Thursday's column on Wednesday: God goes 1-for-2 in specialty license tags

God went only 1-for-2 in the Florida Legislature this year.

He did get a new state license tag bearing the slogan, “In God We Trust.”

But the Legislature did not approve a more Christian-themed tag featuring a cross, stained glass, and the slogan, “I Believe.”

“In God We Trust” now joins the game of tennis, the preservation of lighthouses, and the declaration that this is “Horse Country” as the subjects of Florida’s 110th, 111th, 112th and 113th specialty license tags.

In a way, I wish the Legislature had gone right ahead and given the cross its own tag too, which might help us get this business cleared up in court once and for all.

Either that or it also should go ahead and create tags for Judaism, for Islam, for Buddhism, and even for atheists (I am thinking of the slogan, “I Do NOT Believe,” and the rest of the design a blank.)

Or maybe — and I am just talkin’ kooky here — maybe a government-created tag for the purpose of displaying a valid registration is not the place for expressions of religious or political beliefs.

(If only there were some other place on the back of a car for expressing beliefs...)

Just plain wrong

Be sure to check out this story by my colleague Alex Leary in our Tallahassee bureau. It's about a "political committee" established by a prominent member of the Legislature that has taken in nearly $100,000 in contributions from lobbyists and corporations since the Legislature's session began in March.

It's illegal for members to accept campaign contributions during a session -- the idea being that you ought not be able to shower a legislator with cash while he or she is voting on the laws of the state. But it's perfectly legal for committees established by those same legislators to raise dough.

Hence, as Leary reports, the committee of Rep. Stan Mayfield, R-Vero Beach, has taken $20,000 from Progress Energy (remember the "energy bill" that contains many favors for the electric industry), and $20,000 from Florida Power & Light, to name a couple.

Several members of the Legislature have committees like this, with innocuous names like "Floridians for So-and-So Reform." They are basically devices that allow interests with a lot of money to evade campaign-contribution limits.

Guns at work: let the lawsuits begin

The Florida Retail Federation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce already have filed a lawsuit against the new "take your guns to work" state law. The business groups argue that a property owner, such as a business or employer, has the right to set a no-gun policy or his or her own property. My own thinking is that I do not have the "right" under the First Amendment to march around a Publix parking lot with an anti-Publix sign -- in other words, property rights are balanced against individual rights. At any rate, here's the lawsuit: Download guns.pdf

Column: A little bit of 'green' coats this power bill

Well, I was tempted to write my Sunday column on the pressing issue of truck decorations, but decided instead to write about the 'energy bill' about to be passed by our Legislature. Once again, Florida is making major policy decisions by cramming dozens of unrelated items into a single ugly bill and hoping that not many people notice. So far, not many have.

* * *

One of the biggest things our Legislature will do this year is pass a gargantuan piece of law that's being called "the energy bill." It will affect us all one way or the other.

I bet you there aren't a dozen people who know by heart everything in this bill. I further bet there aren't more than a handful of our 160 lawmakers who have read it all.

But with little dissent, this 150-page-plus contraption is on its way to becoming the law of Florida. (If you're keeping track, the numbers are Senate Bill 1544 and House Bill 7135.)

It's a mixed bag:

• There's lots of "green" stuff, enough to make Gov. Charlie Crist happy. This bill points Florida in a new direction on climate change and alternative or renewable energy, and some environmentalists welcome that.

• But the bill also shifts our law in favor of Florida's electric companies when it comes to choosing routes for future transmission lines. It makes it harder if not impossible for opponents to propose alternative routes.

• Meanwhile, the bill makes it clear that utilities can bill customers in advance for those lines, as well as for some of the green programs. This is no small matter — Progress Energy Florida, for example, estimates its coming transmission costs at $3-billion. [Link to entire column]

The electric bill -- and OUR electric bills

Howdy and happy Thursday. As you know, our Legislature is in its annual session and is doing all sorts of interesting things. One of them, which has not gotten a lot of attention yet but will, is a massive energy bill that's moving through the House and Senate. This will probably be the topic of my Sunday column. Without question, this bill will result in higher electric rates for Floridians.

I'm talking about Senate Bill 1544 and comparable versions of it in the House. Right off the bat, let me tell you, this is bill is a monster. Once again, the Legislature is throwing dozens of different topics into a single, colossal measure so that there's not much chance of the public figuring out what's in it. This is a lousy way to make public policy, but that doesn't stop the Legislature.

As I read it, there are three general subject areas in this bill:

* Provisions letting electric companies charge customers more money, and charge them in advance for big-ticket items such as major transmission lines. This is sort of "the other shoe dropping'' -- the electric companies previously won the right to charge customers in advance for power plants; now they're getting the same ability for transmission. That is not just a little add-on, either: Progress Energy Florida figures its transmission costs connected with its proposed nuke at $3-billion.

* Provisions making it easier for companies to site their transmission lines and other facilities, especially across public-owned land. Both the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Transportation would fork over public rights-of-way if the Public Service Commission determined the facilities were needed. Furthermore, citizen opponents would be restricted in their ability to oppose transmission facilities, and it would be harder if not impossible for opponents to propose alternative routes.

* A variety of green ideas, some of which are enthusiastically embraced by environmentalists. Electric companies would have to make sure at least a small percentage of their load growth would be provided by alternative sources. They would get tax credits for solar and other renewable efforts (although I am curious as to how tightly that would be audited). Florida would move toward a "cap and trade" system in which overall emissions would be reduced, but companies could swap their individual "allowances" among themselves. On the micro level, deed restrictions could not be used to block solar collectors, condos would be able install them more easily, and homeowners would not be punished with a higher tax assessment for installing them. The state also will review its building codes and study whether, in the long run, to "decouple" electric rates from actual volume of usage -- in other words, companies would no longer have an incentive to sell as much juice as possible.

Really, these are three separate subject areas, and you could argue that there should be a bill on cost recovery, a bill on siting procedures, and a bill on environmental impact. Instead, electric lobbyists are making sure they'll all crammed into the same "train," so they will get what they want. Don't forget that the electrics made big political contributions in advance of this cycle, not the least of which was Florida Power & Light's cool $1-million donated to Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign to get Amendment 1 passed.

What can citizens do if they don't like it? It is late in the game, but not too late to call or e-mail your legislator to express concern. The bills are not in their final form and can still be changed.

Busy, busy, busy in Tallahassee

Not only is the Florida Legislature in the middle of its annual session, filled with ideas both good and bad, but there's also a tax reform commission, which meets only every 20 years, putting its own ideas on the ballot. So the air in Tallahassee is filled with all sorts of proposals.

For example -- should Florida weaken its especially strong barrier between church and state? The way our constitution is worded now, no state money can be spent in support of a religious institution. But that situation would be pretty much reversed under this new proposal tentatively approved by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.

Instead, if voters go along, the constitution would say that religious groups could NOT be barred from taking part in state programs, such as school vouchers. My own thinking is that we had the strong prohibition for a long time for a good reason. But I might be on the losin' end.

(Also in today's story, notice that they also voted to put on the ballot a special-interest tax break ONLY for marinas and other "working waterfront" property. It doesn't even help the mom and pop motels who need it the most. We oughta be making the tax code MORE fair, not less...)

Meanwhile, over in the Legislature:

* An apology for slavery, which seemed heartfelt and appropriate, although it is only symbolic.

* On the other hand, the apology to the wrongly imprisoned Alan Crotzer (first item in this roundup) is of a more concrete and cash variety, and rightly so.

* State Sen. Ronda Storms' so-called "academic freedom" bill, in which no one could be punished for "objectively" presenting "alternative" scientific theories (in other words, disputing evolution) is moving right along. I can't believe the Legislature would actually pass this, since it means anybody can make any danged-fool claim about anything they want and call it "teaching." No, wait. I can believe it.

* Also moving along is the "take your guns to work" bill, which passed the House. This is another weird bill. Basically it says that business owners, employers, malls, supermarkets and such can NOT control their own property when it comes to having a no-gun policy -- there would be a "right" to take your gun onto somebody's property and keep it in your car whether they wanted you to or not. The gun lobby is trampling over private-property rights, and it's winning.

State senators on the payroll, oh my!

If you haven't seen it yet, check out my colleague Lucy Morgan's story this morning about state Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, being hired for a $120,000 job by Florida State University to oversee a program that, as a legislator, she helped create and fund. This now makes her a "triple dipper," drawing two state salaries and a pension as a retired educator.

To quote Borat: Very nice.

Morgan's article notes: "Lynn also happens to be chairwoman of the Senate's Higher Education Appropriations Committee, with great influence over university budgets." She quotes FSU President T.K. Wetherell: "It's just a coincidence."

Lynn is the second member of the 40-member Senate to make news recently by being hired by the state universities. Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Melbourne, recently raised eyebrows by getting hired as a $75,000-a-year lecturer at the University of Florida, although he has only a master's degree. Lynn has a doctorate and educational experience, at least, but it is still a fair question as to whether you should be a state legislator in charge of university budgets, creating programs that then hire you.

(State Sen. Charlie Justice, D-St. Petersburg, works for the University of South Florida, although he already had his job before he ran for office.)

It's pretty ironic that at the same time as all this, the Florida Senate wants to abolish the existing state university system with SJR 2308 and put it back directly under the political thumb of the Legislature. With the worst teacher-student ratio in the nation already, among the lowest tuition and state support, and now even more budget cuts because of the economy, Florida's universities are freezing admissions and slashing their instructional budgets -- but at least, by gum, they can still find jobs for members of the Florida Senate.

Sounds like a Sunday column to me!

Sunday column: Don't get too close to the state horse

Dear Sunday blog readers: On the way to trying to find out something else last week, I got sidetracked by some of the ideas that have been filed for the upcoming Legislature. You don't think the headline was too, uh, racy, do you?

*********

You'll be delighted to know that our state Legislature, which convenes for its annual session on March 4, has decided not to pass any new laws this year.

No, wait! I am just funnin'.

As of Friday, our legislators already had filed 704 bills for the upcoming session. They'll file a lot more.

To start with the truly crucial stuff, Senate Bill 744 and House Bill 119 would make it a first-degree felony for a human to have, uh, improper contact with an animal. That is probably all that needs to be said about that.

Got one of those flags the size of a football field? You must be a real patriot. So SB 90 would make sure that no local government in Florida could prohibit the flying of a U.S. flag.

Yet if you fly a flag over your City Hall, you'd better be sure it's made in the good old U.S.A. - SB 852 would require all public flag purchases in Florida to be made from domestic producers.... [entire column]

Last tango in Tallahassee

It's easy to be disappointed in what appears to be the final product of this special session of the state Legislature. Lawmakers have added a couple more tax breaks for homeowners, who already have the best tax deal, and paid a little lip service to non-homeowners.

No fundamental reform, no sweeping changes, not even some of the other ideas (low-income seniors, "highest and best use," etc.) originally proposed for this session. Maybe it was too much to ask. After all, the Legislature was meeting only to decide what to do about the "super-homestead" exemption that a court had thrown off the Jan. 29 ballot.

So we end up with a mini-menu of a few more tax breaks:

* "Doubling" the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000. I use the quote marks because school taxes aren't affected. But saying "double" is easier than saying, "increasing the exemption by roughly 60 percent."

* Making the homestead tax break "portable" when an owner moves to a new home, for tax breaks of up to $500,000. This does address one of the biggest complaints about our existing set-up, than people feel "trapped" in their current home.

* Putting a cap of 10 percent on how much property values can go up each year for non-homestead property. This cap is a lot weaker than originally proposed. Supposedly, this at least gives business owners some stability -- but this cap doesn't cover school taxes either. So your value increase would be capped at 10 percent for NON-school taxes, but uncapped for school taxes...

* A tax break for the first $25,000 worth of tangible personal property, which would primarily benefit business in the state.

If you're looking for a deeper, systemic reform, then look either to the annual session of the Legislature in the spring, to see if Speaker Marco Rubio has deeper ambitions, or else to the state's tax and budget reform commission.

This Legislature, at this time, has proved either unable or unwilling to do anything further.

Column: The Senate takes its ball and goes home

I went to a school that once had an unusual strategy in basketball: It tried not to score many points.

Instead, the players used up the clock by passing the ball back and forth, and driving the opponents crazy while keeping them from scoring.

This "four corners" strategy was eventually outlawed - in basketball, anyway.

But in our Florida Legislature, the four-corners tactic is alive and well.

Our state Senate does not like what our state House has done with property taxes.

So the Senate has decided simply not to show up all this week in Tallahassee. It will return Monday at the earliest.

Can you believe it? The one time we want our Legislature to meet, and half the outfit refuses to show up! [entire column]

House v. Senate (so, what else is new?)

For the new few days we'll hear a lot of posturing between the House and Senate over their different ideas for changing Florida's property taxes.

The Senate's plan is closer to the original deal. It includes a doubled homestead exemption, a "portable" tax break for moving to a new house, a tax break for first-time buyers, and a bunch of other stuff.

The House's plan is still in flux. As written, however, it includes one huuuge difference from the Senate -- it creates a 3 percent a year cap on the value of non-homestead property in Florida. That's kind of like the "Save Our Homes" cap for homesteads, with a couple of important differences.

Just for starters, I hope nobody cares in the slightest about the Senate's complaint that the House "broke the deal" that was made before the session. I don't care. The taxpayers don't care. Nobody cares except the Legislature. So if Senate President Ken Pruitt and Sen. Daniel Webster think they are getting any sympathy on that, boo freakin' hoo.

What matters is the merit of the House ideas -- and there the Senate might have a better case. As appealing as a 3 pct non-homestead cap might be, if it's that low it will cost a lot of money -- and the local govt's will just make it up by raising their millage rates. In that case, this "reform" could actually end up hurting homestead owners -- wait'll THAT gets understood after the session!

On the other hand, the proposal from House Democrats not to "double" the homestead exemption, but peg it to 40 percent of the median home value in each county, is interesting to the House Republican leaders and is not something the Senate will automatically rule out. So the main sticking point is probably the cap on non-homestead property....

Hey, sounds like a Sunday column topic! Happy weekend and good luck.

Thursday morning: taking a break

Soon after the House convened at 10 a.m. this morning, Speaker Marco Rubio answered the phone on his lectern and answered it, "Gelber! I'm up here working, man." It was a relaxed little exchange with the leader of the House Democrats, Dan Gelber, calling from his desk at the back of the chamber.

No wonder Rubio was relaxed -- a few minutes later, he announced that the House would recess until 3 p.m. Monday so members will have more time to think about the property-tax bills. Rubio said members would be provided with information about the effect of the proposed cuts on their local governments and schools, and would have time to mull them over and talk to the folks at home.

Also, everybody is getting kicked out of their hotel for the Miami-FSU game this weekend anyway, so...

The brief House session was a nice little lovefest between the Republican leaders and the Democratic minority. Rubio told the House that the Democrats had come up with some good ideas in the session, changing the original proposal somewhat, and that "our ideas led to your ideas, which makes them our ideas."

Kum ba yah! The atmosphere in the House is almost entirely different from the tax session earlier this year -- bipartisan so far, more deliberative.

There was total silence at the other end of the fourth floor, where the Senate had already sent its members home after passing the original tax deal on Wednesday. The Senate president, Ken Pruitt, issued a statement that on the surface looked like a basic rah-rah, but when you read it closer implied some disapproval of the House's changes. Pruitt said the Senate had negotiated "in good faith" and had passed a plan "in keeping with the special session call."

The biggest difference, remember, is that the House plan creates a new protection for all NON-homestead property in Florida -- an annual cap on value increases. The House also is thinking about giving homeowners a tax break that's 40 percent of the median home value in their county, instead of simply doubling the existing homestead exemption.

The Senate's plan sticks closer to the original script, with a doubled homestead exemption, letting homeowners move their tax break to a new home, and a break for first-time home buyers.

Lots of speculation here that the Senate will wait for the House to finish its gyrations and then shoot the thing down.

I'm outta here and heading back to St. Petersburg, looking forward to watching some football and baseball in my own home... more on the blog tomorrow and in Sunday's print column.

Thursday column: Wham, bam, and thank y... no, wait!

TALLAHASSEE -- Hey, if you don't like the Legislature's plan for changing your property taxes, guess what?

A lot of members of the Legislature don't like it either.

So by Wednesday afternoon, the Legislature - at least, the House - had put away its rubber stamp.

They're were going to think about it some more, kick around numbers. Democrats and Republicans were talking to each other about new terms. Nobody knew what exactly was going to happen.

And you know, maybe that isn't so bad... [entire column]

Wednesday afternoon: hold on a sec, would you?

My print column tomorrow is going to talk about the fact the Legislature has slowed down -- at least in the House -- this plan for cutting property taxes.

At the beginning of this week, it sure looked like business as usual, that they intended to zip the thing through with a lack of debate and examination as early as today. The original plan on Tuesday in the House was to allow only two hours -- two hours! -- for the committee to pore over the whole thing. And even on Wednesday morning, a Senate leader confidently said the first bill would be passed "within the hour."

Wrong. A lot of members had something to say, and the leadership in both chambers has been letting them say it.

From the perspective of the taxpayer, two major points, plus a bunch of minor ones:

* There's some kind of new tax cut for homeowners still in the works. The original plan was to double the existing homestead exemption to $50,000. But now the House is at least thinking about the alternate idea put forth by Democrats, to give homeowners an exemption worth 40 percent of the median home value in their county.

* Now there's also news for non-homestead owners, who might get some kind of annual cap on how fast their property value can grow for tax purposes. Whether that's 3, 5 or 7 percent, or nothing at all, is still up in the air.

The rest of the original components of this tax-cutting plan are still in the mix, one way or the other... low-income seniors, "working waterfront" property, workforce and affordable housing, etc....

I see from the comments that some folks this is nowhere near enough, some are critical of the process. Many existing inequities in Florida's system are not fixed by this.

I also hear the conspiracy theory that the House leadership actually doesn't care whether this deal gets done or not -- if the real agenda is to force deeper, more sweeping tax cuts instead. I dunno; they seem sincere enough to me...

Comments? Questions? Post 'em here and I'll try to answer. Talk to you later.

Hey, wait a minute, a legislative process might be occurring here

While the Senate stayed on script this morning and dutifully plowed through its property-tax amendments, there might be some interesting doings in the state House.

A few minutes ago, there was a meeting in the fourth-floor Capitol office of state Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, who is the House Republicans' point guy on property tax reform. Cannon and other top Republicans met with the leader of the House Democrats, Dan Gelber, and some of his colleagues. They talked about making a new deal on the property-tax plan.

It tweren't no secret meeting, either -- a bunch of reporters jammed into Cannon's office to watch the whole thing. The talk seemed fairly friendly and cooperative. After all, the Republicans do need the Democrats' votes to get something on the Jan. 29 ballot, and everybody seems to be thinking it would be nice to get along.

As a result, things in the special session have become a lot more fluid. The House is in recess now and may not come back into session today, while everyone looks at all the numbers flying around. What had seemed like an imminent passage of the original plan suddenly might be pushed back by days.

Biggest change proposed by the Democrats: instead of just doubling the existing homestead exemption, the Democrats would give every homestead property owner a tax break that's 40 percent of the median home value in their county. (If your current Save Our Homes tax break was bigger, you'd keep it.)

This "40 percent for everybody" approach solves several problems, the Democrats say. It solves the problem of portability, since you don't lose your tax break by moving from one home to another. It solves the problem of first-time homebuyers, too. Cannon, sipping on a Diet Coke, nodded as he listened to Gelber and said he had liked a percentage-based homestead exemption all along.

Another big change the Dems proposed: a 7-percent annual cap on ALL property values in Florida. Remember that yesterday the House council had voted for 3-percent, and this morning the Senate said that idea was totally dead. Now this revives the possibility that all property owners, not just homesteaders, would get a tax cap.

Even under the Dems' deal there would still be tax breaks for working waterfront property, affordable and workplace housing... not clear on what would happen to the part about letting the Legislature set an annual cap on local millage rates.

Wheee!

Wednesday morning: goodbye, 3-percent cap

Ken Pruitt, put the kibosh on the House's idea that all property in Florida -- not just homesteads -- should get an annual cap on the growth of their value of 3 percent a year. [Scott Keeler | Times]

Good morning from Tallahassee... the full House and Senate are in session this morning and are taking up the three bills of this special session -- a constitutional amendment on property taxes, a law to carry out the details of that amendment, and an act to put the amendment before voters on the Jan. 29 ballot. Both chambers will go through a list of proposed changes filed by individual members.

One piece of news this morning is that the Senate president, Ken Pruitt, put the kibosh on the House's idea that all property in Florida -- not just homesteads -- should get an annual cap on the growth of their value of 3 percent a year. Pruitt said the 3-percent idea is outside the "call," meaning that it's not on the list of permitted topics in the proclamation that called this special session.

So, if you're a small business owner, an owner of rental property or anybody else who liked the news from yesterday, sorry. Either the full Senate now would have to rise up against Pruitt (unlikely), the House would somehow have to ram the 3-percent cap down the Senate's throat and force it to agree (unlikely), or else the idea is going to die.

Lots of folks here think the whole 3-percent thing was a sham in the House council yesterday anyway, since they passed it on the fly without any prior notice and without the slightest financial analysis. This theory was that somebody else would step in to kill the idea later. Cue the Senate.

A few senators this morning did express unhappiness on the Senate floor with the deal being debated. Some Republicans want deeper cuts. Some want more numbers. "We're not going to be in a hurry about this," Pruitt said, saying the Senate would stay in session all day to hear amendments if needed.

Weirdness in the Capitol

It is 6 p.m. Monday and the day's work is done in Tallahassee -- with two or three big, important surprises.

The NON-surprise is that all the committees today approved the entire property-tax package, setting the stage for the full House and Senate to take them up starting tomorrow. All the major points we've talked about so far are in there.

Except...

The House council today, out of the blue, voted to add a 3-percent annual cap on the values of all NON-homestead properties in Florida. Under this idea, all property in Florida would benefit from the same protection that homeowners now get under the Save Our Homes cap.

This is a huge step, and a big departure from the previous plan. The council acted almost on impulse, with no financial analysis of the impact on local government.

Everybody is saying that this was a fake vote and that they don't really mean it. It was an act of gamesmanship between the Democrats, who had proposed a 7-percent cap, and the Republicans, who said, oh yeah? We'll see your 7 and raise you to 3.

But if they don't mean it, that means somebody's gotta take it back out. Either the full House has to do it, or the Senate has to do it. And now that this gi-normous vote has been taken, which will get the attention of every business in the state of Florida tomorrow morning, how do they get out of it?

Wait, one more "little" thing in the House -- do you want to pay a higher sales tax? Also at the last minute this afternoon, the House put in a proposed 1-cent increase in the state sales tax to make up for the lost revenue to schools.

Another big change was over in the Senate committee, which put a limit on the proposed tax break for low-income seniors -- they would only get a break on the first $100,000 of their home's value, instead of a total free ride. This, too, is a pretty big change. And since the low-income senior tax break included school taxes, this change would reduce the hurt to education.

So now there is a two-way jam here. Either the House and Senate have to strip out these changes on the floor so they are passing the same thing, or else pass conflicting bills and send the thing to a conference committee.

Moving right along....

Hi everybody. Today I watched part of a workshop in the state Senate to go over the property-tax bills, and then I wandered over to the House just in time to watch those bills pass unanimously in their first vote in a House council.

In other words, things are moving right along without any big surprises. Some House members and senators say they would like to add or change things, and the leaders say those members will have a chance to be heard, but the major pieces seem to be holding up.

As I described in more detail in my previous post, those major changes include doubling the homestead exemption, a tax break for first-time home buyers, making Florida's existing tax break for homeowners portable when they move to a new home, and several other new tax breaks for various kinds of property.

The most unhappy folks in the Capitol today are the lobbyists for Florida's local governments, the cities and counties, who do not like the fact that the proposed constitutional amendment would give the Legislature permanent say-so over setting a cap on local taxes. They call it a usurpation of home rule.

My print column tomorrow will try to focus on some of the criticisms and questions about this plan, which is likely to be on the books by the end of this week.

For starters, lots of critics don't think this goes far enough in cutting local taxes. Others think it doesn't do enough to protect non-homestead property owners, such as businesses and owners of rental property.

And although the main tax breaks for homeowners are popular, there are some interesting questions about the rest of the deal. Some readers already have posted some of these questions on this blog, and I have others from reading the bills...

* How to combat fraud in the tax break for first-time home buyers. Under the bill they would sign an affidavit and be subject to penalties, but...

* The significance of this tax break for "working waterfront" property. What the heck does it mean? It means, for starters, commercial fishing and water-related businesses... but the details would still have to come in a bill to passed next spring.

* Whether the idea of a "portable" tax break is even constitutional. As some readers have pointed out, this whole plan seems to make existing inequities worse, not better.

There's lots of rhetoric from the Republican leadership here that this is only a beginning, not the last thing the Legislature is going to do on taxes. The House speaker, Marco Rubio, is the loudest of those voices, saying he's not satisfied.

More in tomorrow's column -- I also hope you will consider stopping by for tomorrow live chat here on TroxBlog. Bring plenty of questions and comments about the plan.

Monday morning: the bills explained

I’m in Tallahassee for the Legislature’s special session on property taxes. Here we go again.

There are three “pre-cooked” bills on the agenda for this session, already worked out by the Powers That Be and ready to go. There are many elements and complications, but as usual, they are all thrown together into the same big pot.

Today’s scheduled action is an 11:30 workshop to present the bills on the Senate side, and a noon meeting of one of the big House “councils” –- a super-committee that is one of the hurdles the bill must clear. More committees meet on Tuesday, and then the full Senate and House are scheduled for session Wednesday and Thursday to pass ‘em.

Here’s the Senate link to the bills. Here’s the House link.

The three measures are:

* A joint resolution calling for an amendment to the Florida Constitution. Because our Constitution says that property usually has to be assessed for tax purposes at its “just value,” we have to amend the Constitution to create any new exemptions or tax breaks.

* A new law, or statute, that would carry out the details of the constitutional amendment.

* A resolution putting the amendment on the Jan. 29 ballot. This is a separate step that would take a three-quarters vote of the House and Senate. Without that level of support, the amendment would not appear on the ballot until November 2008. (If it passes in January 2008, it applies retroactively to Jan. 1, 2008; if it passes in November 2008, it takes effect Jan. 1, 2009).

In the order that they are mentioned in the amendment, the elements are: a $25,000 exemption for all tangible personal property, “portability” for moving your tax break to a new home, a tax break for affordable housing, a tax break for commercial waterfront property, a doubled homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000, a new tax break for first-time home buyers, a tax break for low-income seniors, a limit on the growth of future local taxes, and a requirement that all property appraisers be elected (this is aimed at Metro-Dade).

There are many more details in the proposed change in state law. One would take away the “presumption of correctness” of a tax appraisal if it is a bigger increase than the average increase for that category of property.

Overall, we’re talking about a statewide property tax cut of $9- to $11-billion over five years, compared to a cut of about $16-billion that would have occurred under the “super homestead” tax break that has been thrown off the Jan. 29 ballot. Some critics think this isn’t enough. Local governments, which already have been through a first round of tax cuts this fall, don’t like the new cuts and tax caps.

Updates later today.

Tally ho

For the next few days I'll be in Tallahassee for the special session of our state Legislature dealing with property taxes. The Legislature is probably going to pass a new proposed amendment to our Constitution for the Jan. 29 election and some kind of statutory change as well.

The major points will probably be a doubling of the homestead exemption to $50,000, the ability to move an existing tax break to a different home ("portability"), and a new tax break of up to 25 percent for first-time home buyers.

There also are proposed tax breaks for low-income seniors and affordable housing, a tax break for tangible personal property that mostly helps business, and some new limits on how much local governments can raise taxes. As for the effects of these tax cuts on local government, and what will have to be cut from local budgets as a result -- hey, that's not the Legislature's problem.

So far there seems to be a pretty good consensus on these ideas. But as always, there's a chance that some or all of the deal could fall apart, or for the addition of last-minute changes. It will be interesting to see how much these ideas are actually discussed, considered and debated, and how much the Legislature simply ratifies a deal made by a few insiders in advance.

I'll be posting frequent updates and observations here on TroxBlog. And Tuesday's weekly live chat will be a special two-hour edition, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. focused on the tax proposals. I hope you'll consider stopping by to contribute a comment or question to our talk.

Best wishes for a good week...

Thursday column: Do you want it fixed, or by Friday?

I went to pick up my car from Charlie's Quickie Fix-It Service.

But when I got there, my car was still up on the lift. Parts were strewn all over.

"I just brought it in for a little budget cut," I protested to Charlie. "What gives?"

"Since you were here anyway," Charlie said, "we figured we'd go ahead and give you that big tax overhaul we've been talking about."

"Can I at least get an estimate?" I asked. Sure, said Charlie, handing me a piece of paper. It said... [rest of column]

The Senate on the tax plan

Here's the full text of an announcement from state Senate President Ken Pruitt, outlining the major points of the property tax plan the Legislature is likely to pass in the next few days:

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

To:                   All Senators

From:              Ken Pruitt, President

Date:               October 10, 2007

Subject:          Summary of Proposed Property Tax Plan

 

As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail today, I am sending an outline of the Senate’s proposed property tax plan. For your convenience the text is both attached and pasted below. We expect to have drafts of the bills and joint resolutions on Friday.

Outline of the Proposed Senate Property Tax Plan

Doubles the homestead exemption by providing an additional $25,000 exemption for assessment amounts between $50,000 to $75,000.  This increased exemption will not apply to school millages.

Provides portability of Save Our Homes tax breaks by providing 100% portability of the SOH differential, up to 1 million dollars, for homeowners who upgrade to a more expensive home, and proportional portability for homesteaders who move to a less expensive home.  This increased exemption will not apply to school millages.

Provides a $25,000 exemption for Tangible Personal Property.

Creates a new exemption for first-time homesteaders that equals 25% of the just value of the property, capped at 25% of the prior year’s residential median just value for the county, but which is phased out as the new homesteaders’ Save Our Homes differential increases.  This increased exemption will not apply to school millages.

Grants “low-income seniors” a significant new exemption with eligibility based on household income and home values. This provision will apply to school millages.

Affordable housing.   This provision will allow property utilized for affordable housing to be assessed at less than just value.  To qualify the property will have to be subject to rent restrictions imposed by a government authority.  This provision will provide protection to renters from dramatic increases in rent attributable to rising property tax assessments.  This provision will not apply to school millages.

Working waterfronts.   This provision will allow property located on the water and used for commercial activities, also known as “working waterfronts”, to be assessed at less than just value instead of the “highest and best” use.  Presently, a waterfront marina may be assessed as if it were a high-rise condominium because that would be the “highest and best” use of the property in the context of generating property taxes.  This provision will allow the marina to be assessed at something other than just value and more akin to the property’s actual use, not its potential use. This provision will not apply to school millages.

Presumption of Correctness/Burden of Proof .  This provision will remove the presumption of correctness given to property appraisers for challenges to assessments involving properties whose just value increases more than the county average for their class.  This helps level the playing field for property owners so that the property tax assessment process is not tilted in favor of the government.  This provision may affect school millages.

Elected Property Appraisers.   This provision will require that all property appraisers in the state be elected by the voters.  This will address concerns in those jurisdictions where the property appraisers are hired by the mayor or commissioners and make sure that the property appraisers are accountable to the voters.   

Taxes: The roller-coaster ride continues

[Wednesday afternoon update: The Legislature will extend its special session until midnight Oct 22 to take up property-tax reform. In addition to the governor's proposal outlined below, the House and Senate will generate their own plans. Wheee!]

You might have noticed that our Legislature is in special session to cut the state budget. Our governor, Charlie Crist, figures that since they're in Tallahassee anyway, why not do something about property taxes in the next few days? And so the delightful roller coaster ride that is Florida's public policy continues on its merry way. [Times file photo | Melissa Lyttle]

Remember that a court has thrown out the Jan. 29 election on a "super homestead" amendment previously proposed by the Legislature. There's an appeal under way, but right now that means the only tax relief that's taken place is the earlier law that created a one-time rollback of property taxes, which has left a lot of Floridians not very impressed.

What to do, what to do? Well, the Legislature could simply fix the wording of the flawed Jan. 29 amendment. It could try to put together some other kind of tax cut. In that spirit, the governor has come up with a new program. Overall, Crist's plan would cut $6.3-billion over the next five years, which is not nearly the $15-$16-billion that the "super homestead" amendment would have required. To be fair, Crist is saying this is just a starting point and there should be more cuts later.

Here is a copy [Download cristtax.pdf ] of a worksheet showing the effects of the governor's proposed plan, along with the actual text of his proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution. (Hey, at least he has actual wording, which puts us ahead of the game by Florida policy-making standards).

The governor's main ideas:

* Doubling the existing homestead exemption in Florida from $25,000 to $50,000, except for school taxes, which would not be affected. Unlike the existing $25,000 exemption, this new benefit would increase over time with inflation.

* Giving first-time buyers an extra tax break of 25 percent over their home's value as a new tax exemption.

* Creating a "portable" tax benefit so that homebuyers could take their existing Save Our Homes tax cap to a new home. When you moved into a more expensive house, instead of getting socked for the full value, you'd start with the same dollar tax break you had in the old house.

* A tax break for all taxpayers on the first $25,000 of "tangible" personal property. This is a tax break that largely benefits businesses.

* A new cap on the annual revenues of local government, which could not grow faster than inflation. Any excess revenue would be set aside, and if the surplus grew large enough, it would be refunded to taxpayers. As with the existing law, local governments could override this cap by an extraordinary vote.

There's also talk of whether to change Florida's existing law that includes the "highest and best use" of property as a factor in setting its value. That's been a problem for, say, mom-and-pop beachfront hotels worried that they are being taxed as if their land was being used for million-dollar condos.

Big, big ideas, and sure enough, they address some of the problems with the existing tax structure. As to the overall effect, as to whether there are unintended consequences, as to a detailed analysis of the fiscal impact on the state of Florida -- well, if you think the Legislature can responsibly hash out all that in the next few days on the fly, you have more faith than me.

More in tomorrow's print column.

Oh, An Intimidating Stocky Black Man! I Will Agree To Have Sex With Him!

Sounds like state Rep. Bob Allen, R-Merritt Island, should shut up more often. First, he was arrested, accused of offering $20 to an undercover officer in a men's room for sex. He says he's not guilty -- okeydoke by me. Innocent until proven guilty.

Next, he says the "people" certainly do not want him to resign and are counting on him to cling to office. I am just guessin' here but I doubt most of the "people" are really thrilled about him getting arrested and are withholding their judgment at the best.

Next, we learn that Allen tried to explain himself to police by saying he felt intimidated by a "stocky black guy" in the restroom (the officer) and thought that other "stocky black guys" in the area might be intending to rob him. Uh, besides the fact that this pushes a nasty racial button, how does this explain his logic?

A: Oooh, I am afraid of these stocky black men!
B: Therefore, I will agree to have sex with one of them.

Allen told police after his arrest that it was the officer who initiated the transaction, which of course the police deny. Finally, according to the police report, Allen asked police whether his position as a state legislator would "help" his situation. Oh, I'm sure...

A: You are under arrest.
B: Would it help if I told you I was a state legislator?
A: Oh, my goodness! Of course. Our deepest apologies. You can go.

Like I said, innocent until proven guilty -- of the criminal charge. Innocent of being dumb is going to be the tougher challenge to prove, sounds like.

Do As We Say, Not As We Do, Part II

Good grief! Here's another example of the Florida Legislature saying one thing and doing another.

Earlier this week, we saw that nearly half the Legislature's 160 members have requested to attend conventions of legislators upcoming in Phillly and Boston at state expense. (Since then some of them have said they've changed their minds.)

This, on the heels of the Legislature lecturing every city and county in Florida about wasteful spending.

Now, in this morning's paper, we learn that while the Legislature was lecturing about how those wicked, wasteful local governments have to cut taxes, it was actually passing a deal that says that...

... MIAMI does not have to cut its property taxes. The law was changed in a way to add Miami, specifically and all alone, to a list of much-smaller, poorer cities that are exempt from the cuts.

That's right. This tax cut across Florida is a matter of bedrock principle for all those wasteful cities and counties -- unless, of course, the home county of some of the Legislature's top leaders are involved.

Today's article by Aaron Sharockman and Alex Leary quotes legislative leaders as saying, Golly Gee, We Didn't Know We Were Doing This.

Didn't KNOW???

And House Speaker Marco Rubio says, maybe we'll fix it later.

I was there in the special session. The Legislature handed me a piece of paper that said Miami was among the cities that had to make the larger tax cuts. For the past 25 years, I have at least taken for granted that the work of the legislative staff itself was accurate -- that it reflected the actual language of the law.

Either Marco Rubio and the leadership of the Legislature are passing laws when they do not know what they say...

.... or they are making speeches about principle and cranking out the same old legislative sausage.

Which is worse?

The Legislature: Do As We Say, Not As We Do

Sure, when elected officials go to conventions for elected officials, there's a chance they'll get something out of it. They can learn something from the various meetings and discussions. They can learn something just from talking to other folks from other places.

That is, if they actually attend the sessions. Make no mistake, these events also are chances for vendors and lobbyists to suck up to legislators, and for plenty of events that involve just having fun. The last time I went to a meeting of the national state legislators' association, it was downright disgusting.

But even if there's some value to such events, attending them is an extra, and not a basic necessity of government -- not when we're talking across Florida about closing libraries, freezing university admissions and ordering local governments to cut property taxes.

So be sure to check out Alex Leary's article this morning reporting that 80 members of the Florida Legislature are spending up to $125,000 of tax dollars to attend conventions in Boston and  Philadelphia. This comes, of course, immediately after the Legislature just finished lecturing Florida's cities and counties on how they have to tighten their belts.

Same old story. If somebody else does it, it's "waste." If WE do it, it's legitimate. You know, somebody ought to write a newspaper column about this...

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.

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.