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.         

[CityLife]

Florida's Save Our Homes law is wildly favorable to long term property owners. More often than not, it costs local governments more to provide services to a long term resident of a homesteaded property than is recouped in property taxes.

Someone that bought a $75k home (median home price in Jax) in 1992 (year Save Our Homes was adopted) would only have a maximum taxable value of around $151k.

In the maximum taxable value scenario, that homeowner would still only pay $1,935 in property taxes. You get police, fire, parks, streets and road maintenance, public landscaping, stormwater, schools, special events, libraries, courts, and so on. The cost to provide all those services on a per capita basis likely far exceeds $1,935 per household.

Let's not forget that these long time homeowners were able to work in and save for retirement in an incredibly fertile economy. If someone had simply put $10k in the S&P 500 in 1992, it would be worth $362k now. Someone making the median household income of $30k in 1992 should have well north of $500k in a 401k or IRA if they put 5% annually into a retirement account. I'm sure there are many tragic and valid cases of elderly people on fixed incomes that struggle to pay property taxes...but by and large, Boomers and older Gen Xers should have no problem affording property taxes. 

Any solutions to housing affordability and taxation, should be focused on helping younger generations, who are getting fleeced, imo.

[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.