TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Judge Rejects Proposed Property Tax-Cutting Amendment

ADVERTISEMENT

By JEROME R. STOCKFISCH The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 24, 2007

Updated: 09/24/2007 10:04 pm

Read The Judgment

TALLAHASSEE - Lawmakers are vowing to give property tax relief to Floridians despite a circuit court decision Monday that removed a constitutional amendment from the January statewide ballot. In doing so, the judge agreed with a South Florida mayor that the language of the ballot measure is misleading and improper.

The ruling Monday was a blow to Gov. Charlie Crist and Republican legislative leaders who made property tax reform the focus of a special legislative session in June. The constitutional amendment was the second phase of the tax package, with state lawmakers already having ordered local governments to roll back or freeze spending.

At a Monday night benefit in New Port Richey, Crist said he had not seen the ruling. "We're not going to stop," he said. "It's very important that we stay focused to ensure that the people have an opportunity to lower their property taxes."

Lawmakers could rewrite the ballot language in an upcoming special session or appeal the decision. It was not clear late Monday what the strategy would be, but House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, issued a statement saying, "One way or another, we will give Florida taxpayers the relief they deserve."

The amendment would have asked voters to allow a "super" homestead exemption totaling 75 percent of the first $200,000 in home value and 15 percent of the next $300,000. That means a new home valued at $200,000 would have a $150,000 exemption and would be taxed at $50,000.

The existing homestead scenario provides a flat $25,000 discount – but then artificially caps future valuation increases at no more than 3 percent a year in what is known as the "Save Our Homes" provision. Save Our Homes has been wildly popular among longtime homeowners, whose taxable values have stayed low while Florida property values soared.

But it has also been criticized for causing gross inequities in the tax system – for example, a new buyer being taxed at thousands of dollars a year more than a next-door neighbor in a similar home, who owned it for a much longer time.

The legislation calling for the super exemption would have allowed homeowners to keep their existing exemption and Save Our Homes protection if they preferred. But new homebuyers would be ineligible for the old benefit, and with the passing of a generation of homeowners, the amendment would ultimately phase out Save Our Homes altogether.

That was not adequately explained in the summary pegged for the Jan. 29 primary election ballot, Circuit Judge Charles Francis of Tallahassee determined.

"Try as this court has … and having read, reread, examined and studied the ballot summary under review, the Court cannot find that the language is clear, concise, unambiguous, and fair," the judge wrote. "The language at issue is misleading and confusing, and does not provide fair notice to the voter" of the purpose and effect of the amendment, Francis stated.

Jamie Alan Cole, lawyer for Weston mayor Eric Hersh, who brought the complaint, said Monday "we're obviously very pleased with the decision. The Constitution can only be changed by a vote of the residents, and if the ballot summary is misleading and inaccurate, the right to vote becomes meaningless."

Hersh said he hoped lawmakers would "take a long, hard look" at what he considered "a lousy bill."

Hersh's complaint also sought to have the Legislature's mandated rollbacks overturned, but Francis allowed that legislation to stand. Lawmakers had promised significant tax relief with the rollbacks that are reflected in this fall's tax notices, but the actual results have been modest.

Senate President Ken Pruitt, R-Port St. Lucie, issued a statement saying, "The good news is that part of the Legislature's tax reform was upheld today; taxpayers will receive a measure of property tax relief immediately. As far as the constitutional amendment, we will explore our options after reviewing the judge's ruling."

The bulk of savings to taxpayers would come through the super exemption. Advocates said the constitutional amendment could have provided some $30 billion in relief.

But that number got fuzzy when lawmakers added the provision allowing homeowners with Save Our Homes protection to pass on the "super" exemption in favor of the status quo. Estimates vary widely as to how many would opt for the new super-exemption or keep their 3 percent valuation cap.

Reporter Christian Wade contributed to this report. Jerome R. Stockfisch can be reached at (850) 222-8382 or jstockfisch@tampatrib.com.

Reporter Christian Wade contributed to this report. Jerome R. Stockfisch can be reached at (850) 222-8382 or jstockfisch@tampatrib.com.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT