kim marie

Amendment 3 isn't a tax cut. It's a $12 billion tax shift. Cutting property taxes for some homeowners doesn't make the cost of roads, deputies and firefighters go away. Someone still has to pay billions a year. Under Amendment 3, it's renters, young families, small businesses and new buyers, who are the people who never got the tax cut. The Tax Foundation's new analysis shows who pays: 🔴 Renters. They get no tax cut. A third of Floridians rent, and nearly half do in Miami-Dade. When landlords' taxes go up, research shows half or more gets passed on in rent. 🔴 Young families and first-time buyers. Picture two identical houses on the same street. One owner gets a $250,000 exemption. The other bought in 2027 and gets $50,000 for five years. That gap can easily mean $2,000 or more a year, for the same house and the same services. 🔴 Police, fire and EMS. They get zero guaranteed funding. Rural counties like Bradford, Dixie, Lafayette and Union are already at the constitutional tax limit, so they can't raise rates. They'll have to cut services or add fees. 🔴 Everyone, eventually. The $12 billion figure doesn't include the Legislature's new power to exempt homesteads entirely. State economists say that cost can't even be estimated. 🔴 Future voters. This goes into the constitution, so fixing the damage will take another statewide campaign. Homeowners, even if you'd save, the money comes back around. You'll see it in new fees and special assessments, higher prices from local businesses, and fewer deputies and firefighters when you need them. Yes, local government spending deserves serious scrutiny. But reducing property taxes doesn't automatically reduce government spending. Without corresponding spending cuts, the costs may simply shift to renters, young families, and small businesses through higher taxes, fees, and assessments. This isn't tax relief. It's a tax shift. Read the research: taxfoundation.org/research/a…

Senate President Ben Albritton, who presided over the 30–9 vote to put Amendment 3 on the ballot, now says he’ll vote NO on Amendment 3. He warns rural counties could lose up to 30% of their resources, threatening law enforcement, emergency services, and infrastructure. I respect Ben and appreciate his willingness to speak candidly about the consequences. But perhaps this is exactly why the Legislature should have required comprehensive fiscal modeling and local impact analysis before putting it on the ballot. These questions deserved answers before the vote, not months afterward. floridapolitics.com/archives…

100% correct, nothing in Amendment 3 guarantees: • Renters won’t pay more • Police stay fully funded • Firefighters stay fully funded • Cities or Counties won’t become insolvent • Libraries, parks, and recreation centers stay open • Governments won’t raise millage rates • Governments won’t shift costs to fire fees, EMS assessments, stormwater fees, or other non-ad valorem charges • Longtime homeowners won’t end up paying more through new fees • Counties and cities won’t come back to Tallahassee asking for a bailout The 5% cap limits assessed-value growth. It does not cap the tax bill. If your case for Amendment 3 starts with “hopefully,” you don’t have a policy. You have a gamble.

Police and fire often consume more than half of a city’s General Fund, so yes, a city can choose to hold public safety harmless. But that means the cuts have to come from almost everything else. Largo is a good example. Its FY2024 General Fund spent about $33.5M on police and $25.5M on fire rescue, roughly 59% of total General Fund expenditures. Under the Amendment 3 scenario we’ve been discussing, Largo could protect police and fire, eliminate its library, parks, recreation and community-center functions, and still be roughly $5 million short. That’s the tradeoff people keep skipping over. “Just cut spending” sounds easy until you actually open the budget.

Brutal honesty is the best policy!