Sunday, September 30, 2012

2012 Proposed Amendments to the State of Florida Constitution–Part II

 

I started a series last week commenting on the 2012 Proposed Amendments to the State of Florida Constitution.

You can get the whole list from the State of Florida. See if you can understand the intentional Doublespeak. Why would they do it this way? Don’t forget who controls the Florida Legislature in Tallahassee and who the Governor is.

In this installment we go to Amendment 4:

PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS; PROPERTY VALUE DECLINE; REDUCTION FOR NONHOMESTEAD ASSESSMENT INCREASES; DELAY OF SCHEDULED REPEAL

(1) This would amend Florida Constitution Article VII, Section 4 (Taxation; assessments) and Section 6 (Homestead exemptions). It also would amend Article XII, Section 27, and add Sections 32 and 33, relating to the Schedule for the amendments. (2) In certain circumstances, the law requires the assessed value of homestead and specified nonhomestead property to increase when the just value of the property decreases. Therefore, this amendment provides that the Legislature may, by general law, provide that the assessment of homestead and specified nonhomestead property may not increase if the just value of that property is less than the just value of the property on the preceding January 1, subject to any adjustment in the assessed value due to changes, additions, reductions, or improvements to such property which are assessed as provided for by general law. This amendment takes effect upon approval by the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or, if approved at the 2012 general election, shall take effect January 1, 2013. (3) This amendment reduces from 10 percent to 5 percent the limitation on annual changes in assessments of nonhomestead real property. This amendment takes effect upon approval of the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or, if approved at the 2012 general election, takes effect January 1, 2013. (4) This amendment also authorizes general law to provide, subject to conditions specified in such law, an additional homestead exemption to every person who establishes the right to receive the homestead exemption provided in the Florida Constitution within 1 year after purchasing the homestead property and who has not owned property in the previous 3 calendar years to which the Florida homestead exemption applied. The additional homestead exemption shall apply to all levies except school district levies. The additional exemption is an amount equal to 50 percent of the homestead property's just value on January 1 of the year the homestead is established. The additional homestead exemption may not exceed an amount equal to the median just value of all homestead property within the county where the property at issue is located for the calendar year immediately preceding January 1 of the year the homestead is established. The additional exemption shall apply for the shorter of 5 years or the year of sale of the property. The amount of the additional exemption shall be reduced in each subsequent year by an amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of the additional exemption received in the year the homestead was established or by an amount equal to the difference between the just value of the property and the assessed value of the property determined under Article VII, Section 4(d), whichever is greater. Not more than one such exemption shall be allowed per homestead property at one time. The additional exemption applies to property purchased on or after January 1, 2011, if approved by the voters at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, or to property purchased on or after January 1, 2012, if approved by the voters at the 2012 general election. The additional exemption is not available in the sixth and subsequent years after it is first received. The amendment shall take effect upon approval by the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or, if approved at the 2012 general election, takes effect January 1, 2013. (5) This amendment also delays until 2023, the repeal, currently scheduled to take effect in 2019, of constitutional amendments adopted in 2008 which limit annual assessment increases for specified nonhomestead real property. This amendment delays until 2022 the submission of an amendment proposing the abrogation of such repeal to the voters.

An easy one to read. Short too! Do you think uninformed voters will take the time and be able to decipher this and make a conscientious decision while in the voting booth?

This gobbledygook is in effect a reduction in property taxes. I received a political ad in the mail from an outfit called TaxYourAssetsOff.com urging me to vote yes on this one.

They claim:

#1 – It protects YOU from rising property taxes

#2 – It helps small businesses and renters

#3 – It will encourage first-time homebuyers

#4 – It will create jobs and stimulate the economy

I dislike being pushed by special interests in mailed political ads and I could not independently confirm their claims that it will “create nearly 20,000 jobs and add nearly $5.3 billion to the pockets of taxpayers”. Sounds too good to be true, but based on some common sense I am inclined to see this as a benefit as presumably more money in the pockets of the people will get them to spend some more in the economy, or at least pay debt or save.

On the other hand, given the State’s budget deficit, more reductions in taxes are problematic. I’ll give this a Yes NO (edited after reading the opinion in The Miami Herald which contends that there’s no reason to change the State Constitution. I agree). Feel free to set me wrong and make me change if you do not agree. There is still time left (four weeks) till election day.

So far, on all the proposed amendments I have considered in this series so far, all are NO.

No comments:

Post a Comment