A Tale Of Two Budget Cuts

Our old boss here at the Times. Gene Patterson, was a WWII tank commander under George S. Patton. He tells the story of Patton chewing out his men for not gaining ground fast enough -- he knew it was not fast enough, Old Blood and Guts yelled, because he wasn't seeing enough second lieutenants getting killed.

That story popped up in my mind on Wednesday when, by coincidence, I had a previously arranged lunch meeting with Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio. It turned out to be the eve of her announcement  of how she would meet the tax cuts just passed by the Legislature. The next day she laid off 121 full-time employees, and eliminated 133 part-time and seasonal jobs and 115 other posts. Here's this morning's article by Janet Zink. [Times photo | Brian Cassella]

Why did this remind me of Patterson and Patton? Because Iorio said she specifically told her top managers that she wanted to see assistant department heads and management included in the cuts, and not just low-level workers or things that were most visible to the public. "I got the message," Iorio said, talking about public opinion in favor of property tax cuts. "And I decided we were going to do it, and do it without any hand-wringing."

It is tempting to contrast the Tampa story with this morning's article by Aaron Sharockman about the comparable cuts proposed by Mayor Rick Baker in St. Petersburg. Sharockman's article says Baker's cuts are more targeted toward lower-level workers. My Thursday column also criticized the direction of the cuts under the headline, At least the deputy mayors survived.

However, in the Tampa-St. Petersburg comparison, there is an important difference that ought to be factored in. St. Petersburg, under Baker, has made at least SOME cuts to its tax rate year after year, while Tampa's millage stayed the same. That meant Tampa was riding the full tide of soaring property values, while St. Pete was giving back to taxpayers at least some of it (not all, but some). So if Tampa's response to the new order seems more dramatic, it's also the case that Tampa might have had further to go.

The Desal Plant

I've been asked a couple of times in the weekly live chats here on TroxBlog for an update on the desalination plant operated by Tampa Bay Water, our regional water utility. I asked for and got a response from TBW spokeswoman Michelle Biddle Rapp. (That's a file photo of the plant in the foreground, left, in front of TECO's Big Bend Power Plant). [Times photo | Skip O'Rourke]

Rapp said the plant has been operating since mid-March and is producing 10 to 20 million gallons per day. It has produced up to 22 mgd, but it needs to have sustained production of 25 mgd before the plant can be tested and considered to be "complete."

The company hired to fix the plant's problems, AWP, is still not happy with the performance of the sand prefilters, which has been a problem throughout. They continue to test various sand sizes and changes in water chemistry and the diatomaceous earth filters. (Basically, you don't want the stuff clogging up too fast, and the better you do at each step of the process, the better off you are further down the line.)

"The plant will continue to produce 10 and 20 million gallons per day during the testing over the summer," Rapp says. The plant's cost to Tampa Bay Water: $158-million. Total production to date: about 1.2-billion gallons.

Tampa Bay Water settled its litigation with earlier contractors in April.

Now, the question in our live chat was whether the desal plant was the area's biggest boondoggle. I dunno. I mean, at least it's working now.

If we could, I would line up the previous contractors and let everybody in Tampa Bay kick them in the butt. I distinctly remember how questions of filtering problems were brushed aside --  I was in the room at the time. Then subsequent contractors either screwed up (or didn't screw up, depending on your side in the lawsuit) the prefilters even more... while Tampa Bay Water, a board made up of local governments but has never struck me as a particularly strong institution, muddled along.

Water over the dam, now? 

Ban All Petitions -- Or Take Sides, And Risk Customers?

Although Gov. Charlie Crist earlier vetoed one bill that would have cracked down on citizen petitions, he also has chosen to sign Senate Bill 1920, which allows supermarkets, big stores and other "quasi-public" places to keep citizen petition groups off their property. Several citizen groups had asked him for a veto. I explored the issue in a column earlier this year.

"While I am sympathetic to the concerns of political groups who seek to advocate their positions in places where citizens gather," the governor wrote in his message approving the bill, "the solution to that problem cannot be to force all grocers, shopkeepers, and restaurateurs to acquiesce to potentially disruptive activity at their commercial establishments." Here's a copy of his letter: [Download sb_1920_sign_ltr.pdf]

So the retailers win this one. In a way, though, I wonder if this puts them under the ancient Chinese curse of getting what they wish for. If they now choose to allow some petitions and disallow others, it puts them into the side business of taking sides on political issues -- a bad idea if you are selling groceries, seems to me. They might think it easiest to ban ALL petitions, but I imagine sooner or later they will find one they like, and then they'll look inconsistent if they allow it.

Thursday Column: Brad Pitt Never Had No Stinkin' Auditors

What we need here is George Clooney, Matt Damon and the rest of a charming movie cast to tell the story of this caper.

But we don’t have a glamorous cast. There is only a cast of extras, a list of faceless names who fade into the background of the years, blameless.

Here is the plot:

• The Florida Legislature creates a five-member board to privatize Florida’s prisons in 1993.

• The board (surprise!) does a sloppy job of overseeing contracts with private companies... [rest of column]

-------------------------------

Here's the 2005 audit that criticized the private prison board: [Download final_report.pdf]

Here's this week's FLDE report finding no criminal violations: [Download 062507_cpc_final_summary.pdf ]

The Governor Vetos The Anti-Petition Bill

My June 19 column argued that Gov. Charlie Crist should veto Senate Bill 900, which tries to crack down even further on citizen petitions in the state of Florida. The most offensive part of the bill said that petition signatures would be valid for only 30 days before they had to be turned in -- a ridiculous restriction.

The governor vetoed the bill on Tuesday. It was the last day he could act before it would have become law automatically. Here's a copy of his veto letter: [Download sb_900_veto.pdf] I really liked this paragraph:

 

As my column pointed out, we already have imposed three important restrictions on petitions and we should give them time to work:

* It takes 60 percent to pass a constitutional amendment.

* Petitions have to be turned in by Feb. 1 of an election year.

* In another law just passed by the Legislature and signed by Crist, citizens have the right to REVOKE their signatures as well.

That's enough. Senate Bill 900 was just piling on. If you want to see the attitude at work, go read some of the outraged insider comments (made anonymously, of course) on my sister-blog, The Buzz, where Crist is basically getting called a Commie for sticking up for the right to petition.

The Readers: Cut The Government, Charge The Park Patrons

Excerpts from reader e-mail about Tuesday's column, which joked bitterly that no deputy mayors are being fired while local officials try to punish the public first in carrying out the tax cut ordered by the Legislature:

On the prospect of an entrance fee to Fort De Soto Park:

Why should/would anyone complain about paying a few dollars for a safe, pristine, unique facility like Fort Desoto when they willingly pay more to park in downtown St. Petersburg - to say nothing of a day at Busch Gardens or Disneyworld? What am I missing here? -- Dan C.

As I said, Dan, the idea itself is not that outrageous. We have to pay a small fee to get into various state and national parks, after all. (I still think if they did it there should be the option to buy an annual pass.) It's the MOTIVE that I question -- the county administrator tells me there is NO proposal in the budget for doing such a thing to make the necessary cuts; the County Commission would have to take an extra step and go out of its way to punish the citizens.

C'mon Trox, you glossed over the Deputy Mayors so fast I almost missed it - I expected more from you.  Do we really need a mayor,  3 deputy mayors, 2 chiefs and 4 administrators, not to mention untold deputy chiefs, assistants, etc. to do the city's business?  Having been a career bureaucrat myself, I know how easy it is to get top-heavy and then when the axe has to fall, to make the little guys pay for terrible management.  Give the people a chance to weild the axe and watch what gets cut!! -- RAP

Dear RAP: Gee whiz, the HEADLINE of the column was about not firing any deputy mayors, so I don't think I "glossed it over." I think we agree on the central point, that there are no core cuts to the bureaucracy itself being contemplated.

On generous employee packages for days off, pension plans, health benefits etc. for government employees:

My point here, is that government jobs should not be the best paying job in town! They should be employment of last resort for some. There should be few "career" government employees. Their compensation packages should be more inline with the private sector. I have some friends who work for the county. Occasionally they have attempted to go back to work for a private company, but nobody could match or even come close to the benefits they were currently making. No wonder you have "career" government employees. -- Greg Swafford

Well, Mr. Swafford, this is an age-old philosophical question. You get what you pay for so if it's TOO cheap that's not good either. Entire studies have been done on the right level of compensation. I think the general idea is that it ought to be in the middle somewhere, so that folks are neither artificially driven in or out of the public sector simply from that factor. Having said that, I DO think the 20th-century pension concept, which has disappeared from the private sector and real life, has lingered far beyond in the public sector.

And this rather Darwinian approach to public services:

On a side note, non-essential government projects should not be funded with tax dollars. If there is a demand then people will be willing to pay for things such as public parks, libraries, museums, little league fields, etc. I find nothing wrong with a fee for Fort De Soto Park. Your idea of a yearly pass (perhaps a family pass for $20) is a good one and can be instituted for all of the above. If there is a demand then they will survive. -- Rich

Rich, I've heard this line of argument before and am not sure I buy it. I think there are some amenities in a community that the entire community should be happy to underwrite. In other words, all of society benefits if there is good public education; that's why we all have to pay school taxes (instead of only parents). Likewise, public libraries benefit society and I would not charge each person who checks out of a book for their proportionate share of the library's cost. So I'm probably more of a "user fee" guy who would charge a fee for a partial recovery, but not the full cost, e.g. museum admission, SOME little league fee (we could never charge enough for the full cost of the parks), etc....

Here's The June 26 Chat: Read A Transcript

One reader in today's live chat here on TroxBlog argued it's a waste of money to get rid of touch-screen voting machines. Another thought we ought to tax churches.

One wanted to know more about Pinellas County's deal with a guy who manages -- and hunts -- publicly owned land in Pasco County.

Others asked about former state House candidate Angelo Cappelli, why Florida schools don't get enough money, and even about the health of my dog Harry. Being part of the superficial media, I tried to trivialize things with talk of Paris Hilton and the Devil Rays bullpen, but the readers kept things honest.

To read a transcript of today's live chat, just click on the "Comments" link a few lines below. You can still add your own comments at the bottom. To see what folks had to say in previous weeks, click on "Chat Transcripts" over in the left-hand column.

Thanks to everyone who came by or took part today!

Reminder: Live Chat Here Today, Noon - 1 P.M.

If it's Tuesday, it must be live chat day here on TroxBlog. From noon to 1 p.m. today I'll be here responding to reader questions and comments about current events in Florida and the Tampa Bay area. There's plenty to talk about, too, even if you didn't like my Sunday column about hexagons on Saturn -- which, I admit, was a little bit off the usual beat.

To take part in or observe today's chat, just come back here at noon and look for a new announcement with the headline, "The June 26 Chat Is Open." Click on the "Comments" link of that item to read what folks are saying or to post your own comment or question. Keep updating the comments page to see the latest.

If you can't be here for the live chat, feel free to "pre-file" a comment or question in the comments to THIS item. And you can always come back later to read what folks had to say. Otherwise, I hope to see you here at noon...

Tuesday Column: At Least The Deputy Mayors Survived

What does charging $3 per car at Fort De Soto Park have in common with whacking Santa and New Year’s Eve?

Both are responses that some in local government are talking about after the Legislature’s command to cut property taxes next year.

Let’s start with the city of St. Petersburg, which says it needs to cut about $14-million to get down to the required level of $223.9-million.

Actually, that level of spending would be a hair above this year’s $223.7-million. It’s not an overall “cut.” It’s just less than the government would spend otherwise.

At any rate, the city has to lose $14-million from what it wants to spend. Mayor Rick Baker’s plan calls for cutting... [rest of column]

Monday Morning Mail: Saturn, Brooker Creek, Another Vote For An Income Tax

Excerpts from reader e-mails:

On Sunday's column about the discovery of a hexagon in the atmosphere of Saturn:

Greetings, Howard...we must be psychically linked...it wasn't more than just a few days ago I, myself, was thinking about what ever happened to the Saturn anomaly and how it just dropped off the screen.  Glad to see I'm not the only one wondering, though I can't quite tell if you're taking a tongue-in-cheek approach in your column or genuinely perplexed. -- Lou Claudio, Safety Harbor

Thanks, Lou. I was sincere in saying it had bugged me since I first saw the story and decided to find out the latest for myself. I was joking about not writing about Elijah Dukes or Susan Stanton.

A reader shares his letter to the Pinellas County attorney, saying the proposed ordinance to "protect" parks and nature preserves doesn't mean much:

[N]othing is better settled in our jurisprudence than that one legislature CANNOT bind the hands or limit the powers of subsequent legislatures. The BOCC is pondering over the so called "Latvala" ordinance, when in fact if some form of this ordinance actually ever got  passed by this BOCC, a future BOCC could amend or totally rescind such ordinance and no language drafted by this BOCC can prevent that from happening. Could you please also advise each commissioner that the only way they can insure some kind of protection of environmental lands from the actions of any future BOCC is by having a charter amendment. --  Robert T. Loos

Agreed.

And a regular reader throws in another vote in favor of a state income tax:

The only real tax reform is an income tax. An income tax would quicken the hearts of the dying Snowbird and small businessman, it would alleviate the burden on those who are retired or earn little. It would put the burden of taxation fairly on the shoulder of those who can shoulder it, those with sufficient amounts of income, the people whose income is about to suffer: the builders, restaurants, real estate agencies, doctors, lawyers and all those who work in such industries. -- Xavier Narutowicz, Punta Gorda

Thanks, Mr. X., but as I have pointed out before, the main obstacle is political and cultural -- Floridians have had a deep-seated hatred of income taxes, which is why they are forbidden in our state Constitution. We'd need a 60-pct vote of Floridians to change that -- and we'd need either legislators willing to sacrifice their political future, or a REALLY well-organized petition campaign followed by the most brilliant political campaign of all time.

This DOES remind me, though, that lately I have been chewing on the philosophical question of what OUGHT to be taxed in our society. Everybody seems to have an idea -- consumption (sales tax), value-added, income. The property tax deal just passed by our Legislature ties growth in taxes to the rise in personal income as the main metric -- as opposed to the rise in property values. This is interesting because it seems to separate, at least slightly, the value of the thing being taxed from the calculation of taxes, and shifts it to the ability to pay... see earlier comment on this blog about it sounding vaguely Marxist!

Sunday Column: Hexagons On Saturn: Now THAT'S Big News

This has been bothering me for the past three months. In March, they confirmed the existence of a big hexagon on the planet Saturn.

I am not kidding. Here is the photograph. There is a giant hexagon ringing the north pole of Saturn.

A hexagon! Six regular sides, each thousands of miles long. Nothing like it has ever been seen in our solar system... [rest of column]

Protecting Wetlands Is For Sissies

Not even the Florida Legislature had the stomach this year to pass a pro-developer bill that would have wiped out local wetland protection in Florida.

But the Hillsborough County Commission has no such reservations. On Thursday, the commission voted 4-3 to disband the wetlands management division of the county's Environmental Protection Commission.

The four who voted to do it were Brian Blair, Ken Hagan, Jim Norman and Kevin White. The three dissenters were Rose Ferlita, Al Higginbotham and Mark Sharpe. There still has to be a public hearing before the decision becomes permanent.

As my colleague Michael Van Sickler reports, three of the prevailing commissioners argued the need for budget cuts. But that's a thin pretext, since the environmental commission had already come up with the necessary cuts.

The real reason, of course, is that developers don't like having county-level rules that are more strict than the state's. One developer in particular has been running an anti-EPC campaign that now seems to be bearing fruit.

Blair didn't hide behind budget cuts but revealed the real math at work: "You know who pays for that? It's every person sitting here, every person that builds a house or moves into a house." Which is perfectly true, and part of the choice we have chosen to make -- a choice that Hillsborough County now seems willing to undo.

The whole thing is weird and backward for a county of 1-million people in the year 2007. The back-to-the-1950s yahoos are winning -- and Hillsborough County now is reaping the awful consequences of electing this bunch.

For a great look at wetlands protection (or the lack thereof) in our state, and why Hillsborough has had among the best protection in Florida, check out the St. Petersburg Times' reporting by my colleagues Craig Pittman and Matt Waite at:

www.sptimes.com/wetlands

... And Other Friday Comments

(1) Tell me if you have a different take on the interview in this morning's paper with former Hillsborough sheriff's deputy Daniel Brock. To me it looked like the guy's own words show that he's been over-zealous, to say the least, about drunken-driving arrests. Prosecutors had to drop 65 of the 313 cases that Brock investigated over a year' s time. To Brock, it's just that the prosecutors were wrong. Says Brock of the law on blood-alcohol content: "There is no legal limit. It's bad language that's used. You're not supposed to drink and drive." As for not videorecording 124 of his DUI stops, well, the equipment was broken a lot. And the guy who investigated him didn't like him. And so forth. Good luck with that. [Times photo | Daniel Wallace]

(2) The Pinellas County Commission in its discussion of the Brooker Creek Preserve last night decided to proceed with the process of passing an ordinance that is supposed to "protect" park and environmental lands, but which critics say still allows the County Commission pretty much to do as it pleases. At least now the public will get more chances to comment. It will be interesting to see whether the critics can get public support for a County Charter amendment that would be stronger.

(3) Is the property tax rollback and tax cap for local governments just passed by the Legislature unconstitutional?  Alex Leary's article this morning raises the question, quoting a legal analysis by a South Florida law firm. Here's a copy you can read for yourself: Download legal_analysis_property_tax_reform.pdf. The gist of it is that since the Florida Constitution sets a 10-mill tax cap for local governments, the Legislature can't run around inventing new caps of its own. I dunno -- for sure the Legislature couldn't raise the cap, but since local governments are creations of the Legislature in the first place, seems like it can set the rules. None of this matters unless somebody actually tries out the theory in court, of course.

The Readers: On Tree-Huggers, Bayou-Cleaner-Uppers

The energetic Lorraine Margeson comments on my use of the term "tree-huggers" in this morning's column:

The general sentiment of MOST Pinellas County citizens is to PRESERVE THE PRESERVE. It is reflective of across the board support..........certainly NOT just tree-huggers! CONA, Council of North County Neighborhoods, League of Women Voters to name a few. These are not tree-hugging groups by nature!! But all know that it's time to stop the asssault on our environmental lands, our last pockets to maintain a quility of life and environmental health for our County.

Lorraine, you are exactly right, and my wife came out of her chair this morning in disapproval when she read my use of "tree-huggers," which I can assure you I meant in an ENTIRELY affectionate way -- I shoulda said "US tree-huggers" at the least to show my sympathy. She thought the average reader would think I was trying to discredit people who care about the environment, which of course was the opposite of my intention. -- Howard

Meanwhile, reader J.T. McPhee expresses deep admiration for the folks who cleaned up Clam Bayou, but some bitterness at the folks who produced the garbage that washed there in the first place: [Times photo | Scott Keeler]

Why should I, living on a boat, get electricity from solar panels, recycle and re-use, take Navy showers, drive a fuel-efficient vehicle, and try to pay attention to the rest of the planet, when millions of my fellow humans dump and run, zoom off in their SUV s and "crossovers," cool and heat 5 and 10,000 square foot "homes," and consume everything at a prodigious rate? The slogan used to be "Live simply, that others may simply live." The new motto, Red or Blue, seems more like "Where's mine?"

So my thanks, at least, to the do-gooders who did good in swamping out the mangroves. But we should keep in mind the real paradigm we as a culture follow - use it up, folks, like James Watt said God wants us to do, and who gives a rat's patoot about the folks who follow us, let alone our neighbors today?

A Criticism Of Tonight's Brooker Creek Ordinance

I am grateful to Mathew Poling of the Friends of Brooker Creek for this highlighted copy [Download sale_of_park_and_env_lands_061107_hilite.doc ] of the ordinance to be discussed tonight by the Pinellas County Commission. The ordinance is supposed to protect Pinellas parks and environmental lands.

In my column this morning I said I thought the language had been tightened up in places, but still has the net effect of letting the County Commission operate without voter approval. Poling, however, points out that in some of the highlighted areas it seems worse than before, as in allowing the county to lease the lands for up to 10 years at a time without voter approval. He writes:

Here is the latest version of the ordinance from the county.  Changes are highlighted in yellow.  As you can see, it is even worse than it was before.  They are specifically defining "utilities land" and are allowing unrestricted utilities uses on it AND they are allowing parks and env. lands to be sold/used for utilities uses.  Also among other changes they are now allowing leases/licenses under 10 years without referendum approval.

The Governor Signs That Growth Bill

My May 29 column was about House Bill 7203, which deals with a several subjects but generally serves to "streamline" the approval of growth in Florida. The bill includes a "pilot project" that partly exempts Pinellas County, Tampa and a few other places from full state review of growth decisions. On the general principle that we don't particularly need to streamline growth in Florida, I argued that Gov. Charlie Crist should veto it.

Can't win 'em all. The governor this week signed the bill into law. Here's a copy of his letter [Download hb_7203_sign4.pdf ] to the secretary of state approving the bill. Crist says in the letter that he will "carefully monitor" the pilot project in the affected areas to make sure growth occurs "in a responsible way."

This isn't a total shock, since Crist's secretary of community affairs, Tom Pelham, told me earlier that his department would try to "live with" the pilot project, while standing ready to recommend changes if it doesn't work. I figure the gov probably relied heavily on Pelham's input.

Thursday Column: Why Not Just, Uh, Preserve The Place?

The second Brooker Creek Preserve public hearing begins at 6 p.m. today on the fifth floor of the Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court St., Clearwater.

It has been darned inconvenient for Pinellas County, having a big nature preserve up in its northeast corner.

It seemed like a good idea back in the 1990s to set off 8,300 acres of public land and call it the "Brooker Creek Preserve."

But that "preserve" label turns out to be trouble when you want to build something.

That's why there have been a series of fights for more than a year between the leaders of Pinellas County and various tree-huggin' folks... [rest of column]

Update: The County Doesn't Want To Talk About It

Just as soon as I posted the last item about Brooker Creek, this e-mail arrived from the county, saying that tomorrow night's hearing will NOT deal with the new map of the preserve:

The proposed zoning revisions will not be presented because staff is continuing to assess the future needs of Utilities properties. The zoning revision will be brought to the BCC at a later date.

In other words, the county wants to have a public hearing about Brooker Creek, but DOES NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT WANTS TO DO WITH THE PRESERVE! Sheesh. I hope citizens talk about it anyway.

Last Call For Brooker Creek

The Pinellas County Commission's last public hearing on the Brooker Creek Preserve will be held at 6 p.m. Thursday in the commission's assembly room on the fifth floor of the county courthouse, 315 Court St. in Clearwater. Note the 6 p.m. start time, as the meeting originally was scheduled for the afternoon.

The controversy over the county's 8,300-acre Brooker Creek Preserve in northeast Pinellas has been the county's wishes to use land in the preserve for other purposes, such as youth recreational fields and for the county utility system. Some of the land in the preserve was originally acquired by the utility system in the first place.

Just on Tuesday, county officials announced a deal with the Pinellas schools to relocate the youth fields to a site in the East Lake area outside the preserve, which would seem -- at least for now -- to solve one of the immediate problems.

But the larger problem remains, and that's what kind of long-term protection will exist for the preserve. The fact that the county found a different place for these fields does not keep it from proposing the same thing tomorrow -- instead of a case-by-case fight over building stuff in the preserve, there ought to be an overarching prohibition.

One of the things to be discussed Thursday night, then, is an ordinance or county charter amendment that would grant the preserve a protected status -- that the county couldn't simply turn around and waive any time it wanted. The earlier versions of a proposed ordinance were basically meaningless -- the county could do anything it decided was in "the public interest."

The second big thing coming on Thursday night is the county's proposed map for how to carve up the preserve into different categories -- pure "preserve" versus something called "preserve resource management,'' which is where the county could put utility stuff. The last version of this map I saw put about 2,300 acres of the 8,300 total acres of the preserve into the "resource management" category -- which means it could be used one way or the other.

In the county's eye, this actually is an improvement, since even more than 2,300 acres were originally utility land. So the county claims it is ADDING to the preserve. But the county has been claiming all the land as a preserve all along. To me, this map codifies once and for all that the county can use a quarter of Brooker Creek as it sees fit.

Instead of a weak ordinance, or a map pre-designating 2,300 acres, I would pass an amendment to the county charter protecting the entire preserve, and requiring a case-by-case, strict public review of any proposed disturbance by the Utilities Department or anybody else. But maybe that's just me.

Here's The June 19th Chat -- Read A Transcript

Will the tax cut just passed by our Legislature help home sales?

Does the Hillsborough State Attorney's Office have a conflict in investigating a sheriff's deputy?

Are newspapers dead?

Have term limits made our politicians worse?

And what about the latest on Elijah Dukes?

These were some of the topics readers talked about in today's weekly live chat here on TroxBlog. To read the transcript, just click on the "Comments" link of this item.

Tuesday Column: Veto It? Heck, Tear It Up And Torch It

Quick - what's your favorite First Amendment right?

It's a trick question, sorry. In my book they're all equally essential to a free nation.

Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of assembly.

There's one more ...

The right to "petition the government for redress of grievances." It comes last, but it's just as important.

When the framers put the word "petition" in the Bill of Rights, they meant it in a general sense.

But I have always believed that the literal act of petition - a citizen asking other citizens for support - is as pure an exercise of our core First Amendment rights as can be.

Here in Florida, though, there has been a war on petitions in recent years. Our Legislature and the business interests of Florida have sought to limit the power of the citizens to amend our state Constitution by petition... [rest of column]

Live Chat Today, Noon - 1 P.M.

Want to talk about Britney, big honkin' alligators, Lou Pearlman, the Devil Rays -- or that big tax reform just passed by our Legislature? Stop by TroxBlog from noon to 1 p.m. today for our weekly live chat on current events in Florida and the Tampa Bay area. You can make comments, ask questions or just see what other folks are saying.

No need to register or sign in -- just come back to TroxBlog and look for the  announcement that I'll post at noon with the headline, "The June 19 Chat Is Open." Click on the "Comments" link of that item to see the chat. Just keep refreshing the comments page to see the latest.

If you can't be here live, you can always stop by later to read a transcript of the chat. Past chats are available under the "Chat Transcripts" link over in the left-hand column. If you'd like to post a comment or question for today's chat in advance, use the "Comments" link of this announcement.

Tax Questions & Comments, Part IV

My question is, who will determine the "true value" of a property as this point in time in order to determine the possible tax cuts.  With housing values continuing to decline--what will be considered the taxable value? -- Shelley T. Del Castillo

Same as always, the county property appraiser. For a lot of critics, this is a weakness in the deal -- nobody is insulated against future unreasonable spikes in property values that drive up taxes, even if the tax RATE goes down. There is a substitute protection in that local government has an overall cap on TOTAL tax collections, but that still allows for individual fluctuations in assessments.

I read somewhere (TBT Times, I think), that the $25,000 homestead exemption would go away if you
elected to retain the SOH.  If that were the case, wouldn’t I be getting a tax increase and not maintaining the status quo. -- Larry Geiger

No, if this constitutional amendment passes in January, you would have a choice. You could keep the existing Save Our Homes cap as long as you own your current home -- including your existing $25,000 exemption. Once you elected to switch to the new, higher appraisal, you couldn't go back. For some homeowners, the math works out -- either in the long run or the short run -- that the higher tax break would be wiped out by higher home values.

The cap should be fixed or tied to inflation at worst. How does the "growth of the average income" in Florida have anything to do with the needs for government spending? Sounds Marxist....."from each according to his ability" to pay. This reads that the simple fact that people are earning more gives reason for collecting more taxes.  -- Jim Nannen

Good observation, Mr. Nannen. This is a question of basic philosophy about how people should be assessed for taxes. The Legislature's thinking was that taxes should not rise faster than people's ability to pay them. I am sure that being "Marxist" was the furthest thing from lawmakers' minds. But indeed, this change separates the VALUE of the thing being taxed from the INCOME of the person who owns it.

I noticed ... your disdain of the Save Our Homes Cap and that when you state that Homeowners whose tax bills are lower under the existing Save Our Homes program would keep the lower tax bill.  You fail to mention for how long, I think that is an important fact. The Legislature is doing this for one reason, to get rid of the Save Our Homes Cap, so in the future they can collect even more money.  -- Joe Magilligan

Well, I do think that Save Our Homes has created terrible unfairness between homesteaders who have stayed in their homes for several years versus everybody else -- both non-homestead property owners and more recent home buyers. But under this new deal, homeowners could keep Save Our Homes for as long as they stay in their current home. How long would you keep a lower bill depends on each person's individual math -- but it looks to me that in the long run homeowners might actually pay MORE under the new deal, as property values keep going up. Hence the last-minute change made by the Legislature to let everybody choose to keep SOH indefinitely.

Tax Questions & Comments, Part III

More excerpts from reader comments and questions about the tax plan just passed by the Legislature -- see the previous two posts for more.

See if you like this simple solution:  A flat 1 ½  maximum residential property tax , based on a rolling 5 year average  assessed value , with any homestead deduction the legislature sees fit (the one suggested is not bad). For commercial property a 2 ¼ % tax , based on a 5 year rolling assessed value with value set a current use only. -- Knut Horneland, Tampa

The idea of a rolling average does insulate us from short-term spikes in the market. Dunno how your figures work out otherwise... but the deal is done, at least for now. If the constitutional amendment for a bigger homestead tax break fails in January, we might be back to the drawing board.

Police, fire and education aren't so sacrosanct that they should be immune from cuts. In each case the public really doesn't know what value each currently delivers and whether the a cut will impair that value. Credible proof and analysis would help. -- James Gillespie

Mr. Gillespie makes a relevant point. Police and fire enjoy tremendous political support -- especially since 9/11 -- and much of the rhetoric so far has been about keeping them as insulated as possible from the cuts. But they ARE government agencies, after all, and vulnerable to the same tendencies as the rest of government... nothing wrong with taking a hard look at them, anyway, as part of the process.

Today (Sunday) you wrote: [if a person is]"...unlucky enough to get another big hike in your property's value." Working down at Pravda-on-the-bay must be such a through-the-looking-glass experience that I can understand how a columnist might come to hate all forms of capitalism so completely as to disdain
increases in one's homeowner equity. -- Jim Parker, Tampa

Ooh, a Pravda joke! Good one! Now, now, Mr. Parker, you know full well that my "unlucky" comment was in the context of how the government could still try to jack up our taxes. It's not unlucky for one's property to rise in value, but it IS possible for the government to get around the tax "cut" that way by what IT says the value is.

My question to the leadership in St Petersburg is; how many teachers, firemen and police officers can you employ if the taxpayers were not footing the bill for the Tropicana Stadium? Pinellas County School Board; How many teachers could you employ if you didn’t spend $2.2 million on a figure print scanning ID system on school buses that didn’t work? Tampa; How many police officers can you employ if you didn’t spend $1.2 million on a fountain (currently under construction) in Ybor City. And this is just some of the big stuff. Every time we elect a new government official, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent redesigning websites, business cards, etc. Yeap, those medians sure looks nice, exotic trees, flowers, plants, sprinkler system and the tax dollars it takes to maintain it. A couple of trees and some kind of recycled or no maintenance ground cover would work for me. - -Jeff Pettay

Tax Questions & Comments, Part II

As I said in my previous post, the mailbox is filled with questions and comments about the property tax deal passed by the Legislature last week. Here are some more excerpts:

One- there has been a lot of posts on the [Orlando] Sentinel bulletin boards about a citizen's initiative  called the 30-40-50 plan. I'd love to have my taxes reduced by 50%, but wouldn't this be deemed unconstitutional before it even makes it to the ballot--since it sets up 3 distinct categories of taxpayers? Second---when it says the new constitutional amendment must be approved by 60% of the voters--does that mean 60% of all registered voters? What if only 20% of the voters turn out that day? -- Nancy Webb

Second things first -- it's 60 percent of those casting a ballot in the election, no matter the turnout. You are right in pointing out that if it were 60 percent of ALL voters, nothing would ever pass. The 30-40-50 plan is the idea of a group called Citizens for Property Tax Reform (http://www.citizensforpropertytaxreform.com/) that proposes a constitutional amendment -- senior homesteaders taxed on 30 percent of their assessed value, other homesteaders 40 percent, non-homestead property at 50 percent. As for whether it's unconstitutional for treating people differently, the same risk is true of our existing Save Our Homes cap and for the new plan just passed by the Legislature -- it's just that no court has ruled that way yet.

I haven’t seen anything written about what will be the net effect.  That is, are we going to be paying less taxes than we did 5 years ago (before property values spiked) or will we still be paying more but not as much more?  -- Andy Durey

Here's the net effect. Your local government has to CUT its property tax collections next year by up to 9 percent from this year, depending on where you live. Your own tax cut might be a little more, or a little LESS, depending on your property value. This covers ALL property, not just homesteaders. Then in January we'll vote on a much bigger tax break that would cover homesteaders only. Today most homesteaders get a $25,000 tax exemption. The new one would be for 75 percent of their home, up to $200,000 in value, and 15 percent above that, up to a total home value of $500,000 (all value above $500,000 being taxed at 100 percent).

That works out to a total possible exemption of $195,000 -- 75% x $200,000 = $150,000, plus 15% x the remaining $300,000 = $45,000).

Howard, can you address these issues in your column: Existing homeowners who elect to keep SOH remain trapped in their homes.   No portability of existing benefit.
SOH’s constitutional CAP on value increases replaced by statutory spending CAP based on growth.
New spending CAP can be overridden by taxing authority super majority, so there goes the CAP.
Re-set homestead value of up to $195,000 benefit will begin to decline as property value increases by whatever property appraiser says its worth.
No relief to non-homesteaders.
No relief for businesses.
Thanks -- llihtcman

Well, you just did a good job of it, but I touched on those points in my Sunday column as well. There is SOME indirect "portability" to the extent that everybody gets the new, bigger homestead tax break as soon as they move. But as you point out, even a $195,000 tax exemption can be outweighed by whopping new tax assessments on full value. See previous post on the override issue.

Tax Questions & Comments, Part I

Happy Monday. I'm back from a week in Tallahassee and the mailbox is filled with questions and comments about the deal just passed on property taxes by the Florida Legislature. To get right down to business with a difficult one about the annual cap on tax increases for local government:

what is the procedure for local authorities overriding the cap? have seen majority vote, or super majority, or unanimous, or referendum! what are the details? this bothers us since we don't envision local officials voting against override. -- Evan Adams

Ah, you caught me -- I've been fuzzing up the details 'cause it's too danged complicated. But since you asked...

Depending on how much a local government wants to raise taxes, there are THREE levels of override. The lowest takes a 2/3 vote of the board (City Council, County Commission, whatever). The next level requires a UNANIMOUS vote. The next requires an ELECTION to approve the tax increase. Sometimes there can be EITHER a unanimous vote or an election.

So, what are the levels? That ain't simple, sorry. There's one set of rules that applies for this fall. There's one set for the year the constitutional amendment kicks in (if it passes). Then there's one for the years after that.

Here's how it works this fall. Each year there's a "rolled back" millage rate that lets a government collect the same dollars it did the year before. Remember, too, that under this deal everybody is supposed to have a cutback of up to 9 percent off that rolled-back rate. So let's say they didn't want to make that cut, but just keep the rolled-back rate -- that would take a 2/3 vote. If they didn't want to roll back their millage to the rolled-back rate, that would take a UNANIMOUS vote. And to go above that would require an election.

Now, let's say the constitutional amendment passed in January and homesteaders get an additional big tax break, which means another big loss in revenue. Couldn't the locals just jack up their tax rates to make up for it, while still staying under their cap? Nope, the Legislature thought of that. It would take a 2/3 vote to recapture anything up to 67 percent of that lost revenue. It would take either a unanimous vote, or a referendum, to go above that.

Lastly, once the amendment kicks in, it would take a 2/3 vote for locals to exceed their annual tax cap by up to 110 percent. It would take a unanimous vote or a referendum to go above that.

Outta Here

This is the view of the state Capitol from the Appalachee Parkway that leads eastward out of Tallahassee. It also will be the view in my rear-view mirror in about 10 minutes.

Tallahassee: Fun to visit, nice to go home. See you.

Apropos Of Nothing...

A Republican friend suggested to me yesterday -- I don't think he was entirely joking -- that Florida property owners ought to get the tax breaks just passed by the Legislature only if their legislator voted for it.

Being the practical guy I am, I immediately thought of several mechanical objections. But, you know, it would make the individual decision of each legislator a lot more relevant. And it would be fun to watch.

Goose and gander, though. It seems to me that if this constitutional amendment for an even bigger tax cut passes in January, then the lost revenue ought to come entirely from the districts of members who voted for it.

The Special Session

So that's it. Seven days ago, the leaders of the Florida Legislature announced the major points of a deal to change property taxes in Florida. Just three days ago, the actual bills to carry out those changes were filed, when everybody could see their wording.

Today, those bills are official acts of the Legislature, and a proposed amendment to our state Constitution. They represent the final result of a tax frustration and a political issue that has been building in our state for years. On Thursday, the Florida Legislature gave the people of the state its answer, for better or worse.

The leadership of the Republican majority, under House Speaker Marco Rubio and Senate President Ken Pruitt, held the deal together under a lot of criticism. They admitted that it had weak points but said it was better than the system Florida has now. Some people will disagree with that.

Who benefits now? All property taxpayers get some benefit in the coming year, as local governments have to cut their total tax collections by up to 9 percent from this year -- with whatever consequences those cuts bring at the local level. All property taxpayers also get the protection of a an annual cap on the growth of future tax collections. (However, local governments will be able to override those caps by an extraordinary vote, which will create a whole new class of political controversy in Florida.)

But beyond the tax cut and tax cap, which are now part of Florida's law, Florida's homeowners -- some of whom are the best-off under the old system -- will have the option of claiming a much, much biggest tax exemption -- up to $195,000, depending on the value of a house, as opposed to the current $25,000 most homeowners have.

The fallout from here will be enormous. Local governments across Florida must immediately turn to cutting their taxes and budgets for the coming year. We'll have to gear up for the debate over the Jan. 29 election, and whether giving homeowners a bigger break is the best way to go.

If voters approve the constitutional amendment, the total tax cut over the first five years will be as much as $32-billion, according to the Legislature. More than $7-billion of those tax cuts involve education, and the Legislature will have to debate in the future how to make up the difference for education, as its leaders have promised to do.

It's Over

The Senate adjourned at 6 p.m. The House of Representatives voted at 6:24 p.m. to pass the third and final bill of the special session, the constitutional amendment, by a vote of 74-43. The House adjourned immediately after. The special session is now over.

Senate President Ken Pruitt and House Speaker Marco Rubio embraced in the middle of the lobby between the two chambers and then delivered remarks to a crowd of spectators and legislators. Gov. Charlie Crist and Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp showed up to congratulate the legislative branch. Crist concluded his remarks with, "God bless the Florida Legislature!''

The leaders spoke beneath a banner saying, "Largest Tax Cut In Florida's History.''

In The House

Democrats in the House at this moment are waging a doomed fight over the constitutional amendment for a bigger homestead exemption in Florida. They want some kind of formal assurance that such a large tax cut would not hurt education -- given that more than $7-billion of the tax cut would come from school taxes over the first five years. There was an amendment from Rep. Shelly Vana, D-Lantana, to that effect.

The floor maneuvering was interesting, as the Republican leadership moved to "lay the motion on the table,'' avoiding a vote. That motion passed 74-42, killing Vana's effort. House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber had strong words for the majority about the motion to table: "You can't stand up for children when you're hiding under your desk from a vote."

By the way, the main screen in the Senate chamber is tuned to the House debate, as senators mill about waiting for the House to finish....

'The Hon. Ken Pruitt, President...'

The Florida Senate reconvened at 4:11 p.m., minutes after the House passed the tax rollback. The secretary of the Senate carried the bill into the chamber and to the desk in front of the podium. A clerk read aloud the first sentence, addressed to Senate President Ken Pruitt, formally informing the Senate that the House had passed the bill. With no fanfare Pruitt immediately ordered the Senate voting machine unlocked. The bill passed the Senate 37-0. The Senate now has completed the work of the special session. The House reconvenes at 4:30 p.m. to finish. After the House finishes both chambers will formally adjourn the special session.

Almost Over

[4:00 p.m. -- The state House of Representatives passes HB 1B, a statutory rollback of local property taxes in Florida next year and an annual cap on tax growth after that. The vote was 117-1, with Democrats joining in.]

The fourth-floor lobby of our state Capitol between the doors of the Florida House and the Florida Senate has been cordoned off, and a lectern placed in the middle, for a ceremony to celebrate the imminent passage of a plan to cut property taxes in our state Legislature. The lobby already is milling with TV cameras and spectators.

The Senate is in recess at the moment. The Senate has passed two of the session's three bills: a proposed amendment to our state Constitution to give homeowners a bigger tax exemption, and a bill to hold the election for that amendment next Jan. 29, the date of Florida's presidential primary.

The third bill is a law to roll back property taxes in Florida starting this fall, with an annual cap after that on how much local taxes could increase. The House is debating that bill right now; the Senate is waiting for the House to pass it before it reconvenes and follows suit.

The House already has joined the Senate in passing the bill for the Jan. 29 election. The House still has to pass the constitutional amendment. It shouldn't take long once the House has passed the statutory tax rollback. The rhetoric of the closing speeches is getting more flowery, so you can tell they're almost finished.

The Senate: Hey, What The Heck! You Can Keep Save Our Homes After All

The Florida Senate just passed a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution that would create a bigger, "super homestead" tax exemption for Florida homeowners. The vote was 25-12.

But in a last-minute move this morning, the Senate made a major change that would let homeowners choose to keep the tax break and protection that they get now under the existing Save Our Homes amendment.

In other words, homeowners in Florida could choose which tax break they wanted, the new one or the old one. This change, proposed by Senate Majority Leader Daniel Webster, seems targeted at the concern of a lot of homeowners that they actually would be worse off under the new plan -- and hence more likely to vote against the amendment when it reaches the statewide ballot.

This surprise move by Webster required everybody to repeat their assigned lines again, to wit:

DEMOCRATS: This is yet another ambush by you Republicans. We don't know the dollar impacts. You are doing this on the fly.

REPUBLICANS: There you go ahead, nitpicking and opposing our attempts to pass anything because your real agenda is to oppose any tax cuts, period.

After a break the Senate will turn to the other part of the plan, a bill that would change state law to require an immediate tax cut by local government for the budget year that starts this fall. That bill also would create an annual cap on how much local governments could raise their taxes.

The Senate has a passel of amendments to consider on that state law, so it will be going for a while. The House is scheduled to convene at noon to start its own debate.

This Post Brought To You By Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp

Dear Readers,

That Jeff Kottkamp is the best lieutenant governor that Florida has ever had. He is really, really swell. He likes puppies and apple pie too. Charlie Crist was really smart to hire him.

By the way, don’t please look at this link.

Dan Webster: Wily Genius?

And then there's this theory about what's happening this week in Tallahassee... kinda inside baseball, but see what you think.

Remember that in the Legislature's regular spring session, the Senate wanted moderate tax cuts, and the House was all fired up to kill homestead taxes altogether, a big whoppin' tax cut, and replace part of it with sales taxes.

They butted heads. Butted heads. Butted heads. Then they quit and called this special session.

Now we get this negotiated deal between the House and Senate. Moderate tax cuts and a cap on future taxes in a statute. And a separate constitutional amendment for future, bigger tax cuts that seems to be in some trouble, and might not even be approved by the voters.

So let's say they pass the deal. The statute (which is closer to the original Senate position, moderate tax rollback) takes effect. The constitutional amendment goes on to be DEFEATED at the polls.

So the Senate's main man in this tax deal, Sen. Daniel Webster, gets essentially what he wanted all along, while the House gets negotiated into putting its stuff into a doomed constitutional amendment. Brilliant move by a wily Senate veteran against the more inexperienced House. So says the theory, anyway.

Reader Questions

I have always wondered if the Save Our Homes taxing was constitutional.  I realize that it is political suicide to suggest such a thing but would think that some group would have look into this by now. -- Jim Windham

I've always wondered if Save Our Homes is constitutional, too, on a couple of grounds: First, it discriminates between taxpayers on the grounds of whether they own and live in their own home -- THAT person is more "worthy" under our law and gets a tax break. Second, it discriminates between taxpayers -- even next-door neighbors, identical in every way. One can be paying several times the tax burden of the next, depending entirely on when they dared to buy a different house and get socked with a new appraisal.
 
There actually ARE lawsuits in progress about this, but I don't know when or whether there would be a ruling. And you are right about political suicide -- nobody can just come out and say, let's repeal it. That is exactly what's behind this "super homestead" plan in Tallahassee -- the higher exemptions are intended as a sweetener to get people to vote to change the system.

Another thing no one has even considered is that this legislation does nothing for those who are currently trapped by Save Our Homes.  Even if you get to keep the SOH value, once you sell you will automatically go to the new homestead calculation at the higher property values.  What happened to the portability issue?  -- Larry Geiger

I think you are exactly right, and said something like that in my column today. First, even if you stay in the same house, and give up the 3-pct-a-year cap under Save Our Homes, then what good is a bigger tax exemption if they can turn right around and appraise the heck out of your house? Second, what good is a bigger tax exemption if you buy a DIFFERENT house and get socked with a bigger appraisal anyway?
 
There's some talk this morning that they might change it to let anyone who WANTS to stay under Save Our Homes stay there, regardless. Of course, then I wonder whether that would be more vulnerable to a lawsuit...

P.S. There is SOME indirect "portability" in this "super homestea