Robo calls for Amendment 1

Add robo-calls to the Vote Yes on 1 arsenal.

Tampa Bay residents have gotten calls from former Tampa Mayor Dick Greco ("The man," as Gov. Charlie Crist called him during a campaign stop last week. Photo here). Calling himself a former Democratic mayor, Greco touts elements of the property tax cut proposal.

"A lot of things are being said about Amendment 1 and I thought I would tell you some of the facts," Greco says.

Crist, who has recorded calls in the past, will launch a new one this week.

Comments

Fact 1 - it will save you less than 66 cents a day.

Fact 2 - if you move you lose your 3% SOH cap and come under a ne 10% cap.

Fact 3 - the 10% cap can be wavied by the local government with a 2/3rds vote.

Fact 4 - the 10% cap expires in 10 years.

Fact 5 - the portability of the cap (moving from a 3% to a 10% cap) is probably unconstitutional.

Fact 5 - if it is declared unconstitutional and you've used the portability - you are exposed - no 10% cap and no 3% cap.

Make them go back and do this right!!!!!!

Property owners should not be the primary tax base!!!

Tax consumption not ownership - tax skyboxes, superbowl tickets, advertising, and services!!!

What facts are they twisting with this tactic? Any way to get the script?

[Will]

11:05

You are a LIAR. The 10% cap ONLY applies to NON-homesteaded homeowners and business properties.

If you are homesteaded, you moving will retain the 3% cap, and take the SOH savings with you.

11:05 a.m.'s facts are dead wrong,

Fact #2 is dead wrong. You don't lose the 3% SOH cap if you move.

Fact #3 is dead wrong. The local governments cannot waive the 10% cap on non-homesteaded properties. They can (with a supermajority vote) exceed newly legislated caps on spending that have NOTHING to do with Amendment #1.

Fact #4 is dead wrong.

Fact #5 is totally a combination of unrelated items again. There is a question about the constitutionality of SOH and of SOH portability, but there is no shift to 10% from 3% and the amendment has nothing to do with whether or not the current SOH benefit is constitutional under the US Constitution.

Fact #6 (numbered 5 again on his rant) - if the SOH or SOH portability is ruled unconstitutional, it will be a combination of the Court and the Legisalture that will determine how to move forward. No one (and I mean no one) knows how such a decision would be resolved. And again, the current SOH benefit could be unconstitutional whether Amendment #1 passes or not. I don't think that it is unconstitutional, but I am not the judge that would get to decide.

Fact #1 is the closest to being true, but it is still false. It is true that you will save $.67 cents per day if you have a homestead and no other property. However, it is fairer to note that even for these people, it is $.67 per day for the rest of your homestead (life). This could really add up. For those that have non-homesteaded properties, businesses, mobile homes, or homesteads that move under the new portability provisions, the savings are much more than just $.67 per day for the rest of their lives.

I am sorry to disagree with Will that the poster was lying. I think that he was lied to by someone else and is just afraid. It is too bad that so many "leaders" who should be helping to clear up the information about the proposal are just stirring the pot to muddy the waters. Where are you Marco? Help us pass this amendment!

awesome- people HATE robo calls- way to go!

[terminator]

are we haveing fun yet children?

hey, we're just like politicians.

lying, twisting the truth and distorting the facts!

[Dave]

I've already voted NO on Amendment 1 by absentee ballot, but that Greco is supporting this verifies that I voted the correct way.

Go away, Greco.

[No Relief for Me]

11:05

Please do not spread lies. SOH will be intact at 3% regardless of the outcome of this amendment.

I will vote NO because it makes an unfair system even more unfair. It gives little relief to those that need it the most and it will make true reform more difficult to achieve.

We do not need opponents to spread lies. It only hurts our side. Let Crist keep spreading his half truths and that will help us more. When he states that SOH is preserved, he implies that it may not be with a NO vote. That is also not true. When he says it helps families, he visits those it will help, but doesn't go to the neighbor next door paying 2 to 3 times in taxes that it will not help. Portability is only freedom for those that have it and many do not. Their cries for relief were unanswered.

VOTE NO BECAUSE ALL NEW AND RECENT BUYERS NEED HELP AND FLORIDA DESERVES BETTER!

ANYONE WHO VOTES YES IS EITHER GREEDY OR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENT.

The founders of this great nation, and our great state, never intended our Constitutions to be a means by which to validate the act of taxation of the people, regardless of a perceived result.

This is a very slippery slope, and an extremely dangerous precedent.

For that reason alone, everyone should vote NO.

[No Relief for Me]

11:57

The actual savings can only be determined if millage rates were set in stone. They are subject to change and are more likely to change upward if portability is passsed. Think about it, if an elite group of people within the same class are permitted to keep their taxes lower than everyone else when they move, counties will increase millage rates to generate more revenue. Those who have no accumulated SOH benefits (first-time and recent buyers) to port with them, will continue to be overburdened. Millage rates go up and we all lose, especially those who have higher assessed values.

Only the greedy or the ignorant will vote YES on this immoral amendment.

No Relief... glad to see you are using the info I supplied on Guermo's (or whatever her name was) neighbors...

I found it unbelievable that Charlie could or would look past that person and every other person in the same situation...

and if anyone is questioning who those people may be... it is anyone who who bought prior between 2002 and the end of 2006... you know, all the people who took advantage of the housing boom...

I still contend that the ultimate solution will ding long-term SOH'ers a little and give breaks to everyone who bought after 2002... you know, an equitable solution...

and that equitable solution will come when those who did not move, but are wanting to take advantage of the increase in their home value realize that prices will still be dropping because no one will be buying... and my guess is that will be within 12 - 18 months.

A perfect example is a friend of mine who bought a house around 1996 for about $155,000 and saw the value increase to $404,000 in 2006... now the value is going down... How much does that value need to go down before he wants to cash out and move into the bigger home that he thinks he can only afford if amendment 1 passes because of taxes... soon, especially if amendment 1 fails because the loss on the sales price will only add to his new mortgage payment...

long-term SOH'ers will be willing to take that ding for some real relief soon...

and the funny thing is, even though his market value is declining, his taxes are still going up to make up for SOH anyway...

only ones making money on this (instead of taxpayers saving money) are the political consultants and vendors. Keep spending!

Its the RPOF gravey train! Mmm Mmmm good!!! Yummy to the tummy! Lets all go to the Bahamas, i'm whipped.

[Paul D. Harvill]

Biggest contributions FOR Amendment One:

http://forum.tallahassee.com/viewtopic.php?t=47465

___________________________

Biggest contributions AGAINST Amendment One:

http://forum.tallahassee.com/viewtopic.php?t=47846

[green hornet]

Greco is a joke. Raised more taxes and fees during his 8 years than any Mayor in recent history not to mention the boondoggles commonly refered to as the Trolley and Centro Ybor. Taxpayers will be paying for his proclivities for decades.
Maybe all that hair dye and human growth homones that his wife is injecting in him has finally affected his brain.......