Unless you’re living under that proverbial rock—who could blame you—locals know that our fearless Tallahassee elected wonders have voted to place on our November ballot a proposed state constitutional amendment to reduce local property taxes. At first blush, “yay.” This sounds like state respect for local folks, an avenue for state government to provide financial relief to Florida’s homeowners.
Not every person’s local pocketbook will benefit, mind you. Just those lucky enough to own their residential homes outright or those purchasing a home. Homesteaders.
No doubt, Floridians need relief. Half our people cannot afford rent; tourist industry wages do not keep pace with the cost of living, yet we keep investing in tourism with its corresponding production of low wage jobs; and those purchasing or owning homes pay larger home owners’ insurance premiums than we pay in local property taxes. When it comes to owning a Florida home, something’s gotta give, right?
Will our reducing local property taxes for some raise worker wages, lower rents, and control insurance premiums? Not even close.
What at first blush looks like much needed relief for some individual Floridians—but not all—is an unfriendly and callous attack on local control, local elected officials, and on the people who live in local communities, homeowners and renters alike. Should voters approve the amendment, Tallahassee will bear no responsibility for the outcome.
These dictating Tallahassee wonders, who care so very much for individual home-owning Floridians, not only have adopted language that dictates how much revenue we can collect locally for shared services, their new constitutional proposed language dictates how we can deploy that very same revenue. That’s right folks—devil in the details.
New language the legislature proposes specifies that
“Ad valorem taxes levied by counties and municipalities shall be used only to” fund:
public safety, including law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical service;
education and public schools;
infrastructure, including expenditures on road and bridge construction and maintenance and stormwater control;
natural resource projects, including flood control measures;
local bonds for uses consistent with this paragraph and to make debt service payments for existing obligations;
retirement benefits of local government employees;
the operations and administration of county officers and commissioners”
What does that “shall be used only to” phrase mean? No children, no libraries, no public parks? But salaries for county officers—that is, City Council members?
As voters debate the pros and cons of adopting the proposed increase in homestead exemptions—as we come to understand the local tradeoffs—will the public pay attention to these constitutionally funding only’s? Will we unwittingly be forced to “privatize” our parks and libraries, if we have them at all? Will we throw our children under the bus, if we have buses?
Why is this new dictatorial language necessary?
Our legislative “leaders” argue that Floridians are “smart voters,” and, as such, we can decide for ourselves whether or not to tax homeowner residences.
La-dee-da.
If we’re so smart, why won’t our Tallahassee wonders allow us to decide how to spend our revenue, and other issues that affect our community’s well-being? Mark Woods’ recent Florida Times-Union column recounts the varied and myriad ways our Tallahassee lords and masters lord it over us. The litany of things they will not allow us to decide for ourselves—control growth; paint crosswalks; light bridges; speak about diversity, equity, and inclusion—grows every time they meet. “For decades,” Woods writes, “Tallahassee has been chipping away at home rule, passing laws that forbid cities and counties from enacting local ordinances about cruise ships, tree preservation, Styrofoam containers, DEI and, perhaps more than anything, land use and growth management.”
In this latest attack on we local folks, we the people will decide how much of individual homeowner property to exempt from taxation, but we won’t get to decide what we can fund with the dollars we do collect.
In effect, our Tallahassee dictators tie local hands and wag their collective middle finger at us. Friends don’t treat friends this way.
If voters approve the amendment, initial projections for Duval County suggest reduced general fund revenues will total roughly $300 million two years hence. It ultimately falls to the Mayor and City Council members to decide how to make up for this revenue loss. Cut services, tax something else, increase the millage rate?
Some City Council wonders—without any analysis, reflection, collective reasoning, or genuine discussion with the public—have rushed to judgment. Council member Rory Diamond, for example, proposes eliminating any funding for the Kids Hope Alliance, Cultural Council, Public Service Grants to nonprofit organizations, and UF Shands Hospital.
Sounds like he’s read the “shall be used only to” language. No children, no libraries, no parks. No Level 1 trauma hospital.
So much for smart voters deciding for ourselves, for deliberation, or any genuine partnership with we the people who will bear the burden of decisions City Council makes, having had their hands tied by our Tallahassee dictatorial wonders.
If Floridians vote to increase the homestead exemption from its current $50,000 of taxable value to $250,000, we can calculate that all local homesteaders will see their annual property tax bill reduced by roughly $2,300. [$200,000 (the increased exemption) divided by 1000 (a mill = 1000) = 200 x 11.1919 (current millage rate) = $2,238].
We do not yet have precise data on how many Duval County homesteaders will not pay any property tax for general services. But according to Florida Cities data, Jacksonville has just under 200,000 homesteaded properties, the median tax assessed value of which is $172,000. In other words, a minimum of half our local homesteaders will not contribute to the cost of prescribed local government services that they will enjoy. Remember: the median is the midpoint, with half above that dollar amount and half below.
Say again.
Fifty percent (half) of our local homeowners will benefit from local government services—police protection and fire, rescue, and emergency medical services—but they will not help pay for those very same services. So much for being in this together. You remember? “All for one, and one for all” and all that quaint stuff from yesteryear.
Seriously, we have much to ponder between now and November, and we cannot leave our City Council to do this job on its own. As we smart voters are asked to approve increasing the homestead exemption from its current $50,000 to a whopping $250,000, we will explore who does and doesn’t pay for local governmental services; what our community will experience should voters approve the amendment; how we might cope in the aftermath of reduced services; and how we respond to what promises to be a diminished caring sector, the one made up of folks who work for pitiful wages in local nonprofits but nonetheless care about our community’s well-being. You know, organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs of Northeast Florida, the organization that gets the largest single annual grant from our publicly funded Kids Hope Alliance—$10+ million—and whose vice-president is our current City Council president Kevin Carrico character, the very same one who brought us our sorry My Guy JEA drama.
As we learn more about what could become a major disinvestment in what we have in common—libraries, children’s after-school programs, mental health services, parks and their maintenance, garbage collection, a resilient city—from our elected wonders who say their first priority is to protect taxpayers, JaxLookOut will share what we learn.
Local citizens will soon be inundated with warring facts and figures, some produced by the state, some by local government, some by grandstanding wonders, and fortunately, some by independent think tanks. Independent analysis and scenario planning is a good thing. Before we all rush to say “yay, don’t tax me,” we must be clear eyed about the trade-offs.
We could, on the other hand, just cut to the chase. Let’s abolish local government. Would be quicker. Besides, we would be able to hold state legislators and governors accountable for our local services and quality of life.
Not to worry. JaxLookout has not forgotten.
Here’s guessing City Council wants out of this mess sooner rather than later, as they must turn their attention to budget scenarios: best case, worst case.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.