How are you going to Vote on Amendment 1?

[Bob]

abolish SOH by phasing out the homesteaded tax savings over 7-10 years, then everyone will keep a watchful eye on taxes and expenditures. the current situation is nothing more than an angry, unfair stalemate that actually retards investment and homeowner mobility within this state. maybe that's a good thing?

 

[wrobert]

I disagree with the above. Theoretically, it might "save" the property owner $240, but in all likelyhood, with all of the caps and changes, we can expect the actual millage to increase, thereby eliminating any "savings." The County isn't cutting back on expenses, just taxing in a different form. Do you agree?

Not sure but I thought spending caps are already in statute from last year. The overall revenue generation is limited to last year, plus new construction plus population growth and cpi. The problem with this is logically it seems to give incentives to government to approve projects since growth is where they get their money. I would think that this would lead to a streamlining of the planning process to make developement easier in the long term, and easier developement should allow prices to fall. If an overall cap is in place for total revenue generated, then as we grow millage rates would naturally come down.

A limitation in dollar growth to the local budget is also going to force commissioners to become leaders. No more bountiful budgets built solely on value escalation. I think it was around 4 years ago the county budget jumped approximately 57% in one year, and they still managed to cut the millage rate. All because of the double digit valuation increase and the new construction coming online. As for commissioners raising the millage, I just do not see that happening to any large degree. Raising taxes leads to new leadership. They have consistently, but reluctantly lowered the millage each year for quite a while now. And each year it is mentioned that their may be a problem if we ever have to go back up. Under the current structure with Save Our Homes, millage rates have to go up more than 3% for most people to see a tax increase, especially north of the bay, because values are still catching up as property is sold. When people start seeing tax increases on a regular basis, it is going to change the whole dynamic of how someone gets elected in Walton County.

I agree though Save Our Homes is unfair to anyone that bought in Florida in the last five years. And it also is locking people into their current homes that currently pay little taxes, but would be confronted with significant increases if they were to try to move. So I voted yes because anything that limits revenue to local government is a good first step in my opinion, and I like the portability part. Florida still needs spending reform at all levels of government.

 

[ShallowsNole]

A few months ago, the Property Appraiser's website offered a means of comparing your current and future property taxes under the proposed amendment. Personally, I do not want the "super homestead" on my home as in a few years my property taxes would equal my annual salary. But, for my inland co-workers, it forecast significant tax savings.

As long as I can stay under Save Our Homes as it currently exists, I will vote yes on the amendment in order to allow others to have an option. As far as the big picture, there are no perfect answers.

 

[wrobert]

As long as I can stay under Save Our Homes as it currently exists, I will vote yes on the amendment in order to allow others to have an option. As far as the big picture, there are no perfect answers.

Yes but that whole plan was scrapped when a judge threw it out. That is when the legislator came up with the current plan. It is confusing because both are called Amendment 1. I guess they did not want to have to change all the yes on 1 bumper stickers that were already printed. But like you, if I do not move, nothing would change for me except it would allow the government to take less money.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Not sure but I thought spending caps are already in statute from last year. The overall revenue generation is limited to last year, plus new construction plus population growth and cpi. The problem with this is logically it seems to give incentives to government to approve projects since growth is where they get their money. I would think that this would lead to a streamlining of the planning process to make developement easier in the long term, and easier developement should allow prices to fall. If an overall cap is in place for total revenue generated, then as we grow millage rates would naturally come down.

Yes, revenue is limited (unless there is growth), but, assuming there is no growth, if you cut people's taxable valuations, and County tax revenue stays the same, the millage must increase to make up for the difference, and therefore actual tax dollars (revenue) would remain the same.

 

[hnooe]

Two no votes in our household. Seems like it's nothing more than a shell game where we discover things are even more fubar because of it five years later.

"Ditto, and ditto for us--I guess my 2 dogs can't vote"

 

[TooFarTampa]

Thanks for posting Troxler's column, SHELLY. I almost always agree with him, and this is no exception. The bottom line, as he wrote it and in my thinking: "I kinda hope the voters shoot it down and tell the Legislature: Try again, and do it better."

It will be a no vote from me too.

abolish SOH by phasing out the homesteaded tax savings over 7-10 years, then everyone will keep a watchful eye on taxes and expenditures. the current situation is nothing more than an angry, unfair stalemate that actually retards investment and homeowner mobility within this state.

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Funny how nothing like this idea has been seriously floated. I do favor keeping SOH for seniors though.

 

[Bdarg]

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.

 

[wrobert]

Yes, revenue is limited (unless there is growth), but, assuming there is no growth, if you cut people's taxable valuations, and County tax revenue stays the same, the millage must increase to make up for the difference, and therefore actual tax dollars (revenue) would remain the same.

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.

 

[wrobert]

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Funny how nothing like this idea has been seriously floated. I do favor keeping SOH for seniors though.

I doubt you will ever see SOH abolished because the legislature can not be trusted to hold the line on anything.