Florida DOGE report identified property tax receipts had increased 57% from 2020 to 2025, allegedly outstripping both population growth and inflation.
Population growth in Duval over the five year period is estimated at roughly 10%. Inflation was 24.5% (let's say 25%). Multiplied together, that's ~38%. So in the simplest, nuance-free terms, property tax has outstripped the combined effect of population growth and inflation.
Restoring property taxes to a level proportionate with population and inflation growth would require a 15% cut to 2025 levels. With a $2B annual city budget, that's about $300M -- roughly the same amount the city auditor is projecting the city will lose by FY 2029.
I think exclusively messaging how catastrophic the cuts to core services will be misses the mark. People are going to say, "wait, we had parks and libraries and police and fire back in 2020." What's missing is an explanation for why the cost of providing core services has risen faster than the simplified population growth * inflation formula would suggest.
I'm all for the idea of incremental reform that protects long-term residents and owners of lower-valued properties. E.g., award a $500K exemption after 20-30 years of paying property tax in any FL locale. But these huge, immediate, broad exemptions disproportionately reward recent COVID-era transplants from high COL locales who bought at inflated values (and who are responsible for pushing property values higher) and then slams the door shut behind them with the 5 year waiting period. No thanks.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on June 05, 2026, 10:28:06 AMI think exclusively messaging how catastrophic the cuts to core services will be misses the mark. People are going to say, "wait, we had parks and libraries and police and fire back in 2020." What's missing is an explanation for why the cost of providing core services has risen faster than the simplified population growth * inflation formula would suggest.
According to an article in the Tallahassee Democrat dated Sept. 24, 2025, "government costs have increased through inflation, equipment prices, maintenance, and vendor expenses". Inflation you've already covered. Now I have a hard time believing that equipment prices, maintenance, and vendor expenses by themselves can make up the rest of the difference, which does make me think there's waste going on. But the remedy for this is to address the waste, not make it difficult for local governments to raise legitimately needed money. Maybe Rory Diamond is right, governments can do with less, but I still see that as a side issue. The one in the many, so to speak, as I'm seeing it is Tallahassee wants to get veto power over local governments' budget items by making it necessary for cash-strapped local governments to ask Tallahassee to cover budget shortfalls.
Quote from: fsu813 on June 04, 2026, 08:50:57 PMThe argument against this is easy and potent. Depictions and descriptions of all your favorite/dependable services and amenities being shuttered, while simultaneously paying outrageously high new fees and taxes on other things.
All it takes is funding to spread the messaging...... hopefully it's there to spend.
Also:
Business organizations have often pitched local quality of life as an important piece of enticing business relocations......... divesting in services and amenities for ad hoc austerity doesn't exactly fit into that pitch.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 04, 2026, 07:09:20 PMCity Councilman Rory Diamond is posting on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/rory.diamond.7) one idea per day this month for cutting programs he appears to dislike.
I checked out his Facebook page and saw the things he proposes to cut. What I'd like to see is him post: "Cut it from the Jacksonville City Budget No.___, Paying Gateway Jax is a taxpayer gift to large politically connected developers! $98,580,000"
Interesting. If I remember correctly, Councilman Diamond voted in August of 2024 for the incentives. The incentives package passed 18-0, with only Councilman Salem abstaining. Now he's for a measure the substance of which contradicts that vote.
(Yes I'm aware those incentives are a done deal. But what I'm pointing out is he was in favor of that which he must now know he'll make extremely difficult to impossible.)
An interesting clause in the referendum bill
QuoteArticle VII - Finance and Taxation
Section 4 (d)
All persons entitled to a homestead exemption under Section 6 of this Article shall have their homestead assessed at just value as of January 1 of the year following the effective date of this amendment. This assessment shall change only as provided in this subsection.
"Just value" is also "market value," meaning that the savings we have all been enjoying under the current Save Our Homes limit on annual increases (3%) in "taxable value" will be gone. Our Taxable Value will equal the Market Value as of January 1, 2027 if this thing passes.
If you have owned your home for a long time, there is probably a pretty big gap between your taxable value and the market (just) value. There will be long-time homeowners who will face higher tax bills in the first ($150,000 exemption) year; and even some in the second year ($250,000 exemption). Also, since the school homestead exemption stays at $25,000, many homeowners will pay higher school taxes.
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.
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).
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on June 06, 2026, 12:21:11 AMMy 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
Quote(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.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on June 06, 2026, 12:21:11 AMMy 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.
Agreed. It is refreshing👏
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.
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
QuoteNot 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.
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)
Quotehttps://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!
QuoteAnd 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.
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.
^ 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.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 04, 2026, 07:09:20 PMCity Councilman Rory Diamond is posting on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/rory.diamond.7) one idea per day this month for cutting programs he appears to dislike.
Diamond's latest idea (https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19KpbWgJyy/) is that the City should not build new Downtown parks, because "no Jax families want them."
One thing I'm noticing: people who are in favor of the homestead exemption increases very often sound giddy and emotionalistic, saying things like "wow I'm not going to pay taxes! Let the governments do with less it's all fraud anyway!!" Or, if their points do sound well-thought out, they say things that sound like talking points they've memorized from someone who gave them their lines. However, the people against this often sound not just good, but actually like they really understand what they're saying. You don't say "this is a power grab, with local governments unable to raise money and having to go to Tallahassee to get it on Tallahassee's terms" without knowing what you're talking about.
Another day, another Diamond idea (https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18m2FU9dfh/): Eliminating the Emerald Trail to instead spend that money on roads, which is somehow counted as savings.
The only problem with Diamond's ideas are they assume that everyone living here has the same quality-of-life values as him. He's probably go crazy if someone proposed a Vehicle Miles Traveled user fee or toll booths on all highways entering the city.
In reading the legislation that places the Homestead Exemption changes on the ballot, I have questions. I know there are people here who understand legislative things, and taxes, and such; and have access to people in government that know such things.
Assuming the amendment gets on the ballot and gets the required 60% "yes" vote in November:
On January 1, 2027, Property Appraisers around the state will be required to assess all homesteaded properties at their "just value." [Article VII, Finance and Taxation, Section 4(d) – Lines 36-40].
For the assessment year 2027, the just value of homesteaded property will have benefit of an exemption of $150,000. Beginning on January 1, 2028, the exemption increases to $250,000. Both of these exemptions apply to "all levies other than school district levies" where the exemption will be $25,000. [Article IV, Section 6(a)(1) – Lines 201-213]
This appears to reset all taxable values to the "just" or "market" value of homesteaded properties; wiping out the reduced "assessed value" from previous Save Our Homes legislation.
This could result in a tax increase for people who have homesteaded for a long time, as the taxable ("just") value has increased significantly more than the capped increases on the "assessed" value. This will be especially visible in the school taxes. For example, my "Assessed Value" before the current exemptions is about 73% of the market value, and I've been here nine years.
Am I correct?
Link to the amendment: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/203
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.
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.
Quote from: Jankelope on June 20, 2026, 11:47:15 AMIt 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.
Quote from: fsu813 on June 20, 2026, 01:05:23 PMQuote from: Jankelope on June 20, 2026, 11:47:15 AMIt 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.
Quote from: fsu813 on June 20, 2026, 12:40:42 AMSpoke 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.
Quote from: Aristocles on June 22, 2026, 04:58:16 PMQuote from: fsu813 on June 20, 2026, 12:40:42 AMSpoke 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.
Snip from jaxlongtimer
QuoteThe 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.'
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?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 22, 2026, 09:54:11 PMCities 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.'
Reduction in time to review plans is actually being voted on at tonight's city council meeting via 2026-0363.
First, regarding my theory that assessed values will jump up to the "Just (Market) Value" wiping out reduced values from previous Save Our Homes limits. I have heard that the Department of Revenue will develop guidance for county property appraisers AFTER (IF) the referendum passes in November.
Frankly, I don't believe them. There are only 8 weeks between Election Day and January 1st, when the new assessments are due, and there are the Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas holidays subtracting time. It doesn't seem reasonable that they will develop and publish guidance in time for Property Appraisers to meet the January 1 deadline. I think they are working (or will be soon) the guidance, to be published around Veterans Day.
Second, per the Times-Union, there is a bi-partisan group opposing the referendum:
https://votenoonamendment3.com/ Vote No On Amendment 3
From the TU article (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/state/2026/06/26/vote-no-on-3-launches-fight-over-florida-property-tax-overhaul/90701508007/)
QuoteThe group, "Vote No on 3," was organized in early June, according to state Division of Elections records. It lists two officers: the chair, Bryan Desloge, a retired businessman who was the lone Republican on the Leon County Commission during a 14-year tenure, and treasurer Jonathan Brill, described by the Florida Politics news site as a "prominent Democratic compliance expert."
He questions whether voters will support the "monstrous" cuts the proposed amendment would most likely force. "What are you going to tell us? That we're going to cut the police department by a third? Close libraries and parks, things I would consider nice things to have? They make a community what it is," Desloge said.
"In its current form, I fear the proposal will devastate counties' and cities' ability to deliver vital services, including emergency services, to our citizens," Judd is quoted as saying. "We have got to be careful about how we do this ... we have to watch out for unintended consequences."
Floridians For Shared Prosperity is a group opposed to the homestead exemption increase. Their website is https://flsharedprosperity.org/
Quote from: Aristocles on July 09, 2026, 06:38:47 PMFloridians For Shared Prosperity is a group opposed to the homestead exemption increase. Their website is https://flsharedprosperity.org/
Thanks for the link
Thanks. Will share on social media.
Palm Beach County is putting out hundreds of yard signs in public sites/buildings stating they are maintained by property taxes.
https://cbs12.com/news/local/palm-beach-county-reveals-cost-of-park-signs-thanking-property-taxpayers-parks-tax-revenue-services-public-safety-libraries-influence-voters-public-money-awareness-campaign-ballot-measure-vote-eliminate-property-tax
Quote from: fsu813 on July 23, 2026, 11:47:36 PMPalm Beach County is putting out hundreds of yard signs in public sites/buildings stating they are maintained by property taxes.
https://cbs12.com/news/local/palm-beach-county-reveals-cost-of-park-signs-thanking-property-taxpayers-parks-tax-revenue-services-public-safety-libraries-influence-voters-public-money-awareness-campaign-ballot-measure-vote-eliminate-property-tax
Great idea! And, love these quotes:
QuoteIf Amendment 3 is approved, the administration would be forced to bring proposals to the Board of County Commissioners that could include paid beach parking, park user fees, red-light camera ticketing enforcement at many intersections, an increase in taxes that would primarily impact businesses and renters, and other revenue-generating measures.
Amendment 3 is not an overall tax reduction; it is simply a potential shift in how taxes are collected. We have a responsibility to ensure our local government is properly funded and able to operate effectively. I encourage any resident to meet with us, review our budget, and see firsthand how their tax dollars are being used to serve Palm Beach County.