How are you going to Vote on Amendment 1?

[TooFarTampa]

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...
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...
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...

All of this makes logical sense, but the idea of passing a bad law to actually get those people to do anything is disgusting. The portability is the worst aspect of it, and very damaging, I wonder if it could easily be ruled unconstitutional. Even if so ... what a waste of tax dollars this whole charade has been!

 

[SHELLY]

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.


.

.

 

[wrobert]

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?

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

 

[wrobert]

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?

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

 

[SHELLY]

(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.

.

 

[wrobert]

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

 

[Busta Hustle]

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.

 

[wrobert]

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.