How are you going to Vote on Amendment 1?

[ShallowsNole]

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.

 

[wrobert]

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!

 

[Andy A]

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.

 

[wrobert]

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?

 

[Andy A]

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.

 

[TooFarTampa]

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.

 

[ShallowsNole]

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.

 

[SHELLY]

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!




.

 

[wrobert]

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.

 

[Andy A]

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.