General discussion & info about South Walton, Florida.

All About SoWal

Advertise or find a business, discuss business.

Business & Services

Jobs

Festivals, classes, gatherings, activities.

Events & Music

Food & Dining

Marketplace

property, realtors, builders, development, infrastructure ...

Real Estate

Long Term Rentals

Vacation Rentals

SoWal Lounge

Kurt

Admin

[SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #1[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]

[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/10-69.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]

Amendment #1 
 
Official Title: 
Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens 
 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/10-69.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship. &#8203;</div>

[SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #2[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Florida Marriage Protection Amendment[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]

[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/41550-1.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]

Amendment #2 
 
Official Title: 
Florida Marriage Protection Amendment 
 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/41550-1.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. &#8203;</div>

[SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #3[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Residential Real Property[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]
[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-4.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property's value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]

Amendment #3 
 
Official Title: 
Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Residential Real Property 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-4.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property&#039;s value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect. &#8203;</div>

[SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #4[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]
[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-5.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]

Amendment #4 
 
Official Title: 
Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-5.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010. &#8203;</div>

[SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #6[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]
[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-7.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]

Amendment #6 
 
Official Title: 
Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-7.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law. &#8203;</div>

[SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #8[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Local Option Community Funding[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]
[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-9.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require that the Legislature authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax to supplement community college funding; requiring voter approval to levy the tax; providing that approved taxes will sunset after 5 years and may be reauthorized by the voters. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]

Amendment #8 
 
Official Title: 
Local Option Community Funding 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-9.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require that the Legislature authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax to supplement community college funding; requiring voter approval to levy the tax; providing that approved taxes will sunset after 5 years and may be reauthorized by the voters. &#8203;</div>

John R

needs to get out more

[quote="kurt, post: 490471"][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #1[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]

[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/10-69.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT][/QUOTE]

 The first constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot will technically not effect anyone.

If approved by voters, it will remove an obsolete provision of the Florida Constitution called the ''Alien Land Law'' that was never enacted or enforced.

''What this does is eliminate constitutional discrimination,'' said Sen. Steve Geller, a Cooper City Democrat who worked to get the amendment on the ballot. Despite its high-minded goal, Geller predicts it won't be easy to win the 60 percent of the vote needed to remove it from the Constitution.

''The problem is, a lot of people are going to be confused and not really know what it does,'' he said.

The title of the amendment is ''Declaration of Rights'' and the summary says it will ``delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.''

Geller worries people will mistakenly interpret the words ''aliens ineligible for citizenship'' to mean ''illegal immigrants'' and come to the wrong conclusion.[B] ''It has nothing to do with illegal immigration,'' he said.[/B]

[url]http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/739609.html[/url]

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="kurt">Amendment #1 
 
Official Title: 
Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens 
 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/10-69.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship. &#8203;</div></blockquote> 
 The first constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot will technically not effect anyone. 
 
If approved by voters, it will remove an obsolete provision of the Florida Constitution called the &#039;&#039;Alien Land Law&#039;&#039; that was never enacted or enforced. 
 
&#039;&#039;What this does is eliminate constitutional discrimination,&#039;&#039; said Sen. Steve Geller, a Cooper City Democrat who worked to get the amendment on the ballot. Despite its high-minded goal, Geller predicts it won&#039;t be easy to win the 60 percent of the vote needed to remove it from the Constitution. 
 
&#039;&#039;The problem is, a lot of people are going to be confused and not really know what it does,&#039;&#039; he said. 
 
The title of the amendment is &#039;&#039;Declaration of Rights&#039;&#039; and the summary says it will ``delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.&#039;&#039; 
 
Geller worries people will mistakenly interpret the words &#039;&#039;aliens ineligible for citizenship&#039;&#039; to mean &#039;&#039;illegal immigrants&#039;&#039; and come to the wrong conclusion. &#039;&#039;It has nothing to do with illegal immigration,&#039;&#039; he said. 
 
<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/739609.html" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/739609.html</a>

Florida Amendment 1
 
[B]Florida Amendment 1[/B], also known as the [B]Property rights and illegal aliens act[/B], is a proposed [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Constitutional_amendment"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]amendment[/COLOR][/U][/URL] to the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]state constitution[/COLOR][/U][/URL] to limit the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_State_Legislature"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]legislature's[/COLOR][/U][/URL] ability to regulate the property rights of ineligible aliens. It is a [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Legislatively-referred_constitutional_amendment"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]legislatively-referred constitutional amendment[/COLOR][/U][/URL], and is therefore on the ballot for the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2008_ballot_measures"][U][COLOR=#810081]general election in 2008[/COLOR][/U][/URL] automatically. It was placed on the ballot on May 18, 2007. 
[B]Background[/B]

Article 1, Sec. 2 of Florida’s constitution contains regressive language that authorizes the Legislature “to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.”[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-sun-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL] This measure is to remove that language. 
[B]Supporters[/B]

[B]Supporters:[/B] 
[LIST]
[*]The [B]Organization of Chinese Americans[/B], a non-profit group and minority rights advocate[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-1"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]Florida League of Women Voters[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-sun-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST]
[B]Editorial Support:[/B] 
[LIST]
[*]Gainesville Sun[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-sun-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST][B]Arguments in Favor[/B]

[LIST]
[*]The measure would remove an outdated and discriminitory passage from Florida's constitution.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-league-2"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][3][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST][B]Opponents[/B]

[I]None Yet Identified[/I] 
[B]Arguments Against[/B]

[LIST]
[*]There is no present Florida statute prohibiting ownership of property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-league-2"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][3][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST]

Florida Amendment 1 
 
Florida Amendment 1, also known as the Property rights and illegal aliens act, is a proposed <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Constitutional_amendment" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">amendment</a> to the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">state constitution</a> to limit the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_State_Legislature" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">legislature&#039;s</a> ability to regulate the property rights of ineligible aliens. It is a <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Legislatively-referred_constitutional_amendment" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">legislatively-referred constitutional amendment</a>, and is therefore on the ballot for the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2008_ballot_measures" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">general election in 2008</a> automatically. It was placed on the ballot on May 18, 2007. 
Background 
 
Article 1, Sec. 2 of Florida’s constitution contains regressive language that authorizes the Legislature “to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.”<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-sun-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a> This measure is to remove that language. 
Supporters 
 
Supporters: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Organization of Chinese Americans, a non-profit group and minority rights advocate<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-1" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[2]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Florida League of Women Voters<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-sun-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
</ul>Editorial Support: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gainesville Sun<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-sun-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
</ul>Arguments in Favor 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The measure would remove an outdated and discriminitory passage from Florida&#039;s constitution.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-league-2" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[3]</a></li>
</ul>Opponents 
 
None Yet Identified 
Arguments Against 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">There is no present Florida statute prohibiting ownership of property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_1_%282008%29#cite_note-league-2" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[3]</a></li>
</ul>

The [B]Florida Marriage Amendment[/B], also known as [B]Proposition 2[/B] and [B]The Marriage Protection Amendment[/B], is a proposed [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Constitutional_amendment"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]constitutional amendment[/COLOR][/U][/URL] to ban same-sex marriage in [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. The proposed amendment to the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Constitution[/COLOR][/U][/URL] will appear on the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2008_ballot_measures"][U][COLOR=#810081]November 4, 2008 ballot[/COLOR][/U][/URL] in [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. In order to pass, the amendment will require a 60% majority of those voting in the election. 
[B]Polls[/B]

As of September 8th, 2008, 55% of Floridians support the ballot measure, and 41% oppose the measure. The measure needs 60% to pass.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL] 
[B]Background/Specifics[/B]

The amendment as written includes a clause prohibiting judges from overturning the law. This is a response to what happened in [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Massachusetts"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Massachusetts[/COLOR][/U][/URL], where a judge overturned that state's law banning same-sex marriage.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-1"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/U][/URL] 
The [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_title"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]ballot title[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Initiative"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]initiative[/COLOR][/U][/URL] says, "In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." 


[B]Support[/B]

Supporters include: 
[LIST]
[*][URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida4Marriage"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida4Marriage[/COLOR][/U][/URL], sponsor[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-2"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][3][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]Florida Governor Crist[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-3"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][4][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]W. James Favorite, pastor of Beulah Baptist Institutional[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-afro-4"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][5][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST]On Sep 30, a group of church leaders from around the country met outside the Miami-Dade County Courthouse to show their support of Amendment 2. In general, Florida's religious community is strongly in favor of the measure.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-5"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][6][/COLOR][/U][/URL] 
[B]Arguments in Favor[/B]

[LIST]
[*]Supporters say the amendment would protect children by ensuring that only the form of marriage between a man and a woman would ever be celebrated in Florida.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]The Florida statute that already provides for a single form of marriage could be overturned by a court on constitutional grounds.
[/LIST][B]Opposition[/B]

Opponents include: 
[LIST]
[*][URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Red_and_Blue"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Red and Blue[/COLOR][/U][/URL][URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-6"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][7][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]The NAACP[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-afro-4"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][5][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]Rabbi Bruce Diamond[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-7"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][8][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]The ACLU[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-8"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][9][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST]

[B]Arguments in Opposition[/B]

[LIST]
[*]The [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Petition"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]petition[/COLOR][/U][/URL] as acting as bait for the Presidential election in order to draw out conservative voters; there is already enough legislation in place currently.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-9"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][10][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]Health care and pension benefit plans which cover unmarried couples, even heterosexual older couples, living together and which are now legally valid may be adversely affected.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]Article I of the Florida Constitution, known as the Declaration of Rights, establishes rights, but this amendment would instead limit the right to marry.
[/LIST][B]Financing the opposition[/B]

Amendment 2 is one of three ballot measures that will appear on November ballots around the country to ban same-sex marriage. Of these, the highest profile battle surrounds [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]California Proposition 8[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. According to Stephen Gaskill, a spokesperson for Florida Red and Blue, the focus on the California measure has complicated fundraising efforts for those fighting Florida Amendment 2. 
Gaskill said, "Certainly if the California effort was not underway, it would be easier for Florida to raise money — that’s just a reality."[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-10"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][11][/COLOR][/U][/URL] 
[B]Status[/B]

The initiative was able to collect enough signatures in order to qualify for the 2008 general election.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-11"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][12][/COLOR][/U][/URL] This was done by [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Volunteer_circulator"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]volunteer circulators[/COLOR][/U][/URL] gathering 92,000 signatures, roughly 7,000 a day, in order to ensure the qualification of the measure.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-12"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][13][/COLOR][/U][/URL]

The Florida Marriage Amendment, also known as Proposition 2 and The Marriage Protection Amendment, is a proposed <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Constitutional_amendment" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">constitutional amendment</a> to ban same-sex marriage in <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida</a>. The proposed amendment to the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Constitution</a> will appear on the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2008_ballot_measures" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">November 4, 2008 ballot</a> in <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida</a>. In order to pass, the amendment will require a 60% majority of those voting in the election. 
Polls 
 
As of September 8th, 2008, 55% of Floridians support the ballot measure, and 41% oppose the measure. The measure needs 60% to pass.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a> 
Background/Specifics 
 
The amendment as written includes a clause prohibiting judges from overturning the law. This is a response to what happened in <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Massachusetts" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Massachusetts</a>, where a judge overturned that state&#039;s law banning same-sex marriage.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-1" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[2]</a> 
The <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_title" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">ballot title</a> for the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Initiative" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">initiative</a> says, &quot;In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.&quot; 
 
 
Support 
 
Supporters include: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida4Marriage" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida4Marriage</a>, sponsor<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-2" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[3]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Florida Governor Crist<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-3" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[4]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">W. James Favorite, pastor of Beulah Baptist Institutional<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-afro-4" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[5]</a></li>
</ul>On Sep 30, a group of church leaders from around the country met outside the Miami-Dade County Courthouse to show their support of Amendment 2. In general, Florida&#039;s religious community is strongly in favor of the measure.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-5" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[6]</a> 
Arguments in Favor 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Supporters say the amendment would protect children by ensuring that only the form of marriage between a man and a woman would ever be celebrated in Florida.</li>
</ul><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Florida statute that already provides for a single form of marriage could be overturned by a court on constitutional grounds.</li>
</ul>Opposition 
 
Opponents include: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Red_and_Blue" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Red and Blue</a><a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-6" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[7]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The NAACP<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-afro-4" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[5]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rabbi Bruce Diamond<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-7" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[8]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The ACLU<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-8" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[9]</a></li>
</ul> 
Arguments in Opposition 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Petition" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">petition</a> as acting as bait for the Presidential election in order to draw out conservative voters; there is already enough legislation in place currently.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-9" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[10]</a></li>
</ul><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Health care and pension benefit plans which cover unmarried couples, even heterosexual older couples, living together and which are now legally valid may be adversely affected.</li>
</ul><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Article I of the Florida Constitution, known as the Declaration of Rights, establishes rights, but this amendment would instead limit the right to marry.</li>
</ul>Financing the opposition 
 
Amendment 2 is one of three ballot measures that will appear on November ballots around the country to ban same-sex marriage. Of these, the highest profile battle surrounds <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">California Proposition 8</a>. According to Stephen Gaskill, a spokesperson for Florida Red and Blue, the focus on the California measure has complicated fundraising efforts for those fighting Florida Amendment 2. 
Gaskill said, &quot;Certainly if the California effort was not underway, it would be easier for Florida to raise money — that’s just a reality.&quot;<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-10" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[11]</a> 
Status 
 
The initiative was able to collect enough signatures in order to qualify for the 2008 general election.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-11" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[12]</a> This was done by <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Volunteer_circulator" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">volunteer circulators</a> gathering 92,000 signatures, roughly 7,000 a day, in order to ensure the qualification of the measure.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29#cite_note-12" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[13]</a>

[B]Florida Amendment 3[/B] would authorize the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_State_Legislature"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida legislature[/COLOR][/U][/URL] to prohibit the consideration of certain improvements and changes to property when assessing the property's value to ad valorem taxation. These changes and improvements include those which increase resistance to wind damage, as well as the installation of renewable energy source devices. 
The measure was placed on the ballot by the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission[/COLOR][/U][/URL] (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]ballot measures[/COLOR][/U][/URL] on April 28th. 
[B]Arguments in Favor[/B]

[LIST]
[*]Hurricane safety may be improved in residential property.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]Residential property values may be increased.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]The amendment may relieve the burden on non-renewable energy sources.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST][B]Arguments in Opposition[/B]

[LIST]
[*]Local revenues could suffer.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]Individuals' savings may be minimal.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]The amendment does not apply to new construction.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST]

Florida Amendment 3 would authorize the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_State_Legislature" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida legislature</a> to prohibit the consideration of certain improvements and changes to property when assessing the property&#039;s value to ad valorem taxation. These changes and improvements include those which increase resistance to wind damage, as well as the installation of renewable energy source devices. 
The measure was placed on the ballot by the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission</a> (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">ballot measures</a> on April 28th. 
Arguments in Favor 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Hurricane safety may be improved in residential property.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Residential property values may be increased.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The amendment may relieve the burden on non-renewable energy sources.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
</ul>Arguments in Opposition 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Local revenues could suffer.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Individuals&#039; savings may be minimal.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The amendment does not apply to new construction.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_3_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
</ul>

[B]Florida Amendment 4[/B] would amend the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Constitution[/COLOR][/U][/URL] to require the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_State_Legislature"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]state legislature[/COLOR][/U][/URL] to make a property tax exemption for property which is under perpetual conservation protection (as defined by general law). It also requires the legislature to provide classification and assessment of land use for conservation. This would apply to property taxes beginning in 2010. 
The measure was placed on the ballot on April 28, 2008, by the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission[/COLOR][/U][/URL] (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]ballot measures[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. 
[B]Specific Provisions[/B]

If the measures passes, it would: 
[LIST]
[*]Exempt land that is permanently set aside for conservation from all property taxes.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]Allow land that is being used for conservation purposes, but which hasn't been permanently set aside, to be taxed according to its conservation use.
[/LIST][B]Supporters[/B]

[I]Supporters include[/I]: 
[LIST]
[*]The Nature Conservancy[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]Citizens for Conservation Land[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL], a coalition of state and national environmental organizations that have joined together, including the Florida Wildlife Federation, Audubon of Florida and The Nature Conservancy.
[*]Florida Chamber of Commerce
[*]Allied Sportsmen's Association of Florida
[*]Bream Fishermen Association
[*]Jim Fowler, television host of Mutual Omaha's Wild Kingdom
[*]Sierra Club, Florida Chapter
[*]Reef Relief
[*]Tampa Audubon Society
[/LIST][I]Editorial Support[/I]: 
[LIST]
[*]Miami Herald
[*]Orlando Sentinel
[/LIST]

[B]Arguments in Support[/B]

[LIST]
[*]The measure provides a powerful incentive for more private landowners to engage in conserving Florida's forests, waters and wildlife.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]The measure would help to preserve the Everglades and protecting iconic species like the Florida panther.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]It's simple and low-cost[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST][B]Opponents[/B]

[I]None Yet Identified[/I]

Florida Amendment 4 would amend the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Constitution</a> to require the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_State_Legislature" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">state legislature</a> to make a property tax exemption for property which is under perpetual conservation protection (as defined by general law). It also requires the legislature to provide classification and assessment of land use for conservation. This would apply to property taxes beginning in 2010. 
The measure was placed on the ballot on April 28, 2008, by the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission</a> (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">ballot measures</a>. 
Specific Provisions 
 
If the measures passes, it would: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Exempt land that is permanently set aside for conservation from all property taxes.</li>
</ul><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Allow land that is being used for conservation purposes, but which hasn&#039;t been permanently set aside, to be taxed according to its conservation use.</li>
</ul>Supporters 
 
Supporters include: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Nature Conservancy<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Citizens for Conservation Land<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a>, a coalition of state and national environmental organizations that have joined together, including the Florida Wildlife Federation, Audubon of Florida and The Nature Conservancy.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Florida Chamber of Commerce</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Allied Sportsmen&#039;s Association of Florida</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bream Fishermen Association</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Jim Fowler, television host of Mutual Omaha&#039;s Wild Kingdom</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sierra Club, Florida Chapter</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reef Relief</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tampa Audubon Society</li>
</ul>Editorial Support: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Miami Herald</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Orlando Sentinel</li>
</ul> 
Arguments in Support 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The measure provides a powerful incentive for more private landowners to engage in conserving Florida&#039;s forests, waters and wildlife.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The measure would help to preserve the Everglades and protecting iconic species like the Florida panther.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">It&#039;s simple and low-cost<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_4_%282008%29#cite_note-nature-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
</ul>Opponents 
 
None Yet Identified

[B]Florida Amendment 6[/B], or the [B]Assessment of working waterfront property based upon currenty use,[/B] is a proposed [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Constitutional_amendment"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]amendment[/COLOR][/U][/URL] to the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]state constitution[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. 
The measure was placed on the ballot on April 28, 2008, by the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission[/COLOR][/U][/URL] (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]ballot measures[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. 
[B]Specific Provisions[/B]

This measure provides for the ad valorem tax assessment of waterfront property to be based on its current use. This includes land used primarily for commercial fishing purposes, land used for vessel launches to which the public has access, marinas and drystacks that are open to the public, water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities. 
The measure was placed on the ballot on April 28, 2008, by the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission[/COLOR][/U][/URL] (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]ballot measures[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. 
[B]Supporters[/B]

[B]Arguments in Support[/B]

[LIST]
[*]Access to public waterfront areas would more likely remain at current levels rather than continuing to diminish.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_6_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]This measure may reduce property taxes on working waterfront properties and thereby reduce pressure to sell those properties to developers.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_6_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST][B]Opponents[/B]

[B]Arguments in Opposition[/B]

[LIST]
[*]Local revenues would suffer.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_6_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]The measure allows the Legislature to define terms and impose conditions and limitations on any tax break working waterfront owners receive.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_6_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST]

Florida Amendment 6, or the Assessment of working waterfront property based upon currenty use, is a proposed <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Constitutional_amendment" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">amendment</a> to the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">state constitution</a>. 
The measure was placed on the ballot on April 28, 2008, by the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission</a> (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">ballot measures</a>. 
Specific Provisions 
 
This measure provides for the ad valorem tax assessment of waterfront property to be based on its current use. This includes land used primarily for commercial fishing purposes, land used for vessel launches to which the public has access, marinas and drystacks that are open to the public, water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities. 
The measure was placed on the ballot on April 28, 2008, by the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission</a> (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">ballot measures</a>. 
Supporters 
 
Arguments in Support 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Access to public waterfront areas would more likely remain at current levels rather than continuing to diminish.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_6_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">This measure may reduce property taxes on working waterfront properties and thereby reduce pressure to sell those properties to developers.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_6_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
</ul>Opponents 
 
Arguments in Opposition 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Local revenues would suffer.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_6_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The measure allows the Legislature to define terms and impose conditions and limitations on any tax break working waterfront owners receive.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_6_%282008%29#cite_note-women-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
</ul>

[B]Florida Amendment 8[/B] proposes an amendment to the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Constitution[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. The measure was placed on the ballot by the [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission[/COLOR][/U][/URL] (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]ballot measures[/COLOR][/U][/URL]. 
[B]Specific Provisions[/B]

If the measure passes, it would: 
[LIST]
[*]Require the legislature to authorize local option sales tax levies for counties.
[*]Require these levied ad valorem taxes to go towards community college funding
[*]Require counties to get voter approval of the levies.
[/LIST][B]Supporters[/B]

Editorial Support: 
[LIST]
[*]The Miami Herald[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-miami-0"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST][B]Arguments in Support[/B]

[LIST]
[*]Community colleges serve as a gateway to the university system and to greater employment opportunities; this amendment could increase their funding.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]Voters would have the option of denying any proposed local-option sales tax increase under the proposal.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST][B]Opponents[/B]

[B]Opposing Arguments[/B]

[LIST]
[*]Amendment 8 would open the door for decreased state funding for community colleges over time.
[*]If the larger counties approve this measure, smaller counties may be coerced in the future to approve similar measures to pay for their own funding.
[*]Sales taxes impose a greater burden on lower-income families.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]The measure shifts the burden of funding community colleges from state to local authorities.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[*]The amendment could create unequal opportunities for Florida residents based on the economy in their county of residence.[URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1"][U][COLOR=#0000ff][2][/COLOR][/U][/URL]
[/LIST]

Florida Amendment 8 proposes an amendment to the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Constitution" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Constitution</a>. The measure was placed on the ballot by the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Taxation_and_Budget_Reform_Commission" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission</a> (TBRC), along with six other tax-and-budget <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">ballot measures</a>. 
Specific Provisions 
 
If the measure passes, it would: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Require the legislature to authorize local option sales tax levies for counties.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Require these levied ad valorem taxes to go towards community college funding</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Require counties to get voter approval of the levies.</li>
</ul>Supporters 
 
Editorial Support: 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Miami Herald<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-miami-0" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[1]</a></li>
</ul>Arguments in Support 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Community colleges serve as a gateway to the university system and to greater employment opportunities; this amendment could increase their funding.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[2]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Voters would have the option of denying any proposed local-option sales tax increase under the proposal.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[2]</a></li>
</ul>Opponents 
 
Opposing Arguments 
 
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Amendment 8 would open the door for decreased state funding for community colleges over time.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the larger counties approve this measure, smaller counties may be coerced in the future to approve similar measures to pay for their own funding.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sales taxes impose a greater burden on lower-income families.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[2]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The measure shifts the burden of funding community colleges from state to local authorities.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[2]</a></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The amendment could create unequal opportunities for Florida residents based on the economy in their county of residence.<a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_%282008%29#cite_note-women-1" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">[2]</a></li>
</ul>

[quote="kurt, post: 490472"][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #2[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Florida Marriage Protection Amendment[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]

[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/41550-1.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT][/quote]

The Amendment:
"Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
The amendment will be on the November, 2008 ballot.
It requires 60% approval to be adopted.

Consequences:
Similar amendments in other states are being used to take away benefits from public employees (Kentucky, for instance), and dissolve domestic partnership registries used to provide health care benefits and pensions (in Michigan).

Broward and Palm Beach Counties and the cities of Tampa, Gainesville and Miami Beach, among others, offer Domestic Partnership Registries. Most Florida universities and more than half of Fortune 500 companies offer Domestic Partnership benefits. These benefits would be placed at risk, if not outright abolished, if this amendment passes.

Every unmarried Floridian will be impacted by this amendment - especially divorced or widowed seniors and public employees who, under existing programs, can share some benefits such as hospital visitation privileges and health care coverage without being married.

[url]http://www.sayno2.com/index.php[/url]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUqK0FpTQIQ&feature=related"]YouTube - Straight Talk About Florida 'Marriage Protection' Amendment[/ame]

[B]OR[/B]

If you vote in Florida.....Please vote YES on Amendment 2 on your ballot.  Amendment 2 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but it does not prohibit the government or private companies from extending benefits to whomever they wish.

Nancy Davis of Tampa Bay Newspapers Reader's Forum states, "I would like to give six key facts on the Florida Marriage Amendment, as it relates to seniors, unmarried couples and others sharing living arrangements.

- The Social Security benefits of seniors will be protected

- Benefits that seniors and unmarried couples receive from employers will be protected

- Seniors and unmarried couples will still be able to make out wills together

- Powers of attorney will still be allowed for seniors and unmarried couples

- Seniors and unmarried couples will still be allowed to own a home or business together

- Seniors and unmarried couples will still have rights like hospital visitation, making medical decisions and funeral arrangements for one another.

Don't be confused about Amendment 2. Protecting marriage also protects unmarried citizens. Go here to learn more: [url]www.yes2marriage.org[/url].

[url]http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2008/10/floridas-amendment-2/[/url]

I'm pretty confused about this because what the no people say will happen, the yes people say won't happen.  I'm voting no, too ambiguous.

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="kurt">Amendment #2 
 
Official Title: 
Florida Marriage Protection Amendment 
 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/41550-1.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. &#8203;</div></blockquote> 
The Amendment: 
&quot;Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.&quot; 
The amendment will be on the November, 2008 ballot. 
It requires 60% approval to be adopted. 
 
Consequences: 
Similar amendments in other states are being used to take away benefits from public employees (Kentucky, for instance), and dissolve domestic partnership registries used to provide health care benefits and pensions (in Michigan). 
 
Broward and Palm Beach Counties and the cities of Tampa, Gainesville and Miami Beach, among others, offer Domestic Partnership Registries. Most Florida universities and more than half of Fortune 500 companies offer Domestic Partnership benefits. These benefits would be placed at risk, if not outright abolished, if this amendment passes. 
 
Every unmarried Floridian will be impacted by this amendment - especially divorced or widowed seniors and public employees who, under existing programs, can share some benefits such as hospital visitation privileges and health care coverage without being married. 
 
<a href="http://www.sayno2.com/index.php" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.sayno2.com/index.php</a> 
 
[ame=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUqK0FpTQIQ&amp;feature=related&quot;]YouTube - Straight Talk About Florida &#039;Marriage Protection&#039; Amendment[/ame] 
 
OR 
 
If you vote in Florida.....Please vote YES on Amendment 2 on your ballot. Amendment 2 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but it does not prohibit the government or private companies from extending benefits to whomever they wish. 
 
Nancy Davis of Tampa Bay Newspapers Reader&#039;s Forum states, &quot;I would like to give six key facts on the Florida Marriage Amendment, as it relates to seniors, unmarried couples and others sharing living arrangements. 
 
- The Social Security benefits of seniors will be protected 
 
- Benefits that seniors and unmarried couples receive from employers will be protected 
 
- Seniors and unmarried couples will still be able to make out wills together 
 
- Powers of attorney will still be allowed for seniors and unmarried couples 
 
- Seniors and unmarried couples will still be allowed to own a home or business together 
 
- Seniors and unmarried couples will still have rights like hospital visitation, making medical decisions and funeral arrangements for one another. 
 
Don&#039;t be confused about Amendment 2. Protecting marriage also protects unmarried citizens. Go here to learn more: <a href="http://www.yes2marriage.org" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">www.yes2marriage.org</a>. 
 
<a href="http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2008/10/floridas-amendment-2/" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2008/10/floridas-amendment-2/</a> 
 
I&#039;m pretty confused about this because what the no people say will happen, the yes people say won&#039;t happen. I&#039;m voting no, too ambiguous.

TooFarTampa

SoWal Insider

Thanks for this Kurt.

To start the discussion, I will link to a column from my favorite Reasonable Guy, who wrote a brief, to-the-point primer a couple of weeks ago:

[url]http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article851917.ece[/url]

Scooterbug wrote the other day that she tends to vote against any amendments,  but in most cases I think if someone goes to the trouble to put something on the ballot, it deserves a look. I voted yes on most of them. I voted No on Amendment 2 because I'm one of those goofy marriage-is-a-civil-contract people. But I also think it is worth voting down because of possible implications to heterosexual unmarried couples, particularly older ones.

Thanks for this Kurt. 
 
To start the discussion, I will link to a column from my favorite Reasonable Guy, who wrote a brief, to-the-point primer a couple of weeks ago: 
 
<a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article851917.ece" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article851917.ece</a> 
 
Scooterbug wrote the other day that she tends to vote against any amendments, but in most cases I think if someone goes to the trouble to put something on the ballot, it deserves a look. I voted yes on most of them. I voted No on Amendment 2 because I&#039;m one of those goofy marriage-is-a-civil-contract people. But I also think it is worth voting down because of possible implications to heterosexual unmarried couples, particularly older ones.

[quote="kurt, post: 490473"][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #3[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Residential Real Property[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]
[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-4.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property's value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT][/QUOTE]

Amendment 3 could bring tax breaks for homeowners' house work
[B]A proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot offers a tax break to homeowners who harden their homes or add alternative energy devices.[/B]
BY BEATRICE E. GARCIA
[email]bgarcia@MiamiHerald.com[/email]

This is the third in a series examining the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Since the 2004 hurricanes, lawmakers and regulators have been preaching mitigation as the best way to protect Florida homes against storms and possibly reduce insurance costs -- and many consumers have heeded the call.

Hardening homes with shutters, impact-resistant windows or a new roof can be expensive. Electric roll-up shutters could run about $22,000. Adding impact-resistant glass could cost nearly $15,000 for a 2,250-square-foot home.

No doubt these mitigation measures add safety as well as value to a home.

To protect home and condominium owners who have taken these steps from seeing higher property tax bills, one of the proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot would bar the improvement costs from being added to a home's valuation for assessing property taxes.

Amendment No. 3 also would extend the tax break to homeowners who go ''green'' by adding solar panels, solar water heaters or other alternative energy devices to their houses.

''We certainly want to encourage people to mitigate and use alternative energy devices,'' said state Sen. Gwen Margolis, D-Miami Beach.

Margolis, a member of the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, brought the amendment to the group's attention. The commission placed it on this year's ballot.

State Sen. Steve Geller, a Democrat from Cooper City, says that while Florida's public officials are encouraging making homes more resistant to windstorm damage and using energy-saving devices, ''we shouldn't be charging'' consumers higher taxes when they take these steps.

Geller, who served on the Senate's banking and insurance committee, introduced a bill in the 2007 legislative session that would have exempted the mitigation measures from property taxes. But the bill died in committee.

[url]http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/737488.html[/url]

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="kurt">Amendment #3 
 
Official Title: 
Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Residential Real Property 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-4.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property&#039;s value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect. &#8203;</div></blockquote> 
Amendment 3 could bring tax breaks for homeowners&#039; house work 
A proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot offers a tax break to homeowners who harden their homes or add alternative energy devices. 
BY BEATRICE E. GARCIA 
<a href="mailto:bgarcia@MiamiHerald.com">bgarcia@MiamiHerald.com</a> 
 
This is the third in a series examining the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot. 
 
Since the 2004 hurricanes, lawmakers and regulators have been preaching mitigation as the best way to protect Florida homes against storms and possibly reduce insurance costs -- and many consumers have heeded the call. 
 
Hardening homes with shutters, impact-resistant windows or a new roof can be expensive. Electric roll-up shutters could run about $22,000. Adding impact-resistant glass could cost nearly $15,000 for a 2,250-square-foot home. 
 
No doubt these mitigation measures add safety as well as value to a home. 
 
To protect home and condominium owners who have taken these steps from seeing higher property tax bills, one of the proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot would bar the improvement costs from being added to a home&#039;s valuation for assessing property taxes. 
 
Amendment No. 3 also would extend the tax break to homeowners who go &#039;&#039;green&#039;&#039; by adding solar panels, solar water heaters or other alternative energy devices to their houses. 
 
&#039;&#039;We certainly want to encourage people to mitigate and use alternative energy devices,&#039;&#039; said state Sen. Gwen Margolis, D-Miami Beach. 
 
Margolis, a member of the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, brought the amendment to the group&#039;s attention. The commission placed it on this year&#039;s ballot. 
 
State Sen. Steve Geller, a Democrat from Cooper City, says that while Florida&#039;s public officials are encouraging making homes more resistant to windstorm damage and using energy-saving devices, &#039;&#039;we shouldn&#039;t be charging&#039;&#039; consumers higher taxes when they take these steps. 
 
Geller, who served on the Senate&#039;s banking and insurance committee, introduced a bill in the 2007 legislative session that would have exempted the mitigation measures from property taxes. But the bill died in committee. 
 
<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/737488.html" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/737488.html</a>

[quote="kurt, post: 490474"][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][B]Amendment #4[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34][B]Official Title:[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][B][SIZE=5][COLOR=#002569]Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]
[LEFT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#b31b34]Official Ballot Summary: [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]([URL="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-5.pdf"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]Click here[/COLOR][/U][/URL] for a PDF of the full text.)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010. [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT][/QUOTE]



I chatted online with Doug Matthews. He is the marketing director of Vote Yes On Amendment 4. He informed me that the coalition is made up of environmentalists and conservatives against property taxes.

"Right now, land that's under a conservation easement (permanent or temporary) is taxed according to it's highest possible use," explained Matthews. "So there's no financial incentive to set it aside."

The amendment would give a property tax break to land counties set aside for conservation purposes. Developers and wifelife supporters, such as Jim Fowler, support the amendment for different reasons. Environmentalists view Amendment 4 has a deterent to unchecked growth management. Developers can get a tax break for setting aside 75 percent of lands for conservation. The other 25 percent sees increased property values from being near green space.

Amendment 4 seems like a no-brainer. Florida's undecider, Charlie Crist, still has not stated his position. It takes true political courage not to state an opinion on an amendment with no major opposition. Crist might frame himself as a green governor and tax-cutter, if he supported the amendment. We know how Crist has been shying away from that image.

Vote yes on amendment 4.
[url]http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/09/florida-amendment-4.html[/url]

[B]more[/B]

Environmentalists back state Amendment 4 -- with caveat
There is wide support to provide owners tax relief to help preserve wild Florida, but even supporters caution that the devil is in the details.
BY CURTIS MORGAN
[email]cmorgan@MiamiHerald.com[/email]

This is the first in a series examining the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Environmentalists are backing a big tax break for Florida's largest land owners.

You read that right. In an election year notable for nastiness, two typically partisan factions have reached accord over at least one thing: Amendment Four, a measure that would reduce or eliminate property taxes for owners who protect their land from bulldozers.

Environmental groups embrace the proposal as a promising, painless option for expanding preservation in a state with a dwindling budget to buy prime parcels. The amendment is one of six on the Nov. 4 ballot.

''Given the economy and amount of money available for land acquisition, this provides a way of promoting conservation management without using tax dollars,'' said Janet Bowman, legislative policy director for The Nature Conservancy.

Proponents believe it could prove especially helpful in places like South Miami-Dade, where suburban sprawl drives up land values -- and pressure to subdivide -- on remaining rural lands. The pitch is that owners now spending money to run small farms or nurseries mainly to claim agriculture tax breaks could profit by letting land revert to wetland.

''The value of land in South Dade is very high,'' said Eric Draper, policy director for Audubon of Florida. 'One of the reasons that land is even being farmed right now is to qualify for `green-belt' exemptions.''

Amendment 4 boasts bipartisan political support and no organized opposition. It is endorsed by virtually every major environmental group in the state and dozens of obscure ones, like the Sebastian Fishin' Chics. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, guardian of business and development interests, backs it. So does the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the nonpartisan watchdog, Florida TaxWatch.

THREE SCARY WORDS

So what could there be to worry about? Three scary words: The Florida Legislature.

''It's a long way between the amendment on the ballot and actually implementing the law, because it's left up to the Legislature to write it,'' said Kurt Wenner, director of tax research for TaxWatch.

The amendment would create two tiers of incentives to take effect in 2010. Setting aside land forever -- a covenant intended to carry over in a sale -- would earn total exemption from property taxes. Setting it aside temporarily would earn a lower tax rate, similar to farm land.

It's that ''temporary'' category that adds an asterisk to TaxWatch's endorsement. Details remain to be filled in by lawmakers, who are known from time to time to cater to powerful development interests.

''We're going to be watching closely,'' said Wenner.

State Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat running for a Senate seat, has similar concerns. ``On its face, it's not a bad idea. It's how it's implemented. I just think that second part could potentially leave room for mischief.''

Gelber posted a qualified endorsement on his blog, cautioning that if the Legislature made it too easy to claim conservation status, ``the measure could become a giveaway for mega-developers and have a great fiscal impact that shifts the tax burden to homeowners and active businesses.''

A lenient definition, for instance, could allow developers to tag vacant lots for short periods simply to ride out the cold housing market -- meaning they would pay little or no taxes. There have been past abuses with similar ''green-belt'' tax breaks, most visible in the form of a few ''cash cows'' grazing on cleared suburban tracts.

Supporters share those concerns. They've drawn up proposed standards for the ''temporary'' land-protection classification: a 10-year commitment, a minimum of 40-acre tracts, management plans and back-tax penalties at higher rates if the land is developed.

The amendment was spearheaded by environmental groups. But it was proposed to the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission in April by Brian Yablonski, vice president for public affairs for the St. Joe Co., the state's largest landowner with some 700,000 acres, mostly in the Panhandle.

REASON FOR SUPPORT

Yablonski, who also serves as a state wildlife commissioner, said he supported it to enhance wildlife and habitat protections. When asked if the amendment would profit St. Joe, he answered in a word: ``No.''

''Amendment 4 was an organic idea advanced by respected conservation organizations across the state, and they are enthusiastic about its benefits to the environment,'' he said in a written statement.

Preston Robertson, vice president of the Florida Wildlife Federation, dismissed any St. Joe role as ''a red herring'' and said the amendment could be a critical tool when the current development downturn invariably ends.

RESULTS ELSEWHERE

Florida, with 34 million acres, now has only about 165,000 acres of private land under conservation easements. Similar programs in Georgia and Texas have dramatically expanded conservation set-asides.

Because the amendment was approved by the Taxation Commission, no estimates were required for what the revenue impacts might be or how much land might qualify. With undeveloped land usually taxed at a lower rate, Audubon's Draper doesn't anticipate a big difference in the ad valorem bottom line.

The Association of Counties, whose 67 members would have to tweak millage rates to cover revenue shortfalls, agrees that potential benefits outweigh expected minor costs, said association spokeswoman Cragin Mosteller.

''Being able to conserve land is very important to many of our local governments,'' she said.

Because conservation lands remain private, unlike state-owned land, there is the potential for creating large tracts that would be off-limits to public access. But Draper believes most land would be open to hunting and fishing.

While some developers sitting on suddenly unsellable subdivision blueprints might well take advantage, Robertson argues that smaller land owners are the ones most likely to pursue the option. He intends to seek permanent conservation status for his own small farm in North Florida.

LOVE OF THE LAND

''If we protect 10,000 acres or 100,000 acres in this state, then this is well worth it,'' Robertson said. ``I think there are a number of people in this state who love their lands and they want to leave them to their kids.''
[url]http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/734509.html[/url]

<blockquote class="xfBb-quote" data-name="kurt">Amendment #4 
 
Official Title: 
Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation 
<div style="text-align: left">Official Ballot Summary: (<a href="http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/12-5.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">Click here</a> for a PDF of the full text.)Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010. &#8203;</div></blockquote> 
 
 
I chatted online with Doug Matthews. He is the marketing director of Vote Yes On Amendment 4. He informed me that the coalition is made up of environmentalists and conservatives against property taxes. 
 
&quot;Right now, land that&#039;s under a conservation easement (permanent or temporary) is taxed according to it&#039;s highest possible use,&quot; explained Matthews. &quot;So there&#039;s no financial incentive to set it aside.&quot; 
 
The amendment would give a property tax break to land counties set aside for conservation purposes. Developers and wifelife supporters, such as Jim Fowler, support the amendment for different reasons. Environmentalists view Amendment 4 has a deterent to unchecked growth management. Developers can get a tax break for setting aside 75 percent of lands for conservation. The other 25 percent sees increased property values from being near green space. 
 
Amendment 4 seems like a no-brainer. Florida&#039;s undecider, Charlie Crist, still has not stated his position. It takes true political courage not to state an opinion on an amendment with no major opposition. Crist might frame himself as a green governor and tax-cutter, if he supported the amendment. We know how Crist has been shying away from that image. 
 
Vote yes on amendment 4. 
<a href="http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/09/florida-amendment-4.html" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/09/florida-amendment-4.html</a> 
 
more 
 
Environmentalists back state Amendment 4 -- with caveat 
There is wide support to provide owners tax relief to help preserve wild Florida, but even supporters caution that the devil is in the details. 
BY CURTIS MORGAN 
<a href="mailto:cmorgan@MiamiHerald.com">cmorgan@MiamiHerald.com</a> 
 
This is the first in a series examining the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot. 
 
Environmentalists are backing a big tax break for Florida&#039;s largest land owners. 
 
You read that right. In an election year notable for nastiness, two typically partisan factions have reached accord over at least one thing: Amendment Four, a measure that would reduce or eliminate property taxes for owners who protect their land from bulldozers. 
 
Environmental groups embrace the proposal as a promising, painless option for expanding preservation in a state with a dwindling budget to buy prime parcels. The amendment is one of six on the Nov. 4 ballot. 
 
&#039;&#039;Given the economy and amount of money available for land acquisition, this provides a way of promoting conservation management without using tax dollars,&#039;&#039; said Janet Bowman, legislative policy director for The Nature Conservancy. 
 
Proponents believe it could prove especially helpful in places like South Miami-Dade, where suburban sprawl drives up land values -- and pressure to subdivide -- on remaining rural lands. The pitch is that owners now spending money to run small farms or nurseries mainly to claim agriculture tax breaks could profit by letting land revert to wetland. 
 
&#039;&#039;The value of land in South Dade is very high,&#039;&#039; said Eric Draper, policy director for Audubon of Florida. &#039;One of the reasons that land is even being farmed right now is to qualify for `green-belt&#039; exemptions.&#039;&#039; 
 
Amendment 4 boasts bipartisan political support and no organized opposition. It is endorsed by virtually every major environmental group in the state and dozens of obscure ones, like the Sebastian Fishin&#039; Chics. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, guardian of business and development interests, backs it. So does the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the nonpartisan watchdog, Florida TaxWatch. 
 
THREE SCARY WORDS 
 
So what could there be to worry about? Three scary words: The Florida Legislature. 
 
&#039;&#039;It&#039;s a long way between the amendment on the ballot and actually implementing the law, because it&#039;s left up to the Legislature to write it,&#039;&#039; said Kurt Wenner, director of tax research for TaxWatch. 
 
The amendment would create two tiers of incentives to take effect in 2010. Setting aside land forever -- a covenant intended to carry over in a sale -- would earn total exemption from property taxes. Setting it aside temporarily would earn a lower tax rate, similar to farm land. 
 
It&#039;s that &#039;&#039;temporary&#039;&#039; category that adds an asterisk to TaxWatch&#039;s endorsement. Details remain to be filled in by lawmakers, who are known from time to time to cater to powerful development interests. 
 
&#039;&#039;We&#039;re going to be watching closely,&#039;&#039; said Wenner. 
 
State Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat running for a Senate seat, has similar concerns. ``On its face, it&#039;s not a bad idea. It&#039;s how it&#039;s implemented. I just think that second part could potentially leave room for mischief.&#039;&#039; 
 
Gelber posted a qualified endorsement on his blog, cautioning that if the Legislature made it too easy to claim conservation status, ``the measure could become a giveaway for mega-developers and have a great fiscal impact that shifts the tax burden to homeowners and active businesses.&#039;&#039; 
 
A lenient definition, for instance, could allow developers to tag vacant lots for short periods simply to ride out the cold housing market -- meaning they would pay little or no taxes. There have been past abuses with similar &#039;&#039;green-belt&#039;&#039; tax breaks, most visible in the form of a few &#039;&#039;cash cows&#039;&#039; grazing on cleared suburban tracts. 
 
Supporters share those concerns. They&#039;ve drawn up proposed standards for the &#039;&#039;temporary&#039;&#039; land-protection classification: a 10-year commitment, a minimum of 40-acre tracts, management plans and back-tax penalties at higher rates if the land is developed. 
 
The amendment was spearheaded by environmental groups. But it was proposed to the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission in April by Brian Yablonski, vice president for public affairs for the St. Joe Co., the state&#039;s largest landowner with some 700,000 acres, mostly in the Panhandle. 
 
REASON FOR SUPPORT 
 
Yablonski, who also serves as a state wildlife commissioner, said he supported it to enhance wildlife and habitat protections. When asked if the amendment would profit St. Joe, he answered in a word: ``No.&#039;&#039; 
 
&#039;&#039;Amendment 4 was an organic idea advanced by respected conservation organizations across the state, and they are enthusiastic about its benefits to the environment,&#039;&#039; he said in a written statement. 
 
Preston Robertson, vice president of the Florida Wildlife Federation, dismissed any St. Joe role as &#039;&#039;a red herring&#039;&#039; and said the amendment could be a critical tool when the current development downturn invariably ends. 
 
RESULTS ELSEWHERE 
 
Florida, with 34 million acres, now has only about 165,000 acres of private land under conservation easements. Similar programs in Georgia and Texas have dramatically expanded conservation set-asides. 
 
Because the amendment was approved by the Taxation Commission, no estimates were required for what the revenue impacts might be or how much land might qualify. With undeveloped land usually taxed at a lower rate, Audubon&#039;s Draper doesn&#039;t anticipate a big difference in the ad valorem bottom line. 
 
The Association of Counties, whose 67 members would have to tweak millage rates to cover revenue shortfalls, agrees that potential benefits outweigh expected minor costs, said association spokeswoman Cragin Mosteller. 
 
&#039;&#039;Being able to conserve land is very important to many of our local governments,&#039;&#039; she said. 
 
Because conservation lands remain private, unlike state-owned land, there is the potential for creating large tracts that would be off-limits to public access. But Draper believes most land would be open to hunting and fishing. 
 
While some developers sitting on suddenly unsellable subdivision blueprints might well take advantage, Robertson argues that smaller land owners are the ones most likely to pursue the option. He intends to seek permanent conservation status for his own small farm in North Florida. 
 
LOVE OF THE LAND 
 
&#039;&#039;If we protect 10,000 acres or 100,000 acres in this state, then this is well worth it,&#039;&#039; Robertson said. ``I think there are a number of people in this state who love their lands and they want to leave them to their kids.&#039;&#039; 
<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/734509.html" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/734509.html</a>

idlewind

Beach Fanatic

No on one and eight, yes on the others.:clap:

beachmouse

Other state court systems have found that the marriage ammendments interfere or dissalow domestic partnership situations between hetrosexual couples, even though 'defense of marriage' advocates had claimed otherwise when the measures were on the ballots. 

Something like 75% of the domestic partnership arrangements in Florida are between hetrosexual senior citizens who chose not to marry because it would mess with their retirement benefits or there are inheritance issues. 

Why vote for something that could hurt a lot of seniors when there are already state laws on the books stating that marriage is between a man and a woman and there's a Supreme Court not likely to change anything soon on the federal level? 

(As for the broader policy issue, I'm in the group that's all about civil unions for any couple regardless of gender to handle the legal issues associated with cohabitation, and that if you wanted a religous recognition of your union on top of that, then that's up to you and your church/synagogue/mosque of choice.)

Other state court systems have found that the marriage ammendments interfere or dissalow domestic partnership situations between hetrosexual couples, even though &#039;defense of marriage&#039; advocates had claimed otherwise when the measures were on the ballots. 
 
Something like 75% of the domestic partnership arrangements in Florida are between hetrosexual senior citizens who chose not to marry because it would mess with their retirement benefits or there are inheritance issues. 
 
Why vote for something that could hurt a lot of seniors when there are already state laws on the books stating that marriage is between a man and a woman and there&#039;s a Supreme Court not likely to change anything soon on the federal level? 
 
(As for the broader policy issue, I&#039;m in the group that&#039;s all about civil unions for any couple regardless of gender to handle the legal issues associated with cohabitation, and that if you wanted a religous recognition of your union on top of that, then that&#039;s up to you and your church/synagogue/mosque of choice.)

I'm hoping we can get some discussion about these. Let us know what you think and how you're voting.
 
Info posted below is from [url]www.votesmartflorida.org[/url]

I&#039;m hoping we can get some discussion about these. Let us know what you think and how you&#039;re voting. 
 
Info posted below is from <a href="http://www.votesmartflorida.org" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="noopener">www.votesmartflorida.org</a>

Amendments on the ballot 2008

Grayton BeachCam

Dune Allen BeachCam

Seagrove Beach SkyCam

Inlet BeachCam

Miramar BeachCam Majestic Sun

Santa Rosa BeachCam

Walton County Fair

Queens of the Tiles: Mahjong at Ovide

Live Music @ Fish Out of Water

Cars of 30A At Alys Beach: Event Highlights & Photo Gallery

Sixth annual Run Watersound At Watersound Town Center October 24, 2026

Support Our Parks: The 2026 Friends of Camp Helen Pumpkin Patch Is Open

Annual Events and Festivals in South Walton

International Coastal Cleanup Day Was A Success In South Walton

Merchants Of Alys Beach Announce New Dining & Shopping Options

No beachcams yet

More cams

Include enough context for a reply on the first pass: who you are, what this is about, and anything time-sensitive we should know.

Write a clear note and we will route it fast

SoWal Contact Form

What helps the SoWal team reply on the first pass

Use these links when your request already has a clear destination.

Prefer a direct route before you write?

Use this when you are not sure where your request belongs and need the SoWal team to route it.

Questions, corrections, and quick help

Share newsworthy updates, corrections, community tips, or photography that can improve SoWal coverage.

Story tips, local leads, and photos

Reach the team for business visibility, partnership planning, or other commercial opportunities.

Listings, sponsorships, and business requests

Use this path for media coordination, press follow-ups, or requests that need a communications contact.

Press outreach and interview requests

Tell us what you need and how to reach you.

Send your note here and the SoWal team will route it appropriately.

Choose the quickest route for your message

Forum account areas

Log in to view member profile, alerts, messages, watched content, bookmarks, preferences, and staff tools.

Member-only forum areas use your SoWal forum account.

Use your forum username or email to post, reply, follow threads, and manage your account.

Log in to the forum

Log in to the SoWal forum

Find people and visit their public forum profiles.

Members

Enter the six-digit code sent to {email}.

Check your email

Join the conversation

Welcome to SoWal

Sign in to SoWal

Signature preview

Ads support our local stories, BeachCams, and community guides. If you use an ad blocker, allow SoWal, then check again.

Help keep SoWal local

Your feedback helps us make SoWal better.

How was this story?

Get local stories, events, and South Walton highlights in your inbox.

Stay close to the coast

Choose whether SoWal may use optional cookies. Necessary cookies keep the site working.

Your privacy, your choice

Site navigation

Submenu

Bite-sized stories, curated itineraries, and community events delivered to your inbox on the regular.

Amendments on the ballot 2008

Latest conversations

Write a reply

Cars of 30A At Alys Beach: Event Highlights & Photo Gallery

Sixth annual Run Watersound At Watersound Town Center October 24, 2026

Support Our Parks: The 2026 Friends of Camp Helen Pumpkin Patch Is Open

Annual Events and Festivals in South Walton