The Florida Amendment Series: Amendment 3
Bottom Line: This is the third in a three-part series covering Florida’s proposed constitutional amendments for the 2022 Election cycle. Each proposed amendment requires a minimum of 60% support to pass. Here’s how it will appear on the ballot:
No. 3 Constitutional Amendment
BALLOT TITLE: ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR SPECIFIED CRITICAL PUBLIC SERVICES WORKFORCE.
BALLOT SUMMARY: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to grant an additional homestead tax exemption for nonschool levies of up to $50,000 of the assessed value of homestead property owned by classroom teachers, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, child welfare services professionals, active duty members of the United States Armed Forces, and Florida National Guard members. This amendment shall take effect January 1, 2023.
All three of the proposed Constitutional Amendments on our ballots this year were placed by the Florida Legislature. Amendment 3 came via a bi-partisan vote by the state legislature. The impetus behind this proposal is an effort to combat the housing affordability challenges in Florida for many essential public sector employees. As cited in the summary, those employed in the identified professions already receiving a homestead exemption under Florida law, would be eligible for an additional $50,000 homestead exemption while working in those fields. The homestead exemption would apply to all property assessed taxes excluding those imposed by school districts.
The Proposed amendment’s author, state Representative Josie Tomkow stated: Home values and property taxes are on the increase, and Florida’s critical public employees deserve a break. They shouldn’t worry about whether they have a home to return to while they are out protecting ours. Speaking in opposition to the proposed Amendment was state Senator Bobby Powell, who stated: I don't think that us putting another homestead exemption on the ballot alleviates or helps with the situation that we're currently facing. I am of the belief that the priority at this point should be to figure out how we can get police and firefighters and teachers into a home, whether it be first-time homebuyers, whatever it be, we need to figure out how to get them into homes.
Bottom Line: You’ll find no bigger supporter of many who would stand to benefit from this proposed amendment than me. But proposed constitutional amendments are about the implications of policy, not polls as to whether we support those in these professions. I have numerous concerns with the way this amendment was crafted in addition to the implications of it passing. My first concern is something I’ve been critical of regarding proposed amendments previously introduced by Florida’s Constitution Revision Commission. Cramming. When looking at all of the professions included: classroom teachers, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, child welfare services professionals, active-duty members of the United States Armed Forces, and Florida National Guard members...about the only thing they all have in common is that they’re public sector employees. You effectively have four different categories of public sector professionals under consideration within the same proposal - educators, first responders, military and welfare workers. Voters should have the opportunity to weigh in on each group under consideration for a permanent property tax benefit. My other concern is in line with what Senator Powell stated.
The affordability challenges are real for many Floridians, including essential public sector employees. Adding an additional property tax exemption for those who work within them isn’t even an equitable solution for those within those professions. Many who work in the public sector fields outlined in Florida’s proposed Amendment 3 are renters. They, nor their landlords would benefit from the proposal should it pass. In fact, it could exacerbate the affordability challenges for them. As with any issues and challenges we face there are ways to address issues that are more effective than others. The most direct and equitable way to address affordability challenges for public sector employees would be through pay raises as opposed to extra homestead exemptions. Additionally, the proposal has the potential to negatively impact all homeowners through higher property taxes. As property tax revenue is eliminated for specific classes of homeowners, it places a disproportionate burden on all others paying property taxes. This could lead to higher assessed mileage rates than would otherwise be necessary, creating additional long-term affordability concerns for those not in these protected classes. Those most negatively impacted would be renters, where affordability challenges are already extensive, and seniors on fixed incomes.
For those reasons I recommend a No vote on Amendment 3.