How are you going to Vote on Amendment 1?

Sen Gaetz has been saying that a no vote translates to the house and senate as the people voted to make no changes so they will do nothing in the future and a yes vote means this is a start and the people want more...

This BS statement shows you Gaetz is living on another planet and out of touch with the citizens and reality.

FAR votes yes because they want a little help for 2nd home owners with caps on assessments and a little protection for commercial prop owners...

FAR votes yes because (1) Commissions for their members/dues for them; (2) A bullet statement they can add to their next "Now is the Best Time to Buy" campaign.

Either way everyone needs to attack their local commissions beacause now that they have the taste for the additional millions since the windfalls of 2004 and beyond they are and will be addicted like a meth addict and won't give up the $$$ unless...

They'll either give the $$$-fix up or trade in their paycheck and suit & tie for an apron at Starbucks.


.

.

An editorial today in the Walton Sun by Samual B. Taylor, an associate at the law firm of Ledbetter and Gilmore in Destin, has me a bit confused.

I am assuming this guy is an attorney, so that makes me think he must know what he is talking about.

In the third paragraph of his anti Amendment One letter he states that portability only applies to homes worth up to $500K. Toward the middle he again states that a homeowner keeps "his tax rate as long as he lives in a home worth $500,000 or less."

It seems to me that most of his argument hinges on this $500K cap. Only problem is, I am not reading that cap into the amendment language. The way I understand it is that the cap is on the benefit itself, not on the value of your new home. Could someone enlighten me if I have gotten this wrong?

I understand the current cap of 3% per year to be on the taxable value of one's primary home. I believe that cap on taxable value carries over to the new proposition.

I understand the current cap of 3% per year to be on the taxable value of one's primary home. I believe that cap on taxable value carries over to the new proposition.

Have you read the editorial? Did the attorney get this right?

I have not read the editorial, and I'm not an attorney, so interpreting that mess they write on the actual ballot is usually nothing but confusing legal jargon.

(2) Provides for the transfer of accumulated Save-Our-Homes benefits. Homestead property owners will be able to transfer their Save-Our-Homes benefit to a new homestead within 1 year and not more than 2 years after relinquishing their previous homestead; except, if this revision is approved by the electors in January of 2008 and if the new homestead is established on January 1, 2008, the previous homestead must have been relinquished in 2007. If the new homestead has a higher just value than the previous one, the accumulated benefit can be transferred; if the new homestead has a lower just value, the amount of benefit transferred will be reduced. The transferred benefit may not exceed $500,000. This provision applies to all taxes.

.

Do you take that to mean that the house can not cost more than $500k?

Shelly do you really think our commission is the least bit worried about keeping their jobs? They'll never give up the $$$fix...and i seriously doubt the citizens of walton county vote them out of office.
Our property tax system pits homesteaders prior to 2004 against those who buy in from then on...you'll vote no because they won't be able to pull SOH and your low tax bill away from you...totally understandable especially since you do not want to sell and have no desire to own other real estate...for all the little people who can not afford to buy homes in part because of the higher tax buden they will bear we humbly ask...design a better bill, post it here and lead us all to a better way.
Far by the way may also be interested in giving a voice to the non resident owners of property which as you know is a majority around here.
All the current amendment does is put a 10% cap on their yearly possible tax increase. But then again if nothing is done to change the inequities of the current system, there is the possibility that investment in 2nd homes will dry up causing massive property value declines and the lower taxes we all seek. Problem solved.

Shelly do you really think our commission is the least bit worried about keeping their jobs? They'll never give up the $$$fix...and i seriously doubt the citizens of walton county vote them out of office.

Believe it or not. They do worry. They want to do the right thing. And property taxes affect most of them just as much as the rest of us. I think all of them own property that is not homesteaded. You can go to www.waltontaxpayers.org and see what commissioners and school board members are paying in property taxes in this county.

As selfish as it sounds (and admittedly is), the bottom line for me is: do I get to keep the 3% cap on increases in value of my primary home?

I have stared at the small version of the ballot language in the Walton Sun for the better part of my lunch and do not see that anywhere. I see a proposed 10% cap for certain nonhomestead properties. I do not see what happens to my 3%.

I want to continue to live in SoWal.

As selfish as it sounds (and admittedly is), the bottom line for me is: do I get to keep the 3% cap on increases in value of my primary home?

I have stared at the small version of the ballot language in the Walton Sun for the better part of my lunch and do not see that anywhere. I see a proposed 10% cap for certain nonhomestead properties. I do not see what happens to my 3%.

I want to continue to live in SoWal.

Not only do you get to keep the 3% cap. As you build up value in that exemption, up to a $500K benefit, you get to take it with you if you ever move or build a new home. What a deal!

A "Speculator" dressed in "Investor's" clothing.


.

An excellent definition. I might add, also known by the name "flipper". These are certainly not deserving of any kind of property tax break.

An excellent definition. I might add, also known by the name "flipper". These are certainly not deserving of any kind of property tax break.

Because they are making a profit in the property business?

Because they are making a profit in the property business?

This is off subject I know so I'll just say, two "no" votes from this homestead household. Now, to the question posed by WGOP. When I buy a block of stock, I realize that somewhere down the road I may lose money rather than make money. The same should, and maybe it does, apply to people who "flip" properties. But to us uneducated in this endeavor, it seems that every possible type of leverage loan was offered to give some of these "investors" the ability to take risk they should never have been allowed to take. Now, it is coming back to haunt all of us who have mortgages. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my drift. Right now, very few, if any, are making a profit in the property business. Most are looking for a way to get out with their skin if they were among those who decided "flipping" was a good way to make a quick and easy fortune. I certainly have no sympathy for them.

Not only do you get to keep the 3% cap. As you build up value in that exemption, up to a $500K benefit, you get to take it with you if you ever move or build a new home. What a deal!

Great deal for ShallowsNole, very bad deal for the first time home buyer. No offense SN.

Great deal for ShallowsNole, very bad deal for the first time home buyer. No offense SN.

None taken. Most people aren't as attached to a plot of land as I am, and my attachment is so firm it is almost unhealthy.

That being said, we may very well pack up and take off at retirement. I know that I could drop my ad valorem by about half if I wasn't bayfront.

Because they are making a profit in the property business?

"Business" implies that there was some 'value added' when the product was passed along to the next customer....this wasn't the case with pre-construction contract Investulators. Speculation--yes.....Business? Not!




.

This is off subject I know so I'll just say, two "no" votes from this homestead household. Now, to the question posed by WGOP. When I buy a block of stock, I realize that somewhere down the road I may lose money rather than make money. The same should, and maybe it does, apply to people who "flip" properties. But to us uneducated in this endeavor, it seems that every possible type of leverage loan was offered to give some of these "investors" the ability to take risk they should never have been allowed to take. Now, it is coming back to haunt all of us who have mortgages. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my drift. Right now, very few, if any, are making a profit in the property business. Most are looking for a way to get out with their skin if they were among those who decided "flipping" was a good way to make a quick and easy fortune. I certainly have no sympathy for them.

I know people who made a fortune in the property run-up. They also spent a fortune. Now they are losing their houses and cars. Marriages are falling apart. All because of bad business decisions and risks that they took. The problem was not just the investors in property. The problem, to me, was when the financial institutions went crazy and financed everything. This allowed the whole thing to run away and a ridiculous rate. Several were smart and no longer will have to work. Even more are having to start over.

But the current tax structure allowed government to also participate and get fat and happy. A 10% cap on non-homesteaded property would have prevented the 57% budget increase that Walton County made in 2004, all the time while dropping taxes to homesteaders. I doubt we see the explosion in value again, but a Yes vote will help protect all the property owners.

Walton GOP, I agree about the financial institutions. I don't agree about the county. As you said, property taxes increased, giving the county more money for needed improvements and services. Why shouldn't people be taxed at the rate determined by their property appraisal? It should be re-appraised on request or as property values go down. They had a decent solution and some idiotic judge threw it out. I might say, typical of our judicial system, which is also broken, IMO. Let the legislature go back to work and come up with a real tax plan fair to all. This one is not, IMO.

As you said, property taxes increased, giving the county more money for needed improvements and services.

I guess are discussion needs to shift to did they spend the money wisely. As far as the legislature taking another shot at it, the only thing I see that is even remotely on the horizon is the 1.35% plan that Rubio is pushing. And that is going to have to be done by the petition method and then placed on the ballot. I would think that puts any relief 2 years away. Can we afford to wait that long? Also there is always a push in poorer economic times that instead of cutting spending, to actually increase taxes. I feel this places a further burden on the citizens and lengthens any economic downturn. Voting yes now gets us on the way to reform.

I'm going to be a punk and just vote how Goofer and Shelley tell me to!

I'm going to be a punk and just vote how Goofer and Shelley tell me to!

I think, in this case, you are making a good choice. ;-) So good in fact, that I am going to follow suit and vote as Shelly, Goofer, and Scooterbug tell me on this issue.

I think, in this case, you are making a good choice. ;-) So good in fact, that I am going to follow suit and vote as Shelly, Goofer, and Scooterbug tell me on this issue.

I fully understand. I have friends that fully support a YES vote, and I have friends that are adamantly in favor of a NO vote. On this issue, I guess I am going to have to side with my friends.

Realtors drinking the shelly kool-aid...now we are getting somewhere
next thing you know they'll be moving to the city and getting jobs in the garment district..

lol. Even when others were fully disagreeing with Shelly, back in 2005, I agreed with some things he said. This is just another one of those things. Our area has and will continue to grow exponentially over the years. That should mean that many people will be new buyers in the future. It is probably more likely that new buyers will enter the market, than current owners will buy another primary resident. If FAR is in favor of the Bill, they might not be looking at the full picture. For years, FAR has been talking about the number of people expected to move to the State. I can understand their wanting some caps on commercial property and second homes, but they need to open their eyes to the many new buyers who will be punished by the passing of this law.