Proposed Super Homestead Exemption Information

60 percent vote is a tall order for this if- come- maybe bill.

2 votes for "no" coming from our home. Even if it does pass :roll: , I'm sticking with SOH.
.

If you look up your property on the Property Appraiser's website, there is a new gold button you can click on that explains all about this. It also calculates the payments for your specific property and you can see the breakdown of the SOH exemption vs. the new proposed Super Homestead. In our case, if we were to chose the Super Homstead, the payments are $1,000 cheaper the first year then the gap closes until its the same in about 10 years. If we were to hold onto our home for the next 30 years, and had chosen the Super Homestead, we'd end up paying tens of thousands more than the regular homestead.

We'd save $500 the first year, but end up paying tens of thousands more over the next 20 years as well under SuperHomestead.

Couple of No voters here as well since in the end it's all smoke and mirrors and will hurt vulnerable people on fixed incomes in the long run.

I checked mine, and there would be an immediate doubling :shock: of our taxes if I chose the Super Homestead, and it would only get worse from there. Since I filed for homestead in January 2004, our "just" value has somehow crept up to twice our assessed value. Imagine that! :roll:

If my home was on our agricultural land in northern Walton County and not expected to climb very much in value, I'd jump on the super homestead. It's nice to have a choice, but I don't see it helping very many SoWal homeowners.

It's nice to have the tool and the explanation from the PA's office - that is the most clear and consise explanation I've seen of the issue.

It is nice to see that chart.

SH would behoove me until the 10 year mark. Thanks for posting about this.

Interesting that they call it "Super Homestead." They should call it "Get screwed if Super Homestead."

If it does pass, it's not like the people in office now will have to deal with by the time the screaming about tax increases gets really bad because many/most of them will have been term-limited out of office by that time.

2 votes for "no" coming from our home. Even if it does pass :roll: , I'm sticking with SOH.
.

Why are you voting NO and taking away the choice of others? If the amendment passes you are allowed to keep SOH until you sell, move, or die. So you are protected. But let the others who are trying to get started at least have a chance as some lower taxes.

Patrick Pilcher has an excellent calculator on his website when you look up your taxes for your property. www.waltonpa.com

Why are you voting NO and taking away the choice of others? If the amendment passes you are allowed to keep SOH until you sell, move, or die. So you are protected. But let the others who are trying to get started at least have a chance as some lower taxes.

Patrick Pilcher has an excellent calculator on his website when you look up your taxes for your property. www.waltonpa.com

That sounds great, but what about people like me who intend to move? Isn't it more the norm for people to move every seven years, or did I just misread that somewhere? If the breakeven point is 10 years, on average, everyone loses.

That sounds great, but what about people like me who intend to move? Isn't it more the norm for people to move every seven years, or did I just misread that somewhere? If the breakeven point is 10 years, on average, everyone loses.

If you move now you get a $25K exemption and then are locked in to a 3% growth. But if this passes and you move you would get a super exemption then not have a lock on growth. Keep in mind that revenues that the various taxing authorities can collect are statutorily limited. So a dropping of the millage rate would also be occurring if all of these values are skyrocketing.

If you move now you get a $25K exemption and then are locked in to a 3% growth. But if this passes and you move you would get a super exemption then not have a lock on growth. Keep in mind that revenues that the various taxing authorities can collect are statutorily limited. So a dropping of the millage rate would also be occurring if all of these values are skyrocketing.

That happens only in theory. Look back only a few years to the period from 2002-2005 and you will notice only a slight down-tick in the millage rate, but HUGE increases in assessed values, and the tax dollars increased greatly.

Do you have any idea as to why they are calling it Super Homestead Exemption rather than what it really is? I'm guessing it is so that the voters get tricked into thinking they are better off with it since it is "super," just like the super-sized fries and drink at McDonald's, but the only trick is that the Gov't gets more, not the majority of property owners.

Why are you voting NO and taking away the choice of others? If the amendment passes you are allowed to keep SOH until you sell, move, or die. So you are protected. But let the others who are trying to get started at least have a chance as some lower taxes.

Patrick Pilcher has an excellent calculator on his website when you look up your taxes for your property. www.waltonpa.com

It's true that if I vote "yes" and allow the Super Homestead, I can keep my SOH (which I voted for in the first place, thank God)....but at what cost to our communities and schools?

I know..."Sorry Charlie" Crist said he'd find the money to fund our school system. Hell, after seeing my Home Insurance double in the last year and the Pocket Change I saved on the Tax Rollback...I know his "promises" are pretty much a heap of crap.


Ole "Sorry Charlie" claimed he'd find the money to make up for the tax shortfall??? Hell--he couldn't find his arse with both hands, a map and a compass!

Believe me, I'm doing you a favor by keeping SOH. Just buy your home and file...that way when the next GIANT HOUSING BOOM hits Florida in the next few months (or so I'm told), you'll not be paying through the nose when the investulators send your property prices through the roof and the state comes looking for more money to fund "pet projects" such as million$ in cost overruns at the new airport.

.

That sounds great, but what about people like me who intend to move? Isn't it more the norm for people to move every seven years, or did I just misread that somewhere? If the breakeven point is 10 years, on average, everyone loses.

And just where the hell do you think you are going SJ?


.

And just where the hell do you think you are going SJ?


.

I'm moving up near the new airport... NOT. Just some moving in the local area.

That happens only in theory. Look back only a few years to the period from 2002-2005 and you will notice only a slight down-tick in the millage rate, but HUGE increases in assessed values, and the tax dollars increased greatly.

Do you have any idea as to why they are calling it Super Homestead Exemption rather than what it really is? I'm guessing it is so that the voters get tricked into thinking they are better off with it since it is "super," just like the super-sized fries and drink at McDonald's, but the only trick is that the Gov't gets more, not the majority of property owners.

It is not a theory. Revenues are limited by statute. So that must be taken into account. Revenues are limited to inflation plus new construction. This is going to force the millage rates down.

It's true that if I vote "yes" and allow the Super Homestead, I can keep my SOH (which I voted for in the first place, thank God)....but at what cost to our communities and schools?

I know..."Sorry Charlie" Crist said he'd find the money to fund our school system. Hell, after seeing my Home Insurance double in the last year and the Pocket Change I saved on the Tax Rollback...I know his "promises" are pretty much a heap of crap.


Ole "Sorry Charlie" claimed he'd find the money to make up for the tax shortfall??? Hell--he couldn't find his arse with both hands, a map and a compass!

Believe me, I'm doing you a favor by keeping SOH. Just buy your home and file...that way when the next GIANT HOUSING BOOM hits Florida in the next few months (or so I'm told), you'll not be paying through the nose when the investulators send your property prices through the roof and the state comes looking for more money to fund "pet projects" such as million$ in cost overruns at the new airport.

.

That boom will never happen again in our lifetime. The credit market pretty much created it and now they have been exposed.

I appreciate you wanting to help me.......but please.....let me be responsible for myself. I will keep SOH. But if this does not pass I will not be able to downsize because I will never be able to afford the taxes on a new home in this county. And if people, like me, never start moving again, then even a slight housing bubble is dead.

Why are you against choice? Let me be able to make mine. Just give me the freedom to do it.

That boom will never happen again in our lifetime. The credit market pretty much created it and now they have been exposed.

I appreciate you wanting to help me.......but please.....let me be responsible for myself. I will keep SOH. But if this does not pass I will not be able to downsize because I will never be able to afford the taxes on a new home in this county. And if people, like me, never start moving again, then even a slight housing bubble is dead.

Why are you against choice? Let me be able to make mine. Just give me the freedom to do it.

This is a major problem. It is my opinion that if you live or own in unincorporated Walton County, for the most part you are in pretty good shape.

The metropolitan, incorporated areas have a completely different tax structure where millage rates are often more than double. People who have purchased in the past five years in, say, the cities of Tampa or St. Pete or other small cities nearby are routinely paying $8-10,000 in taxes on a $350-450,000 homesteaded home. Now six or seven years ago if you paid that much you would get something special. Not so much anymore, especially as the competition to get into top school districts has increased and what people could "afford" to pay got higher as the rates went down and lending standards all but disappeared.

I'm assuming Bob in Orlando has seen similar changes. In many cases it's not so much a "land grab" as, "let's chase after the best neighborhoods." Over time everything else went up too. My mom's average little 50s ranch in a very average, marginally desirable neighborhood is now valued at $250,000. Without her SOH cap she would be paying $5,000 a year! Instead it's just over $1,000. My husband and I considered purchasing his mom's house a few years ago to help her out financially. The tax ramifications of the changed ownership nixed that idea right away.

So SOH is clearly flawed. The people who have bought in the past several years have gotten screwed from a tax standpoint. Young families, downsizers and everyone who does not homestead is affected: landlords who have long rented our their single family homes, longtime snowbirds (who would have a hard time selling their places now that the taxes have shot up) and yes, investors, speculators, etc.

I think the problem during the boom was more a lack of collective wisdom in our federal government, in the lending industry and among city, county and state governments, who happily took all the new money and didn't care how this would affect people.

I would love for my taxes to go down, but I also knew going in exactly how much they were going to cost me. Now, I don't feel too terribly sorry for people who didn't make the same calculations I did. What I can't understand is why the "Super Homestead" once again requires individual homeowners to make a decision, rather than truly holding the governments accountable for all the money they raked in!

SOH is an absolute joke, and all we get out of this is a vote on a "Super Homestead fix", with no real emphasis on where the problems lie.

So I ask, SHELLY, if you like your comfy SOH cap, great, who can blame you? But why is it good for the state as a whole? What is the solution, aside from going back in time?

The people who have bought in the past several years have gotten screwed from a tax standpoint.

You speak of the boat which I'm afloat. Even though property values are down significantly for 07 I am being accessed at the 06 values with no consideration to the current market.

You speak of the boat which I'm afloat. Even though property values are down significantly for 07 I am being accessed at the 06 values with no consideration to the current market.

Your taxes are based on the Jan. 1, 2007 value. If you can provide evidence that your home was worth less than the assessed value on 01/01/07, then you still have a small window of time to appeal the assessment. Days? A week? anyone know?

BTW, I did not mean to minimize the pain being felt by some SoWallers. But in other parts of the state, the imbalance between the tax bills of recent buyers and longtime homesteaders is proportionally even higher than (for example) the difference between what ShallowsNole or SHELLY may be paying and what Curtis may be paying. Millage rates make a difference too.

Also, anyone notice that the default setting on these calculators for yearly projected increase in property value is about 7 percent? That's for almost every county's Super Homestead Calculator. If you changed it to, say, more like 4-5 percent, over a 20 year period you'd have a much different result. Given the major correcting that is still ongoing, 4-5 percent over the next 20 MAY be more realistic.

Another thing to consider though is that under the Super Exemption, county appraisers would still have too much wiggle room in what they could assess a property for. At present most counties follow the unwritten rule of appraising values at about 80 percent of market value. But that is no where in the law as far as I know. If Super Exemption did pass, what is to stop appraisers from adjusting to using true "market value" numbers so that governments could continue to rake it in?

Think your appraiser is going to be honest? Most of them probably are, but there is the case of Jim Smith in Pinellas County, who is in a ton of hot water now for ethical violations that are clearly a big, big problem.

So the SOH sucks. The Super Exemption sucks. What the heck should we do now? SHELLY is right; I see only backpedaling, not leadership, from good old Charlie.

Your taxes are based on the Jan. 1, 2007 value. If you can provide evidence that your home was worth less than the assessed value on 01/01/07, then you still have a small window of time to appeal the assessment. Days? A week? anyone know?

I believe the appeal date Sept 4. You have to pay a 15.00 fee to the clerk of the courts and fill out paper work for your evaluation.

My understanding after talking with the property appraiser is that 07 taxes are based on 06 values. I was told that for instance, that if values are down for 07 then it would be reflected on my 08 assessment.

I believe the appeal date Sept 4. You have to pay a 15.00 fee to the clerk of the courts and fill out paper work for your evaluation.

My understanding after talking with the property appraiser is that 07 taxes are based on 06 values. I was told that for instance, that if values are down for 07 then it would be reflected on my 08 assessment.

If you think the number they assessed you for is accurate for all of '06, then there's not much you can do. The county is following state law.

This is a major problem. It is my opinion that if you live or own in unincorporated Walton County, for the most part you are in pretty good shape.

The metropolitan, incorporated areas have a completely different tax structure where millage rates are often more than double. People who have purchased in the past five years in, say, the cities of Tampa or St. Pete or other small cities nearby are routinely paying $8-10,000 in taxes on a $350-450,000 homesteaded home. Now six or seven years ago if you paid that much you would get something special. Not so much anymore, especially as the competition to get into top school districts has increased and what people could "afford" to pay got higher as the rates went down and lending standards all but disappeared.

I'm assuming Bob in Orlando has seen similar changes. In many cases it's not so much a "land grab" as, "let's chase after the best neighborhoods." Over time everything else went up too. My mom's average little 50s ranch in a very average, marginally desirable neighborhood is now valued at $250,000. Without her SOH cap she would be paying $5,000 a year! Instead it's just over $1,000. My husband and I considered purchasing his mom's house a few years ago to help her out financially. The tax ramifications of the changed ownership nixed that idea right away.

So SOH is clearly flawed. The people who have bought in the past several years have gotten screwed from a tax standpoint. Young families, downsizers and everyone who does not homestead is affected: landlords who have long rented our their single family homes, longtime snowbirds (who would have a hard time selling their places now that the taxes have shot up) and yes, investors, speculators, etc.

I think the problem during the boom was more a lack of collective wisdom in our federal government, in the lending industry and among city, county and state governments, who happily took all the new money and didn't care how this would affect people.

I would love for my taxes to go down, but I also knew going in exactly how much they were going to cost me. Now, I don't feel too terribly sorry for people who didn't make the same calculations I did. What I can't understand is why the "Super Homestead" once again requires individual homeowners to make a decision, rather than truly holding the governments accountable for all the money they raked in!

SOH is an absolute joke, and all we get out of this is a vote on a "Super Homestead fix", with no real emphasis on where the problems lie.

So I ask, SHELLY, if you like your comfy SOH cap, great, who can blame you? But why is it good for the state as a whole? What is the solution, aside from going back in time?

Same dynamic here. We bought in '92. Added a bed and bath in '00, and my taxes doubled. The joke is I'm still paying less than one third the taxes of some of my neighbors. I see the only answer as elimination of property taxes for seniors, and the extermination of SOH. It's very bad law.

It is not a theory. Revenues are limited by statute. So that must be taken into account. Revenues are limited to inflation plus new construction. This is going to force the millage rates down.

...and that is why the County Commissioners continue to allow changes in increased densities for zoning in WalCo, even though one of their three words in the County Seal is "Conservation" -- $$$ in the County Coffers.

While the County revenues may have limits, it doesn't mean that we should be maxing out the limits, or that we should continue to create new construction for the sole purpose of lining pockets, developers' and the County's, with cash. How about they show a little restraint with the spending? Has anyone noticed that Walton County has the newest and shiniest automobile fleet with more gadgets than you can shake a stick at? Why does every Code Enforcement vehicle need a fancy looking brush guard and winch on the front? Why does the Mosquito Control Commissioner have a salary of $120,000? etc. Why do they spend all of that money, but we still don't have a public park facility which includes a swimming pool and tennis court? Why not spend something on the people of the County instead of spending it solely on the Gov't? I'm not against spending, but I am against unbridled spending.