Thumbs up, thumbs down

* Thumbs up to state Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty for smacking Allstate. The company is being disingenuous by claiming it has "cooperated" with the state's investigation of its homeowner rates -- most of what the company provided was merely information the state already had. Blocking new auto business hits the company where it hurts.

* Thumbs down to the Tampa Bay Rays and to the local politicians who are taking their money. Good grief! Is this Hicksville, where the way for the big-city big-shots to curry favor is to waltz into town and spread around a little symbolic dough? Are both parties too dense to understand that they are not supposed to be all buddy-buddy with each other?

* Thumbs down to Tampa Bay Water, the regional utility that decided to hire a new executive director on its own speeded-up schedule without bothering much about notifying the public. I don't care whether they can get their own lawyers to give them a friendly opinion that it was within the letter of the law. I would think that a board that is responsible for the Biggest Boondoggle That Finally Works in local history -- the desalination plant -- would not be messing around like this.

* Thumbs down to Barack Obama especially, and the Democratic candidates in general, for continuing to trash Florida in the primary race. Here an article by my colleague Aaron Sharockman. How can these folks stand up to the world, if they're too cowardly to quit pandering to South Carolina? South Carolina!

* No thumbs, just a shout-out to my pal Wayne Garcia at Creative Loafing and his current story dealing with the proposed baseball stadium in St. Petersburg. Personally, I think most of the "12 reasons" listed can be overcome. But as you can tell from my own columns, including today's, I too am plenty skeptical of the city's handling of this so far.

I'm off to St. Pete City Hall for two events today, the approval of the request for developer proposals for the Tropicana Field site, and a public hearing on a proposed annexation of part of Tierra Verde by St. Petersburg, much opposed by local residents.

Comments

As for Garcia’s number 7.

I find it very hard to believe that the county commissioners did not know about it.

Then again, they claim they didn’t know they were buying “Jim Smith’s” property, Duncan claims he’s not familiar with Government in the Sunshine, and Latvala is familiar with Government in the Sunshine but doesn’t think it applies to government… :-)~

Indeed the commissioners may not support it due to this being a re-election campaign season for several. But sadly, that is the ONLY reason. Stewart’s comments all but confirm that… "The timing is atrocious," … not the action itself, not the deception, not the secrecy, not the plan… just the “timing”.

[Robert Glass]

Howard,

could you give an example of how the "portability" part of Amendment 1 is suposed to actually work? I've asked several people and they don't seem to have a clue.

Thank You

[Robert Glass]

Howard,

could you give an example of how the "portability" part of Amendment 1 is suposed to actually work? I've asked several people and they don't seem to have a clue.

Thank You

[guy]

Mr. Glass, I think howard missed reading the editorial page today and the full page free advertizement by the editors to have the people vote against a tax break for themselves.
Cause he doesn't seem to talk about it at all today.
The portability of your "Save our homes" would make your taxes the same as you are paying no matter if you upgrade your home as long as you stay in Florida.

[guy]

Also it would be retro to Jan 1 07.

[guy]

Howard, I hope you make your presence felt at city hall today.
Shave, Get out the old bow-tie and dark suit, and use a notepad.
Stare at council real mean.

[Don Mott]

Guy, I believe your assessment of portability is wrong. The taxes will not stay the same but the exemption will. So if you upgrade from say a $100,000 house with a $30,000 exemption you get a $30,000 exemption on the new home. But if the new home is valued at $300,000 the taxes will rise because the new value increases. But with the exemption, they just won't rise as much. At least that is my understanding of it.

[Don Mott]

And just who is in charge of the Tampa Bay Water board who 'thought' the staff had handled everything properly, Susan Latvala who was also in the middle of the Jim Smith fiasco. Sounds like an Enron defense to me. If you are in charge but don't know what your minions are doing you are incompetent for leadership. If you are in charge but omit a simple detail such as notifying the public of public meetings you are not fit to lead. I noticed they did publish the notice in some very obscure journal that only a few attorneys and doctors offices receive just to cover their butts. How convenient.

[Don Mott]

As for Wayne Garcias article regarding the Rays, I believe at least 5 or 6 of his 12 reasons are insurmountable, especially the filling of the bay and voter approval. But that is just my opinion. And it doesn't help when those petioning the voters and the city are contributing money to council members who will be voting on their proposal, that was downright stupid.

[Howard Troxler]

Howard here on portability.

Here's what is "portable" to the new home:

The size of your existing benefit under the Save Our Homes amendment. So you don't lose that benefit you've built up over time just by buying a different home.

Example: Your home's true market value is $300,000 these days, but under the Save Our Homes cap that you've had for several years, its taxable value is only $200,000. You've built up a SOH benefit of $100,000.

Now you buy a new home worth, say, $400,000 -- you can take that "portable" benefit from the old home to the new one. So you start out right out of the gate with a $100,000 break on your tax appraisal.

By the way, if you move into a LESS expensive home, your "portable" tax break is not the full dollar value, but the percentage value. You can take the same proportionate break to the new place.

If the amendment passes, you'll get this portability benefit IF you had a homestead on 1/1/2007 and moved to a new homestead after that. That's the retroactive part. And of course all of us with a homestead today would get it prospectively.

Now, do not confuse Save Our Homes -- the cap on how fast your home's value can go up for tax purposes -- with...

(1) The homestead exemption, which is a separate thing from Save Our Homes -- the exemption is on first $25,000 of a homestead is not taxed AT ALL. This Amendment 1 would increase that exemption.

(2) Your local tax RATE, which your local government can change, is applied to whatever taxable value you have.