• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
First, no growth? Do not see that happening. Do not see overall valuations going down because there is still new stuff coming online. Do you think any of the current sitting commissioners have the fortitude to raise millage rates any significant amount? And if they were put in that position, would we not finally start generating debate over just what is the purpose and function of government? Before they raised taxes they would have to take a serious look at prioritizing services for the citizens. These actions could actually lead to less government and more personal responsibility, imho.

I also got a mail piece from the big state unions telling me that if Amendment 1 passes that we will have to do without fire, ambulance, and law enforcement. Those sort of scare tactics make me want to vote for the thing.

No growth was so that we could compare apples to apples. more growth would grow tax revenues, and that is understood.

Currently, the Property Appraiser is required to turn in valuations prior to the BCC setting the budget. Maybe they will now have to begin creating a budget so that they can maximize their tax revenues. Gov't services won't be cut simply because of this new plan. The BCC will raise the millage to keep the tax revenues similar to the previous year, if not more. If the money is needed, there is no other option.
 
Last edited:

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
I am cautious of long term solutions to short term problems. Amendments are hard to reverse down the road.

As far as using growth to pay for government services that is asking for trouble. With growth always comes more need and more demand for more services. I have never seen, nor have I ever heard of, a more densely populated area having lower taxes and fewer services than a rural less densely populated area.

What about economies of scale? You need one ambulance in a community of 50, does that mean you need 2 for 100, and 3 for 150? It seems to me that as population becomes more dense, government starts doing things that they did not do in rural areas. If they held the same levels and type of service, it should be less expensive when spread among more people.
 

beachmouse

Beach Fanatic
Dec 5, 2004
3,504
741
Bluewater Bay, FL
There are some areas where a higher population density does require a higher level of service.

Compare a rural fire department to an urban one. The rural one is, for the most part, volunteer run. They didn't have to pay much for the land underneath the fire station because property values are low out in BFE. They've got pretty low equipment costs- only a couple of relatively simple hook & ladder trucks because no building in that rural district is more than 40 feet tall. And there are a ton of federal grants available to low-moderate income fire districts so they paid little or nothing for those trucks.

And then there's the city fire district. There gets to be a point where a paid fire department is preferrable to a volunteer one because response times become critical in a more desnely populated area- the extre ten minutes it takes for a volunteer to get to the fire station to start providing service could mean that a small apartment fire could have time to spread and burn the homes of a dozen other families. They've got to buy more specialized equipment because building heights are higher. North Bay FD had to spend something like $500K or $1million on a new truck a couple years back because someone built a six story condo/apartment complex and the old truck didn't have ladders tall enough to get to the 6th floor. And it's not a community that qualifies for rural fire grants to cover it. Land costs are higher in the urban district. Utility costs may be higher as well- municipal water & sewer instead of well & septic.


And then there are things that are simply going to almost always going to be more expensive in urban than rural areas. The big one I can think of is aquiring right of way for road expansion. Think of how much it would cost to pay fair market value for that to six lane US 98 in Destin, and compare those costs to how much it would cost to, say, four lane FL 20 by Bruce.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
I'm not sure that comparing economies of scale actually works with rescue/ambulance services. Maybe it does in some cases just due to the area covered, but at some point, the actually number of people will increase the need for things such as ambulances and other things.
 

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
http://www.yeson1florida.com/resources/docs/contributions.pdf


This is a list of persons and groups that are behind amendment 1. Quite a few are real estate organizations. While not sure that property taxes are that big of a problem in the panhandle, maybe another cut in taxes really would get the economy going again in the State. The economy restarting would actually lead to more dollars for government to fund all of these programs.


This link gives some details on how portability would help you if the amendment is passed.

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/property/reformfaqs112107.pdf
 
Last edited:

SHELLY

SoWal Insider
Jun 13, 2005
5,770
802
Here's an editorial from someone who is not on "Charlie's List."

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

DAN GELBER
Democratic Leader of the Florida House

On Jan. 29 Floridians will get a chance to vote on the tax amendment crafted by the Florida Legislature. I'm voting No because the choice the Legislature gave Floridians makes no sense to me.

• It requires voters to choose to fund a too-small tax break with scarce public education dollars.

• It greatly exacerbates an already unequal tax system.

• It delivers modest relief at the expense of reform, when we should be striving to deliver real tax relief through true reform.

How is it that a state considered by every index to be a low tax state finds itself in the midst of a bona fide tax crisis? The answer, simply put, is that Florida has created gross inequities in its tax burden. Over the last decade, the Legislature handed out close to $20 billion in special-interest tax exemptions and corporate giveaways. While it was giving away your money, the same Legislature was increasing your school property tax and shifting more of the burden of government to your counties and cities and, ultimately, onto local property owners.

But rather than directly address this dynamic, the Legislature crafted a measure that will only exacerbate the current inequities in our tax code.

Under the new plan, homeowners with homestead exemptions who already receive protected status through the Save Our Homes 3 percent tax cap will be able to take their SOH savings with them if they move -- a concept known as ''portability.'' This means that almost all the relief will go to homeowners who purchased their homes many years ago, while homeowners who purchased or moved in the last few years (or in future years) when home prices were highest will forever be paying a much greater share of the tax burden. I have always supported portability -- but only if it is part of a reform that addresses the inequities in the tax burden, by providing relief to new and future homeowners as well.

Additionally, by creating a tax system that guarantees similarly situated neighbors will always pay grossly different amounts of taxes, the Legislature has opened up Florida's tax plan, including the original SOH amendment, to constitutional challenge. Ironically, last year the Legislature hired a renowned tax expert to advise us on what kind of portability Florida could implement without offending constitutional notions of fairness. While he gave us lots of advice in his 93-page report, his primary advice was to stay away from exactly the kind of portability we placed on the January ballot.

While the proposed amendment addresses homeowners, it totally ignores everyone else. Businesses and snowbirds who already pay more since the SOH tax cap doesn't apply to them, will see increases. And renters will get the worst deal -- they will continue to pay property taxes indirectly without the benefit of any tax cap and end up not even owning the asset they are paying taxes on. Ouch!

Unfairness is not the only problem with the Jan. 29 plan. While the Legislature could have drafted an amendment that held public education harmless, it chose instead to fund tax relief with lots of public education dollars. The Legislature's own Economic & Demographic Research Center calculated that if Floridians adopt the Jan. 29 amendment, Florida's public education system will lose billions of dollars over the next five years. Why should we take that much out of a system that already ranks last in per-capita education spending and that has had the worst high school graduation rate in the nation for three consecutive years?

Perhaps the best reason why you should vote No on Jan. 29 is that this is one of those occasions where you should hold out for a better plan. If the amendment passes, most assuredly we will never get tax relief and reform. We will have created too many winners and losers such that there will never be another opportunity to achieve the necessary 60 percent approval of voters to amend the Florida Constitution.

I hope that the state's Taxation & Budget Reform Commission, a citizen group that has the authority to put measures on the ballot for approval, will have the courage to review the billions in tax breaks that the Legislature gave special interests and rebalance our tax code so that property owners get a real break.

----------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
Here's an editorial from someone who is not on "Charlie's List."

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

DAN GELBER
Democratic Leader of the Florida House

On Jan. 29 Floridians will get a chance to vote on the tax amendment crafted by the Florida Legislature. I'm voting No because the choice the Legislature gave Floridians makes no sense to me.

? It requires voters to choose to fund a too-small tax break with scarce public education dollars.

? It greatly exacerbates an already unequal tax system.

? It delivers modest relief at the expense of reform, when we should be striving to deliver real tax relief through true reform.

How is it that a state considered by every index to be a low tax state finds itself in the midst of a bona fide tax crisis? The answer, simply put, is that Florida has created gross inequities in its tax burden. Over the last decade, the Legislature handed out close to $20 billion in special-interest tax exemptions and corporate giveaways. While it was giving away your money, the same Legislature was increasing your school property tax and shifting more of the burden of government to your counties and cities and, ultimately, onto local property owners.

But rather than directly address this dynamic, the Legislature crafted a measure that will only exacerbate the current inequities in our tax code.

Under the new plan, homeowners with homestead exemptions who already receive protected status through the Save Our Homes 3 percent tax cap will be able to take their SOH savings with them if they move -- a concept known as ''portability.'' This means that almost all the relief will go to homeowners who purchased their homes many years ago, while homeowners who purchased or moved in the last few years (or in future years) when home prices were highest will forever be paying a much greater share of the tax burden. I have always supported portability -- but only if it is part of a reform that addresses the inequities in the tax burden, by providing relief to new and future homeowners as well.

Additionally, by creating a tax system that guarantees similarly situated neighbors will always pay grossly different amounts of taxes, the Legislature has opened up Florida's tax plan, including the original SOH amendment, to constitutional challenge. Ironically, last year the Legislature hired a renowned tax expert to advise us on what kind of portability Florida could implement without offending constitutional notions of fairness. While he gave us lots of advice in his 93-page report, his primary advice was to stay away from exactly the kind of portability we placed on the January ballot.

While the proposed amendment addresses homeowners, it totally ignores everyone else. Businesses and snowbirds who already pay more since the SOH tax cap doesn't apply to them, will see increases. And renters will get the worst deal -- they will continue to pay property taxes indirectly without the benefit of any tax cap and end up not even owning the asset they are paying taxes on. Ouch!

Unfairness is not the only problem with the Jan. 29 plan. While the Legislature could have drafted an amendment that held public education harmless, it chose instead to fund tax relief with lots of public education dollars. The Legislature's own Economic & Demographic Research Center calculated that if Floridians adopt the Jan. 29 amendment, Florida's public education system will lose billions of dollars over the next five years. Why should we take that much out of a system that already ranks last in per-capita education spending and that has had the worst high school graduation rate in the nation for three consecutive years?

Perhaps the best reason why you should vote No on Jan. 29 is that this is one of those occasions where you should hold out for a better plan. If the amendment passes, most assuredly we will never get tax relief and reform. We will have created too many winners and losers such that there will never be another opportunity to achieve the necessary 60 percent approval of voters to amend the Florida Constitution.

I hope that the state's Taxation & Budget Reform Commission, a citizen group that has the authority to put measures on the ballot for approval, will have the courage to review the billions in tax breaks that the Legislature gave special interests and rebalance our tax code so that property owners get a real break.

LOL! At least I know someone is reading this stuff.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter