I disagree with the above. Theoretically, it might "save" the property owner $240, but in all likelyhood, with all of the caps and changes, we can expect the actual millage to increase, thereby eliminating any "savings." The County isn't cutting back on expenses, just taxing in a different form. Do you agree?
Not sure but I thought spending caps are already in statute from last year. The overall revenue generation is limited to last year, plus new construction plus population growth and cpi. The problem with this is logically it seems to give incentives to government to approve projects since growth is where they get their money. I would think that this would lead to a streamlining of the planning process to make developement easier in the long term, and easier developement should allow prices to fall. If an overall cap is in place for total revenue generated, then as we grow millage rates would naturally come down.
A limitation in dollar growth to the local budget is also going to force commissioners to become leaders. No more bountiful budgets built solely on value escalation. I think it was around 4 years ago the county budget jumped approximately 57% in one year, and they still managed to cut the millage rate. All because of the double digit valuation increase and the new construction coming online. As for commissioners raising the millage, I just do not see that happening to any large degree. Raising taxes leads to new leadership. They have consistently, but reluctantly lowered the millage each year for quite a while now. And each year it is mentioned that their may be a problem if we ever have to go back up. Under the current structure with Save Our Homes, millage rates have to go up more than 3% for most people to see a tax increase, especially north of the bay, because values are still catching up as property is sold. When people start seeing tax increases on a regular basis, it is going to change the whole dynamic of how someone gets elected in Walton County.
I agree though Save Our Homes is unfair to anyone that bought in Florida in the last five years. And it also is locking people into their current homes that currently pay little taxes, but would be confronted with significant increases if they were to try to move. So I voted yes because anything that limits revenue to local government is a good first step in my opinion, and I like the portability part. Florida still needs spending reform at all levels of government.