Amendment 4 - This time the vote should be "no"

Comment Up

I get more embarrassed every day to admit that I was a Realtor at one time. Realtors say that a YES vote on Florida Amendment 4 will strengthen Florida's economy. What this means in actuality--it might put more money into their pockets.

How dare that these exemptions be on the ballot this year when Florida is struggling. Read up on all these amendments some of which are wrong for Florida's economy and will hurt local governments to provide basic services.

An outside group backed by real-estate groups has raised $3.6 million to support the proposed amendment. They say it is needed to encourage first-time homebuyers, get rid of the recapture rule, and help small businesses and renters. The latter could see lower rent after a property owner claims the exemption.

Where they stand:
Opposed: Florida Association of Counties, Florida League of Cities, Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida
Support: The Florida Association of Realtors, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Home Builder's Association, Republican Party of Florida--Read more at The Florida Times Union.

Candidate James Stafford has the endorsement of the Realtor's Association and he has said that he agrees that our downtown should have building heights of 6 stories, (as tall as The Lucerne) conforming to the Realtor's position. Build higher, more inventory, more money for moi, is their battle cry and screw all of you who want a low-rise city.

County by County Impact if Amendment 4 is passed

The Center on budget and Policy priorities says this about Amendment 4 and says Florida's Tax Watch's analysis is flawed--read what they say below:

• Raise taxes on many established, year-round residents.  Property taxes in Florida are a key source of funding for local services such as fire and police protection, providing 60 percent of counties’ general fund revenues and 42 percent of cities’ revenues.  If Amendment 4 is adopted, local governments would have to raise property tax rates in order to preserve funding for these services.   This in turn would increase property taxes on those who benefit least from the amendment — established, full-time homeowners not affected by the recapture rule — in order to pay for tax cuts for those who benefit most from the amendment, such as part-time residents, out-of-state corporations and first-time homebuyers.

• Require local governments to make deep cuts in services.  To the extent that local governments don’t respond to Amendment 4 by increasing property tax rates, it would take a large and growing bite out of funding for local services like police and fire protection.  At current rates the local revenue loss from Amendment 4 would grow to $471 million by 2016— the equivalent of 7,656 police officers at the state’s average annual police salary.  And the revenue loss would begin phasing in at a time when local government revenues are already down as a result of the recession.
  Local governments would almost certainly respond to Amendment 4 with a combination of tax rate increases and service cuts.

• Harm Florida’s economy.  These tax increases and spending cuts mean that Amendment 4 is no free lunch for Florida taxpayers.  As noted above, any tax cuts for non-residents and out-of-state corporations that result from the measure would require offsetting tax increases or cuts in local services.  Either of these steps would remove demand from the economy, undermining Amendment 4’s potential to spur economic growth.
  
  Supporters of Amendment 4 cite a study by Florida Tax Watch, a Florida research organization, as evidence that Amendment 4 would benefit Florida’s economy.  But the study suffers from a crucial methodological flaw.  While the study takes into account the economic benefit of the taxpayer savings that would result from the amendment, it ignores the tax increases or cuts to local services that local governments would need to enact to pay for the tax cut.  It therefore gives a deeply misleading estimate of Amendment 4’s likely economic impact.

• Send millions of dollars in tax benefits out of state.  Much of the tax savings from Amendment 4 would be sent outside the state.  This is because out-of-state shareholders in major corporations with Florida landholdings and owners of second homes who may spend much of their time and money in other places would get a large share of the benefit from Amendment 4. As a result, the net effect would be to cost Florida jobs, not create them.


• Hurt new and expanding businesses — important engines of job growth.  Amendment 4 would ultimately place newer businesses at a competitive disadvantage by requiring them to pay more in property taxes than their more established competitors, even if the newer and more established businesses own identical properties.  Tilting the playing field against newer businesses makes little economic sense.  Important new research suggests that a small number of relatively new businesses create a disproportionate share of new jobs.  Making those businesses pay more property taxes than their competitors will further harm the state’s economy.