Florida's Constitutional Amendments on the 2022 Ballot
November 5, 2022 3:00pm
As happens at every general election, Florida voters have constitutional amendments on the ballot to approve or reject. And while most such amendments should be rejected, two of this year's three should be approved. All three were placed on the ballot by the Florida Legislature.
This is how I will be voting on the three amendments:
#1 - YES
#2 - YES
#3 - NO
Here's why:
Amendment 1: Limitation on the Assessment of Real Property Used for Residential Purposes
Ballot Summary: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution, effective January 1, 2023, to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit the consideration of any change or improvement made to real property used for residential purposes to improve the property’s resistance to flood damage in determining the assessed value of such property for ad valorem taxation purposes.”
If this amendment passes, it would mean the state legislature could (and almost certainly would because it placed the amendment authorizing it to do so on the ballot) pass laws that would exempt from property tax assessment the increased value of a home if that increased value resulted from improvements designed to prevent flood damage; things such as elevating structures, filling basements, waterproofing, and improvements that would allow for stormwater runoff, waterproofing basements, installing check valves capable of preventing water backup, and elevating furnaces, heaters, and electrical panels.
While I recognize that such improvements would increase the value of a home, I'm perfectly OK with that increased value not being subject to taxation. Exempting such improvements would be an incentive for homeowners to make their homes more resistant to flood damage in a way that doesn't require an appropriation of taxpayer money - something I have opposed in the past when it's been done with outright grants (which is another way of saying "paid for with someone else's money who had no choice but to pay."). If it passes, it would take effect January 1, 2023. But it would not automatically mean the value of flood mitigation improvements wouldn't be included in ad valorum taxes. That would require an act of the state legislature. But the legislature does not have such authority to do that right now. Approval of Amendment 1 would give it that authority.
And I see that as a good idea. So I'm voting "yes" on 1.
Amendment 2: Abolishing the Constitution Revision Commission
Ballot Summary: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to abolish the Constitution Revision Commission, which meets at 20-year intervals and is scheduled to next convene in 2037, as a method of submitting proposed amendments or revisions to the State Constitution to electors of the state for approval. This amendment does not affect the ability to revise or amend the State Constitution through citizen initiative, constitutional convention, the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, or legislative joint resolution.”
If this amendment passes, it would abolish the Constitution Revision Commission. I wish it also made it more difficult for citizen petitions to propose changes to the state constitution, but it doesn't. The people, via petition, and the legislature via majority vote, would still be able to propose amendments in the future. And so could the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. A constitutional convention could also still amend it. Approval of Amendment 2 would only prevent the Constitution Revision Commission from do so because it wouldn't exist anymore. And I see its elimination as a good thing. If our state constitution is in need of being amended, the legislature can propose it. And so can the people - either directly through petition or indirectly through their representatives and senators. But the Constitution Revision Commission is an unnecessary make-work body that feels like it has to monkey with our constitution whether there is a legitimate need to amend it or not. It's long past time to do away with that pointless bureaucracy that didn't even exist until 1968. It'll save Floridians the time and money of what the commission does, and it should reduce the number of unnecessary amendments we get in the future. And that would be a good thing.
So I'm voting "yes" on 2. Let's do away with the Constitution Revision Commission
Amendment 3: Additional Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Specified Critical Public Service Workforce
Ballot summary: “Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to grant an additional homestead tax exemption for non-school levies of up to $50,000 of the assessed value of homestead property owned by classroom teachers, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, child welfare services professionals, active duty members of the United States Armed Forces, and Florida National Guard members. This amendment shall take effect January 1, 2023.”
If this amendment passes, it would reduce property tax assessments by $50,000 on homes owned and occupied by the professions listed above. While that may sound on the surface to be a nice thing to do for people doing necessary jobs we appreciate, if you think it through, it is absolutely horrible policy. Taxes should be low and broadly spread. When special exemptions are given to certain classes of people, it just increases the tax burden of those not in those certain classes.
Keep in mind that all homesteaded Floridians already have a $50,000 exemption on their assessed values. This amendment would double it for those preferred classes. Something else that is worth pointing out with regard to this amendment is that property taxes in Florida fund local governments and local school systems. But this amendment was proposed by the state legislature. In other words, STATE lawmakers voted to reduce taxes at the LOCAL level, while leaving state funding unaffected. But if this bad amendment passes, those state lawmakers will brag to the voters about how they implemented a massive tax cut. And those voters will be so uninformed that they won't realize that the tax cuts would affect LOCAL tax revenue not state tax revenue.
To be clear, the proposed tax exemption would not reduce the school board portion of one's tax bill. Why is that? Because the state budget helps fund education all across Florida, so if school board taxes to fund local schools were cut, the state would need to make up the shortfall. But when other county and city services revenues are cut, the state legislature is under no obligation to help make up the shortfall at all.
If you want to make the argument that property taxes are too high, that's something I won't counter. But if property taxes are too high, the solution is to cut property taxes for everyone not just for a select few. And if you want to make the argument that teachers, police, firefighters, military, etc. are underpaid, I won't take the time here to convince you otherwise - even though most are not underpaid. But even if they were underpaid, and that was the justification to give them a special tax break, the remedy for low pay is not special tax exemptions. The remedy is higher pay!
Lastly, if Amendment 3 passes, those people's local property tax cuts would be automatic because the state legislature has already passed a law that would go into effect on January 1, 2023 if the constitutional amendment is passed on November 8th.
But it would be a horrible tax break for the reasons I just stated. And it would cost local governments an estimated $85.9 million in lost revenue for fiscal year 2023-24. And that figure would go up every year thereafter. The state legislature knows that that would be financially devastating to some small counties, which is why they would mitigate those losses of local tax revenue with an appropriation from the state coffers. How stupid is that? The state legislature wants to cut local tax revenues while at the same time promising to make up for the loss of local taxpayer money with state taxpayer money. It truly makes no sense whatsoever.
That's why I'm voting "no" on 3.
SUMMARY:
#1 - YES
#2 - YES
#3 - NO