TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Legislature's Bad Language On Ballot Seems Indefensible

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 28, 2007

Some voters and officials are irritated at Circuit Judge Charles A. Francis for standing in the way of lower property taxes. He ruled that the wording of a proposed constitutional amendment is so misleading that it cannot go as written on the January ballot.

The state is appealing the ruling, but anybody who reads the tortuous phrasing of the tax amendment would be hard-put to contest the judge's conclusion. The writer seemed determined to conceal the fact that the change would eliminate the Save Our Homes tax cap for anyone buying property after the amendment takes effect.

New buyers would get a larger exemption but no limit on increases in yearly assessments.
State Senate President Ken Pruitt of Port St. Lucie urges fellow lawmakers to 'vigorously defend our work product' rather than rewrite the proposal to make it understandable. A better idea is to be forthright with voters. Spell it out in clear words.

The judge's objection is that some voters will think the change preserves for everyone the Save Our Homes cap of 3 percent increase in annual property assessments. In fact, the cap will be eliminated for everyone who doesn't already have it.

The relevant part of the 259-word summary is hard to identify, but it seems to be as follows: 'preserving application of Save-Our-Homes provisions to conform to provisions providing for the increased homestead exemption and transitional assessments of homestead property ...'

No one can find a warning in that sentence that if you sell your home and buy another you'll lose the assessment cap. The word that jumps out is 'preserving.'

The language of the actual amendment is clearer but still needs translation from gobbledygook into everyday English. The relevant phrase in the 13-page amendment seems to be this one: 'The exemption provided in Section 6 (a) of Article VII to each person entitled to have the person's homestead assessed under Section 4 (c) of Article VII pursuant to subsection (a) shall be limited to the exemption the person would have been entitled to under Section 6 (a)-(d) of Article VII as it existed on the day before the effective date of this amendment.'

The point need not be so hard to explain. You can't get a cap you didn't already have when the law takes effect. Why doesn't it say so and where are the governor's Plain Language police when voters need them?

Surely Gov. Charlie Crist has not forgotten the first executive order he signed. It included a Plain Language Initiative to make sure documents state agencies write can be understood by their intended audiences.

The Legislature is not under his control, but instead of using his bully pulpit to demand clarity, Crist is having the secretary of state appeal and says, 'I just want it to be on the ballot.'

Voters should not be asked to agree to conform to unidentified provisions. There ought to be a law against such nonsense. Judge Francis is actually siding with voters when he says there is.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT