Three speak as one on property taxes

Florida's city, county, and school board associations in a joint statement today urged voters to become well-informed about the property tax amendment before going to the polls Jan. 29. After meeting in Tampa, the groups stopped short of asking for a "no" vote on the amendment because that's not the position of the Florida Association of Counties. The county group, Florida League of Cities and Florida School Board Association did, however, agree that that they don't like policy directives -- such as more physical education in the schools -- coming from Tallahassee with no funding attached to them. They'd like to a see a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would require more review of "unfunded mandates."

Comments

Save Our Homes have passed court muster twice and portability will too in our opinion.

Voting YES on Amendment 1 will give all Floridian homeowners portability.

Please, tell me, if you get portability who will buy your home?

Why would a first time buyer come here when the disparity is so large? I assume that most who would take their SOH are those looking to downsize or those looking to upgrade. So logic would tell me that most of those homes are in the square footage/bedroom range that would appeal to most first buyers. I already have three of those on my block for sale. They have been for months.

We have homes that are still priced too high for first time buyers, as people still think they can make profits. We don't appeal to younger people as a whole.

So who is going to buy?

So I hope that if you vote Yes, you are happy with your $20.00 a month. Anyone who thinks this is a beginning, is naive.

I don't believe SOH is unconstitutional, but I am willing to bet that "portability" is! Who ever heard of tieing PROPERTY taxes to INDIVIDUALS? I challenge anyone to provide a similar tax scheme in another state similar to portability.

Vote NO! Make them give us true tax reform!

[No Relief For Me]

Let's put constitutionality aside on this issue and ask yourself this question?

Is is just and moral to tax one individual $2,000 and another $6,000 for homes of equal value located side by side?

Some argue that I have paid into the system for years and have built the infastructure, blah blah blah. In 10 years the first will have paid $20,000 into the system. the second will have paid that much in just 3.25 years, and the disparity will only grow.

I'm not against helping people move that feel trapped into their homes, or helping seniors downsize. We ALL need breaks folks. This proposal only deepens the inequities and has pitted us against each other. How can you honestly commend our governor and legislators for this poor excuse they call tax reform? Why, because all you think about is "me me me." So help only yourself and Charlie's parents too. Geez, they sure must need more help than our child purchasing their first home.

Let's put constitutionality aside on this issue and ask yourself this question?

Is it just and moral to make one individual (who purchased a home during a balanced market) pay the same (or retroactive) taxes as another individual (who made a poor decision and purchased a home during an artificially inflated market) for homes of equal (speculative) value located side by side?

9:15 - yes - it's called the market - the market is more moral than some tinkering lawmakers trying to produce social and financial results through manipulation of the tax code

the speculative buyer beware - not my fault they bought at wrong time

9:15 - your comment is short-sighted... the inequities caused by SOH were created well before any artifically inlated market. That aside...

Lets look to after Jan 29th if this passes... one person with $200,000 portability buys a house tax valued at $400,000... and right next door, an employee for a company who just moved to florida and is transferring with that company buys the exact same house, for the exact same price... why should that person pay double the taxes?

[nan]

I've been reading these posts and those in other papers for months and it is clear to me that NO RELIEF FOR ME's logic is far superior to that of other posters! NRFM makes all valid points and rather than try to refute them, you resort to questioning her intelligence?
NRFM, it's futile to attempt to match wits with unarmed opponents.

This is a tax cut. It is not tax reform. – Fla. Tax Watch “Reform is likely to do more harm than good.”

The new property tax amendment falls far short of what is needed. There are a number of reasons why:
• The plan gives most of the relief to those who need it the least (long-term Save Our Homes
property), while giving very little to those that have seen their taxes rise the most (non-homestead
property).
• It will perpetuate the current system and exacerbate the shift of tax burden from homestead to
non-homestead property. It will also continue to shift tax burden to new homeowners.
• While some solution to portability is needed, there are serious constitutional concerns about
providing it.
• The 10% cap for non-homestead property is so high as to be of little value to most properties.
• The $9.3 billion five-year taxpayer savings estimate is likely overstated. The proposal does not
restrict local governments’ ability to increase millage rates to recoup revenue losses, thereby
lessening the savings for some and shifting more tax burden to others.
• And perhaps most importantly, if the voters approve this new amendment,

This change will continue to unfairly place the tax burden on new homeowners and businesses. If you think the real estate market is bad, wait until portability becomes law and localities across the state start to see tax rolls shrink due to portable exemptions. Your savings will have to be made up by increased taxes on new homeowners and businesses.

We need to elect politicians who show some leadership. With the exception of Mark Rubio, there was no leadership from any member of the Fla. legislature last session. Leadership is about being bold, taking risks, and giving people what they need, not just what they want.

If you believe county governments and cities are hurting, consider this: Last year in Hillsborough County the BOCC spent $400K for a piece of “art” in front of the new justice center. $400K will pay for a lot of police, potholes, and, firemen. These local govs arent hurting. They're full of s&#t! If you want lower spending, don't amend the constitution, elect better public officials!

Governor Crist says this amenment isn’t just about controlling taxes, but also about controlling local government expenses. That’s just false. Local governments will find new ways to spend your money. If you believe this is going to change that, you’re wrong.

The business tax provision in this amendment expires in ten years. So clearly, the legislature is not committed to real, long-term reform.

The state constituion should not be a mechanism of legislating tax policy.

This is not a grassroots effort. The legislature’s failure to lead on this issue lead them to abdicate their authority via the constitutional amendment. This effort, which simply gets the politicians off the hook for a few years is being lead, and paid for by special interest groups looking out for their own interests or seeking political favor with the governor and the legislature.

Rollback taxes and spending to 2002 levels, and expand SOH to ALL property both residential and commercial.

Problem Solved!

For the person attacking Dominic... and I have no dog in this fight... provide the list and correlations if you are so sure it exists...

It is easy to make claims without backing up your comments...

Also make sure the include members who would be on the other side of the issue...

Otherwise, shut up...

Isn't it telling that the GOP can't make up it's mind whether to vote "Yes" or "No" on Ammendment 1? The explanation is simple - they've been tasked by their corporate handlers to deliver a big tax break to developers and realtors, but it's becoming obvious that we, the real citizens of Florida, have seen through their game and we're not going to subsidize them at the expense of our schools and services.

The GOP "No" voters simply want to get 1 off the ballot so they can try again. They will be back again and again trying to ram this down our throats until we finally vote them out of office. Don't let your guard down - vote "NO" on all GOP-sponsored tax cuts.

11;16 - are you waiting for the DEM-sponsored tax cuts?

11:16 - the reason for the mixed feelings on this is because the democrats wouldn't support something that was meaningful...

You should be happy that Geller has announced his intention to run for the Broward County Commission, where his tax and spend attitude should fit in just fine.

Exactly, it's the democrats that have blocked all efforts for more meaningful tax relief.

So I say YES to Amendment 1. It's a start to relief. More to come later, and it give much needed PORTABILTY of SaveOurHomes to Floridians that want to move.

I say support Gov Crist & Amendment 1

[No Relief For Me]

To nan....

Thank you for the compliments and recognition. I just got back into town and am pleased to see others with intelligence have also joined me in the effort to inform and educate our voters.

I also applaud the response to 9:15 by 9:32 and 9:34. If you want to own a home, one has no choice to pay what the market bears. We all purchase homes not just to be our haven, but in the hopes it will prove a good investment as well. Otherwise, we'd all just rent. Don't you think we would have loved to purchase at your price?

Orlando Sentinel recommends voters to vote YES on Amendment 1.

link:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed13108jan13,0,4995557.story

+

Naples Daily News recommends voters to vote YES on Amendment 1.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jan/12/editorial-property-tax-amendment/

good read

[No Relief For Me]

I'd like to share some info with you re. how much this proposal will help Charlie's parents.

In 1969 they bought a piece of property in St. Petersburg, Florida that overlooks the pristine waters of Tampa Bay for $22,000. They built a nice 3600 SF home. Today it is valued by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser at $1.2 million. It went down from last years value of $1.5 million. It has an assessed value of $530,361, giving them a SOH benefit of $685,139, which saves them $15,000 a year in taxes. They are eligible to port the full $500,000 with them as long as their new home is purchased for a minimum of $895,000. They would pay $10,000 less in taxes than a new buyer with zero SOH benefits.

If they downgrade to a modest $300,000 home, they can port 56% of that or $168,000. Combine that with their double homestead exemption and their taxes will be approximately $1,840. Our child who might buy their first home at the same value would pay taxes of $5,200.

Do you really think Charlie's parents need the help more than our children? Is the capital gains not enough? They can pay cash for that modest home, put money in the bank, and pay less than half what our children will. Do we need to help the rich get richer?

VOTE NO to this unjust, unmoral joke of an amendment!!!

"Rollback taxes and spending to 2002 levels, and expand SOH to ALL property both residential and commercial.

Problem Solved!"

Do you keep this on a hard drive so you can copy and paste it?

So as another said, giving SOH to all cancels it out. Basic concept there.

6:55 gotta love his/her persistence... but giving SOH to all cancels it out is not true... business, rentals, etc. are subject to unlimited increases... at least his/her proposal starts to bring equity to the SOH welfare for the elite, although it wouldn't make the entitlement queens of 2007 happy.

Vote no on this anti-economic development scam...

Just try to get any high-wage job industries to come to this state if any new employees x-fering would have to pay double in property taxes what their neighbor is paying...

[No Relief For Me]

good read

Posted by: | January 15, 2008 at 05:44 PM

Good read....LOL. How can one point out the unfairness in a proposal and ask you to vote YES? Why, because no doubt both of the authors of these editorials stand to gain considerably from portability.....just like Charlie's parents.

Why don't you all just get up in the morning, put on your monkey suits, look in the mirror, beat your chests and shout ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!!! You certainly have the intelligence of apes, might as well look like one too!

[No Relief For Me]

6:55 gotta love his/her persistence... but giving SOH to all cancels it out is not true... business, rentals, etc. are subject to unlimited increases...

I think 7:03 meant to include ALL properties. There is, afterall, investment residential rental properties, and businesses either own or rent commercial properties.

If they rolled back the prices for new buyers as well, it's a great idea. Most likely we'll see a sales tax increase or state income tax to make up the substantial loss in revenues. I LIKE IT!!

"6:55 gotta love his/her persistence... but giving SOH to all cancels it out is not true... business, rentals, etc. are subject to unlimited increases... at least his/her proposal starts to bring equity to the SOH welfare for the elite, although it wouldn't make the entitlement queens of 2007 happy."

But we don't SOH to equal things out. A bonus to all is a bonus to none. I mean, if we all have it, if it is the status quo, then there is nothing special about it. I am all for trying to balance the unequal system out, but say what you (in general, not personal) mean rather than try to smooth it out with political speak, because what we are really talking about is a cap on how much our taxes can go up a year. But that would still create the disparity that exists now, just for more people. New buyers would still not have the benefit of the cap and would still be paying more.

So that's where I am struggling. I do think that a cap is appealing, mainly because I don't trust local government to spend wisely. As another said, $400k on a piece of art. In Clearwater, talk of cutting personnel, but spending on boat slips. But I think the inequity comes from the cap. Although I guess it depends on the POV of what the inequity actually is, i.e., businesses versus homeowners, second homes versus homestead, or new buyers versus old owners. In my point of view the most glaring difference is in with new buyers versus old owners. Obviously though, there are things that need to be addressed in other areas.

I guess that's why the sales tax, in theory, appealed the best for myself. I basically rent the house I own from the government. Neither here nor there right now though...

[Out of my butt...]

Here's what I want to know:

Statewide, if all people were taxed fairly (on value of property, minus current exemptions), what millage rate would the local governments need to use to bring in the same money they do now?

In other words, if we started to average it out, cap local spending in some form with an adjustment for inflation, would new buyers pay less down the road? Would the rate drop? Obviously expecting existing owners who receive a benefit from SOH to jump to a fair value is not fair, so I'm talking long term.

[Paul D. Harvill]

For what it is worth for your decision making and analysis of Amendment One.

I am still undecided about the amendment.

_________________

Regarding the following committee only:

Yes on 1- Save Our Homes NOW, Inc. (PC)

This committee appears to be the best funded in favor of Amendment One.

_________________

Reporting periods from July 1, 2007 to date:

Monetary contributions: $ 2,930,790.00

In-kind contributions: $110,362.43

Expenditures: $1,702,132.56

__________________

The largest contributors. Their full addresses available at the Florida Secretary of State website in the event one wants to contact or better identify the contributors. These figures below are the minimal dollars given:

$1,000,000 from the Florida Association of Realtors.

$500,000 from Florida Power & Light Co.

$125,000 from Ashbritt, Inc. of Pompano Beach ("environmental services").

$125,000 from Communications International, Inc. of Vero Beach.

$100,000 from Dwight C. Schar of West Palm Beach ("developer").

$100,000 from the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

$100,000 from Gary Kompothecras of Sarasota (Chiropractor).

$65.920 from Clear Channel Outdoor of Melbourne (advertising)

$50,000 from the Florida Medical Association.

$50,000 from TECO Energy of Tampa.

$50,000 from Foley Timber and Land Co. of Perry (timber).

$50,000 from Bennett S. Lebow of Miami (Vector Group executive)

$50,000 from 21st Century Oncology of Ft. Myers

$50,000 from 501 SG LLC of New York, NY (real estate).

$50,000 from James R. Palmer of Longwood (automotive).

$50,000 from the Florida Home Builders Assoc. (PAC).

$40,000 from Richard Paul-Hus of Ft. Lauderdale (power company manager).

$30,000 from Ford of Ocala, Inc. (auto sales).

$25,000 from Scott W. Rothstein of Ft. Lauderdale (attorney).

$25,000 from CBS Outdoor, Inc. of Tampa (advertising).

$25,000 from J. B. Carrie Properties, Inc. of Tampa (real estate).

$25,000 from Lawrence J. Degeorge of Jupiter (investor).

$25,000 from Leon Advertising and Public Relations of Miami (public relations).

$25,000 from Preferred Care Partners Holding of Miami (holding corp.).

$25,000 from The St. Joe Company of Jacksonville (real estate).

$20,000 from Florida Carpenters Regional CCE of Hialeah (CCE).

$20,000 from William A. Brown Family Limited of Tampa (real estate).

$15,000 from Rob Kornahrens of Ft. Lauderdale (contractor).

$15,000 from Central Florida Lincoln Mercury of Orlando (auto sales).

$10,000 from Lee B. Farkas of Ocala (mortgage banker).

$10,000 from James A. Greer of Oviedo (Republican Party of Florida chairperson).

$10,000 from Ruden McClosky Smith Schuster of Ft. Lauderdale (law firm).

$10,000 from Timothy L. Main of St. Petersburg (technologies).

$10,000 from Serta Mattress Co. of Riviera Beach (obviously...).

$10,000 from Ford of Clermont of Clermont (auto sales).

$10,000 from Associated Builders and Contractors of Coconut Creek (trade association).

$10,000 from Smart City Telecom of Lake Buena Vista (telephone provider).

$7,500 from Lamar Adversing Co. of Panama City (advertising).

$5,000 from Hoe Brown of Tampa (attorney).

$5,000 from Adams and Diaco, P.A. of Tampa (law firm).

$5,000 from James W. Holton of St. Petersburg (attorney).

$5,000 from Colson Hicks Eidson of Coral Gables (law firm).

$5,000 from A. Duda and Sons, Inc. of Oviedo (agriculture).

$5,000 from Charles Ermer of Sunrise (contractor).

$5,000 from Standard Furniture of Bay Minette, Alabama (furniture store).

$5,000 from Powell of Culver City, California (furniture).

$5,000 from Rooms to Go Central Corp. of Seffner (furniture store).

$5,000 from W. S. Badcock Corporation of Mulberry (furniture store).

$5,000 from City Furniture of Tamarac (furniture store).

$5,000 from Affordable Furniture Mfg. Co. of Houlka, Mississippi (furniture store).

$5,000 from Davis International Trading Co. of West Point, Mississippi (export company).

$5,000 from Continental Motor Cars Inc. of Melbourne (auto sales).

$5,000 from Island Lincoln Mercury Inc. of Merritt Island (auto sales).

$3,000 from Robert C. Moss of Ft. Lauderdale (construction manager).

$2,876 from Independent Service Co. of Hannibal, Montana (advertising - in-kind).

$2,500 from David A. Rancourt of Tallahassee (government consultant).

$2,500 from Martin L. Garcia of Tampa (investments).

$2,500 from Manuel Garcia of Tampa (retired).

$2,000 from Brian D. Ballard of Tallahassee (attorney).

$2,000 from Bulgin and Associates Inc. of South Hampton, New York (development).

And here is where I am too worn out to go further as the contributions become smaller.

Only about 50 contributors who gave less than $100.

Only about 11 contributors who gave between $550 to $100.

About 14 contributors who gave between $1,680 to $1,000.

See Secretary of State website for further details:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/ComHtml.exe?account=45565

This is a public service.
_________________________

I would rather have those supporters than unions.

ALWAYS VOTE OPPOSITE OF UNIONS. ALL THEY WANT IS TO GOUGE TAXPAYERS.

UNIONS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S DRUNKEN SPENDING LONG ENOUGH!

VOTE YES ON 1

IN FACT VOTE YES FOR ANYTHING PAIRING BACK THE OUTRAGOUS SPENDING.

Wow, that's an intelligent way to vote. Just the opposite of the people I don't like. Would I pout in the corner afterwards? How about on the merits of the actual topic at hand?

For me, it's a simple no. This plan does very little and does almost nothing for those who are paying the most. It will not encourage people to buy their first homes here, it will not encourage businesses to move here. The only stimulation I see spoke about is those who want to take their SOH with them. Well, who's gonna buy your home so you can move? Take a look around and compare your home with those already on the market. If it's remotely similar, why is yours going to sell?

It's very simple for me.
Amendment 1 is a much needed tax cut AND A MUCH NEEDED CUT IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S WASTEFUL SPENDING.

so yes yes yes on amendment 1

4:01 if you had a brain in your head, oyu'd realize it has little impact on local government spending...once again the drones in Tallahassee have convinced your pea brain of one thing that is irrelevant to the actual issue at hand...keep drooling my friend

ALWAYS VOTE OPPOSITE OF UNIONS. ALL THEY WANT IS TO GOUGE TAXPAYERS.

Posted by: | January 15, 2008 at 09:39 PM

_________________________

And the corporations and rich folk don't?