A Vote for Lower Taxes May Be a Vote for Higher Taxes

When Florida voters approved Amendment 1 to the state constitution with the perceived promise that everyone would pay less in property taxes, most of them failed to consider the economic concept of tradeoffs and the reality that government services must be adequately funded. Amendment 1 essentially allows more of the assessed value of all property to be excluded from taxation. For example, a home valued at $150,000 previously would be liable for taxes on $125,000. With the new provision, only $100,000 is subject to the property tax. Yet, another provision of the amendment allowed the wealthy to exclude as much as $400,000 from taxation when they sold a house and moved. So the benefits of the amendment went overwhelmingly to the rich.

But with more property excluded from taxation, revenues to fund local government services have declined significantly. Marginal tax rates may increase over time in an effort to recoup the lost revenues. In the meantime, however, other taxes and fees are being raised to generate funding for the government services citizens expect. An early response to the amendment from the city council in Jacksonville was the implementation of a new household tax to fund garbage collection. As the article below explains, city leaders want to increase that tax. Property tax savings for people of moderate means have been more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees. The overall tax burden for residents of Florida is being increasingly shifted from the wealthy to everyone else.

So some of the people who voted for amendment 1 in the expectation of paying less in overall taxes are now paying more. Their vote for lower property taxes has increased their overall tax burden.

In the April 24, 2010 Florida Times-Union article "Proposal to double Jacksonville's garbage fee up for vote Tuesday," Matt Galnor reports on the higher garbage fees:

When the City Council first passed a new garbage fee three years ago, it outlined gradual increases to try to cover the actual costs by 2014.

On Tuesday the council is expected to vote on a bill that would blow through that schedule and more than double the fee come Oct. 1.

The fee proposal is part of Mayor John Peyton's plan to bring city fees closer in line with how much the city spends providing the service.

If all of the new fees are approved Tuesday, it will bring in about $25 million to city coffers - and more than $20 million of the new dollars come from raising the garbage fee.

The annual garbage fee would go from $72 to more than $150 - contrary to the 2007 bill that would bring the fees up no more than $12 each year.

"We're catching hell paying this, how we going to pay more?" Southside resident Robert Blackshear said, sitting with friends in a lot off Old St. Augustine Road. "But they don't see it that way downtown."

Council Vice President Jack Webb helped lead the charge for a closer look at all city fees - some of which hadn't been changed in 25 years.

The analysis looked at everything from building permits and facility rentals to zoning change applications and the cost to rename a street.

The increases are tough, especially the garbage fee, Webb said, but added to the reality is the city has to try to capture its costs.

"It's bitter medicine, but we've got to do something to get our financial house in order," Webb said.

Councilman John Crescimbeni said Friday he's preparing an amendment that would change some of the fees.

For example, the fee to apply for a Planned Unit Development is now $1,500, but it costs the city more than $3,500 to process. The proposed fee is $2,000.

"The premise that this thing is being sold on - recovering costs - should be for everybody or nobody," Crescimbeni said.

The garbage fee would cover the cost of collecting residential waste, but there's another $28 a year per household in disposal costs that won't be covered by the new fees, Peyton spokeswoman Misty Skipper said.

The proposal passed two council committees last week - including a narrow 5-4 vote in the Finance Committee.

Crescimbeni was among those voting against it, as were Don Redman and Bill Bishop. Both Redman and Bishop said they were against it because of the original 2007 plan to increase the monthly fee by $1 every year.

"It's going back on our word," Redman said.

Peyton is proposing a $58 million shortfall for the budget that will begin Oct. 1. The mayor says the primary cause is rising employee costs and the city has so far been unsuccessful in getting unions to agree to a 3 percent pay cut and a less lucrative pension for new hires.

matt.galnor@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4550

Links:
[1] http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/JacksonvilleNews1_9.jpg

Consequences of Florida Amendment One: Jacksonville Leaders Admit Need to Raise Property Tax Rates

In the September 10, 2009 Florida Times-Union article "Jacksonville council majority ready to raise taxes," Tia Mitchell reports that Jacksonville city leaders finally admitted the need to increase property tax rates as a result of the 2008 passage of Amendment One to the constitution of the State of Florida. The amendment allowed most property owners to exclude some of their property from taxation, with large benefits going to wealthy homeowners who move. Proponents of the amendment failed to explain sufficiently that other taxes would need to be imposed or property tax rates would need to be increased to compensate for the decreased revenues. The overall effect of Florida Amendment One has been to shift the tax burden from the wealthy toward the middle class and the poor.

As the deadline for a balanced budget looms, the Jacksonville City Council appears poised to raise the property tax rate, though members are quick to point out that other options — from tapping reserves to slashing even more spending — are still on the table.

The council’s Finance Committee spent several weeks whacking away at Mayor John Peyton’s proposed billion-dollar budget, hoping to cut $53 million and avoid the first property tax rate increase in 17 years. But when the hearings ended Wednesday, the panel found itself far short of the goal.

Official figures haven’t been compiled, but the committee found an estimated $30 million in cuts, the bulk of which would come from slicing all departments’ operating and salary budgets by 3 percent.

With most city officials convinced that finding an additional $20 million to cut is unlikely, the discussion now has shifted to whether to raise taxes. And if so, by how much.

Thirteen of 16 council members polled Thursday by the Times-Union said they’re open to increasing the millage rate, including several who voted in July to keep the maximum millage unchanged, at 8.48.

Even then, many qualified their positions, saying if the hoped-for spending cuts didn’t materialize, they’d be open to raising taxes.

Council President Richard Clark said the top options now include setting the millage as high as 9.27, the maximum allowable this year, or drawing down the city’s rainy-day funds to balance the books.

“I don’t know where it’s going to land,” he said Thursday.

Clark cautioned that until there’s a budget accounting by the council auditor, it’s impossible to say for sure how low the millage rate can be set and still bridge the shortfall.

Council members will work with the mayor’s office to discuss their goals and the cuts that have already been made, Clark said. A balanced budget must be approved before the fiscal year starts Oct. 1.

At a special council meeting Thursday, Clark expects some members will seek to restore some of the money cut from certain departments.

Clark said he is willing to live with all of the cuts recommended by the committee. “I offered up 90 percent of them.”

The full council may reconsider some of the committee’s cost-saving measures, such as scrapping the Inspector General’s Office, eliminating special events serving veterans and seniors, and forcing the sheriff to cut his budget.

Now that the budget panel’s work is done, Councilman Michael Corrigan said he’s ready to vote for a tax increase.

“I don’t have a choice, so yes,” he said.

Council Vice President Jack Webb is looking into ways to increase revenue other than raising taxes, such as increasing the fee private haulers pay to dump trash at the city landfill. That could bring in an additional $4 million this fiscal year, he said.

Webb is still researching the idea and wants to meet with the mayor’s staff, but he said he is leaning toward proposing the fee hike next week.

Councilman Art Shad, a vocal supporter of raising the millage rate and a vocal critic of some of the cuts, said he supports also tapping reserve funds.

“Reserves are there for emergencies,” he said. “This is a once-in-a-generation recession. Certainly you can make the case this would be a valid use of reserves.”

Shad said other Florida cities have raided their rainy day funds during the economic crisis. But he isn’t sure there are 10 council members who would support such a move in Jacksonville.

Setting the property tax rate at 9.27 mills, the “rollback” rate, would ensure that revenue stays consistent with the current fiscal year. Usually, the rollback rate is lower than previous year’s tax rate, but in Jacksonville and around country declining property values have changed that.

Peyton proposed setting the millage at 9.5, a 12 percent increase. The council rejected that idea, keeping the maximum millage at 8.48. That decision was vetoed by Peyton, a move that prohibits the city from setting its tax rate any higher than 9.27 this year.

If Peyton had not exercised his veto power, the council would likely be required to spend about $250,000 of taxpayer money to send amended notices to property owners about the maximum millage rate, Webb said.

Councilman Johnny Gaffney, who voted to set the maximum millage rate at 8.48, said he sees no other choice but to support raising taxes now.

“Unless there’s some other alternative areas we can cut, and I don’t think there are, we have no option but to raise taxes,” he said. “Not at the expense of jeopardizing quality of life and safety of our city.”

Gaffney is also lobbying to restore funding to the library system’s budget so that branches in his district and others won’t have to reduce hours so drastically.

“You take two libraries in the Northeast quadrant, you leave people with no option but to go where? Downtown?” he said. “Most socially disadvantaged people don’t have transportation.”

Florida Exodus: Rising Taxes Drive Out Residents

In the September 3, 2009 article "Florida Exodus: Rising Taxes Drive Out Residents," Tim Padgett infers that rising taxes are the source of residents leaving the state of Florida. A better explanation is that the wealthy and powerful have succeeded in SHIFTING the tax burden toward the middle-class and the poor. Recent increases in property tax rates are necessitated by the 2008 passage of Amendment One to the Florida constitution. Proponents convinced voters the amendment would decrease almost everyone's property taxes by allowing all homeowners to exclude additional parts of their property value from taxation. Wealthy homeowners reaped the greatest benefits. Yet, without drastic reductions in the government services citizens expect, the shortfalls in revenues caused by Amendment One have necessitated increases in property tax RATES and the adoption or increase in other fees that disproportionately affect the middle class and the poor. It is not the rich that are leaving Florida, is it?

There are many things public officials probably shouldn't do during a severe recession, but no one seems to have told the leaders in Florida about them. One thing, for instance, would be giving a dozen top aides hefty raises while urging a rise in property taxes, as the mayor of Miami-Dade County recently did. Or jacking up already exorbitant hurricane-insurance premiums, as Florida's government-run property insurer just did. Or sending an army of highly paid lobbyists to push for a steep hike in electricity rates, as South Florida's public utility is doing.

And you wonder why the Sunshine State is experiencing its first net emigration of people since World War II.

A few years ago, journalists - citing the chasm between Miami's high cost of living and its low level of income - began predicting that South Florida and its perpetual population-growth machine would soon face the unthinkable: a falling head count. Now it's official. The region - Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties - lost 27,400 residents between 2008 and 2009, while Florida as a whole lost 58,000. That's not exactly a mass exodus for a state of 18 million; but it's the first net outflow in 63 years for a state that considers itself the new California. "It's difficult for the working middle class to justify living here," Mike Jones, president of the Palm Beach County Economic Council, conceded to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "As much as they may love the sunshine, as you squeeze them out, they may find it in their best interests to move."

Jones gets it, but residents are starting to question whether the rest of their leaders do. Homeowners, especially in Broward and Miami-Dade, have been falling out of their flip-flops in recent days as they open their preliminary property-tax notices to find increases of 15% or more. That's sizable in a low-income region where the median property-tax bill is already some $3,000, and it's doubly frustrating given that property values have slid by some 25% during Florida's housing bust. Residents have barely digested the recent news that their hurricane-insurance premiums, which can top $5,000 a year for most South Florida homes, will rise 10% a year for the next three years (vital, officials claim, for handling claims from the next big storm). And their public utility, Florida Power & Light (FPL), is lobbying the state for a 30% rate hike (vital, FPL execs insist, for upgrading infrastructure). "It all seems out of control to people here at the time when they can least absorb it," says Dr. Jose Valladares, president of the conservative Fair Property Tax for All in Miami-Dade.

Granted, most local governments often have to raise taxes when they're staring at fiscal craters like the $427 million shortfall in Miami-Dade's proposed $7.83 billion budget. But the less than sunny mood in Miami-Dade is made darker by the feeling among most residents that their fiscal jam is not just a result of falling revenue, but also years of profligate mismanagement. The final determination on their property taxes will be made soon by the Miami-Dade County Commission - a feckless, corruption-tainted body, many of whose members ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in police overtime costs recently by using cops as their personal chauffeurs. (None of the commissioners face any sanctions for it.)

Residents were further outraged last week when the Miami Herald reported that Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez, one of the few Miami politicians with a reputation for probity, had raised the salaries of his chief of staff and other top lieutenants this year as high as 15% while calling for a 5% pay cut for county workers. Alvarez spokesperson Victoria Mallette says the raises resulted from a 2007 referendum that gave Miami-Dade's mayor, until then a relatively weak post, broad new powers that in turn thrust heavier duties on his staff. She also notes that Alvarez actually cut his office's budget last year by almost 15% and that he helped build an $80 million reserve fund. Still, a Herald editorial called Alvarez's raises "irresponsible." Watchdogs like Valladares complain that Miami-Dade's bureaucracy, like so many local governments in this decade, got too bloated during the economic boom. The County Commission, for example, has a staff of more than 200 serving only 13 commissioners - and yet it still managed to screw up tasks like its oversight of Miami-Dade's scandal-plagued housing agency.

Many Americans find it hard to feel sorry for Valladares and all the other Floridians who pay no state income tax. Floridians are indeed guilty of an arrogant belief that living in "paradise" should be a birthright as cheap as gassing up an SUV. It was, until Florida's relentless and miserably planned growth spawned problems that the peninsula is struggling to handle, including skyrocketing property taxes and hurricane-insurance premiums. Governor Charlie Crist has tried in recent years to rein in those twin vampires, but together they can still exceed what folks in many other states pay for state income tax, local property tax and homeowner's insurance combined. And whereas high-cost states like New York, California and Illinois also have some of the country's highest median incomes, Florida's is in the bottom half.

In a state that worshipped condo-flippers as great entrepreneurs, it was all a house of cards waiting to be blown down when the housing bubble burst. Now that it has happened, those Floridians who haven't left the state had hoped their officials might change the way they do things - or at least not attend a Kentucky Derby party hosted by the same FPL honchos lobbying them for a rate hike, as a Florida Public Service Commission director has admitted to doing a few months ago. But if Miami and Florida officials can't get their acts together, they can probably expect even lower head counts in the years to come.

Rallies protest Miami-Dade property taxes

In the August 27, 2009 Miami Herald story "Rallies protest Miami-Dade property taxes" Charles Rabin says South Florida residents are upset with rising property taxes. They do not seem to be seeking fewer government services, however. The article fails to mention that tax increases are necessitated by the January 29, 2008 passage of Amendment One to the Florida Constitution. The amendment was marketed to the public as a guarantee of lower property taxes by allowing homeowners to exclude more of their property from taxation. Yet, the advocates failed to sufficiently explain that property tax rates could rise. Indeed, if more property is excluded from taxation, property tax rates must rise if property tax revenues are to be maintained. Local governments typically use property taxes as their primary source of income. And if the amendment causes property tax revenues to be insufficient to cover the costs of the government services (such as police and fire protection, schools, and garbage collection) that citizens expect, it necessitates increases in other taxes and fees. If one considers all sources of revenue for local governments, the effect of the passage of amendment one has been to shift the tax burden away from the rich (because they can exclude up to $500,000 of property value from taxation with the portability provision) to the less affluent.

According to article by Rabin:

Upset with skyrocketing property taxes over the years, a group calling itself Fair Property Tax For All is coordinating a series of protests Thursday afternoon at three sites in Miami-Dade County.

The protests are timely: By Thursday, most of the county's homeowners should have received their trim notices in the mail -- early property tax slips that give all the county's homeowners a peek at what their final tax bill may be.

Many homeowners probably won't be thrilled with what they see: Their homes dropping in value, but their taxes going up.

One reason: When county commissioners declined to set a tax rate in July, it forced the property appraiser to set the rate at the rollback rate. As a result, despite a decrease in home values, revenues to the county would be the same as they were last year.

And despite the value of most people's homes being lower this year, it means your property tax rate still could rise.

County commissioners have yet to set the final rate.

Another issue that has some seething: Miami-Dade Property Appraiser Pedro J. Garcia declined to include foreclosures when tabulating property values, which are primarily based on the sales of homes in your neighborhood.

``It gives you abnormal values on a house,'' argues Fair Property Tax President Dr. Jose H. Valladares. ``They're not worth what it says.''

Other variables that will influence your tax bill include how much less your home is worth this year than last, if the municipality you live in raises its tax rate, or what the county's School Board ultimately decides to do with its tax rate.

After mandated public hearings, all property tax rates must be set by the end of September.

What is certain: The amount shown in the window of the trim notice that says how much you owe cannot be raised. By law, the county and municipalities are required to set a ceiling before public budget hearings begin in September.

The protests are planned for 4 to 7 p.m. Thursday at the following locations: U.S. 1 and Southwest 27th Avenue, Bird Road and Southwest 87th Avenue and, West 49th Street and 12th Avenue in Hialeah.

City still waiting on homeowners to pay new fees

City still waiting on homeowners to pay new fees

City still waiting on homeowners to pay new fees
Residents with overdue or late solid waste and stormwater bills will get notices soon.
BY ADAM AASENSTORY UPDATED AT 1:22 AM ON MONDAY, AUG. 17, 2009

Jacksonville is waiting on thousands of property owners to pay at least $24 million in new stormwater and solid waste bills and late payments, city officials said.

This year, the city has collected 61 percent of its expected stormwater bills, for a total of $20.8 million, and 60 percent of its solid waste bills, totaling $7.8 million, according to city spokeswoman Kristen Beach.

Late payment notices will be mailed out in October, Beach said.

At a time when the city is facing a major budget shortfall, 287,562 bills have been issued for a total of $53.2 million. That amount includes past-due amounts and late fees.

Likely slowing down the payments is the number of people with questions about the fees or who have applied for exemptions or adjustments.

From May 25 to Friday, the city's hotline - (904) 630-CITY - received 19,728 inquiries about fees. Jacksonville has received 2,180 applications, affecting 4,940 parcels, for credits, adjustments or exemptions.

The city has charged for only a year and half of fees so far - just two bills, one in 2008 and one in 2009. But the city is now considering taking legal action to collect delinquent fees, including placing non-foreclosable liens on properties.

"We certainly plan to pursue those options," Beach said.

The next step is for the city to evaluate the makeup of its delinquent accounts, whether residential or commercial, and then discuss how much it would cost for the various collection methods compared to what the city might expect to collect.

The City Council approved the fees in 2008 to soften the blow from state property tax reform and bring in extra revenue. The solid waste fees help pay for a portion of garbage collection costs, while the stormwater fees now completely fund the city's stormwater management system.

Solid waste services cost the city $14 per residence per month, but the fee is $4.25 per month on average.

The funds generated by these fees cannot be used for other services.

Minus the stormwater money, the city won't have as much money to help pay for inspectors and capital projects to help meet certain environmental requirements for the St. Johns River.

"Our collection of the fee will directly impact our ability to make the improvements needed, both from a flood-control and water quality standpoint," Beach said.

adam.aasen@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4247

Jacksonville's Mayor Lobbies for Solutions to its Budget Crisis

Mayor John Peyton presented his proposed budget to the Jacksonville, Florida City Council in July 2009 and faced strong opposition, primarily because it called for increases in the property tax rate. Peyton, a conservative Republican, advocated the tax increase because Florida citizens voted on January 29, 2008 to increase the amount of property excluded from taxation. (With less property subject to taxation, the tax rate needs to increase to generate the same level of revenues.) This seems to be part of a broader issue in which U.S. citizens clamor for tax reductions, yet do not want government services reduced either.

A Message From Mayor John Peyton

Dear Friends,

Jacksonville is facing a financial crisis. Cuts from Tallahassee, global economic instability and an unsustainable pension system have created a $170 million budget problem. On July 13, I presented my proposed fiscal year 2009-2010 budget to the Jacksonville City Council.

It includes a three-part plan to solve Jacksonville’s budget crisis by making $40 million in operational cuts, taking on important pension reform and implementing a modest revenue increase. A millage rate increase of 1.02 mills will simply bring the property tax rate back to where it would’ve been before Tallahassee meddled in local government affairs.

As part of this year’s budget process, I will be hosting a series of community conversations about city finances. Please visit the Bulletin Board section of this Web site to see dates and times of town hall meetings, brown bag lunches and live media appearances.

I encourage you to explore this Web site, read my budget address , and ask yourself what kind of city you want to live in. Is it one without cultural events, museums or recycling? Is it one that lacks vital services for the most vulnerable members of our community like the hungry, homeless and those who are crime victims? I don’t want to live in that kind of city, and I don’t think you do either.

If you support my budget plan, I urge you to make your voice heard. Join the Fix It Now! movement and make your City Councilmembers aware of the kind of city you want for yourself and your children.

John Peyton
Mayor

For an in-depth analysis of the city’s finances, please read a report recently released by the Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. (JCCI). The report is called “Our Money, Our City: Financing Jacksonville’s Future” and provides a comprehensive overview of our current budget crisis.

Florida Amendment One - Property Tax Reductions for the Less Affluent Have Been More Than Offset By Increases in Fees for Services

Today I received a bill from the city of Jacksonville for $111, comprised of 2009 fees of $51 for solid waste and $60 for stormwater. In 2008, the bill was just the $60 stormwater fee. Prior to that, these fees did not exist. They are a direct response to the January 29, 2008 passage of Amendment One to the Florida Constitution. According to the Florida governor´s web site:

Specifically, the constitutional amendment:
1. Doubles the homestead exemption for almost all homeowners, providing an average savings of about $240 annually. The new exemption applies fully to homesteads valued over $75,000, and partially for homesteads valued between $50,000 and $75,000. This new exemption does not apply to school taxes.
2. Allows portability: The Governor has heard from many Floridians that they feel trapped in their homes. Portability allows homeowners to transfer their Save Our Homes tax benefits from their current home to a newly purchased home within any Florida county. Portability applies to homes purchased in 2007 and later, and the benefit is capped at $500,000.
3. Provides an assessment cap of 10 percent for all properties not previously capped: While homestead properties are already capped at three percent, now all other properties, including rental properties, second homes, and business properties, will be protected from huge tax increases. This new exemption does not apply to school taxes.
4. Creates a new $25,000 exemption for business property, including office furniture, computers, machinery and equipment.

The amendment was marketed to the public as a guarantee of lower property taxes. Yet, the advocates failed to sufficiently explain that because the amendment reduces government revenues from property taxes (by allowing landowners to exclude more of their property from taxation), it has necessitated increases in other taxes and fees to allow local governments to provide the services (such as police and fire protection, schools, and garbage collection) that citizens expect. If one considers all sources of revenue for local governments, the effect of the passage of amendment one has been to shift the tax burden away from the rich (because they can exclude up to $500,000 of property value from taxation with the portability provision) to the less affluent.

Florida Amendment One (2008) - "Portability of Save Our Homes"

According to Ballotpedia:

Florida Amendment One, also known as the "Portability of Save Our Homes", was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure passed with 64.4% in favor and 35.6% opposed in a special election January 29, 2008—timed to coincide with Florida's presidential primary.

Due to a 2006 change in Florida's initiative laws, the measure needed 60% approval in order to pass.

Floridians passed the original Save Our Homes Amendment in 1992, which took effect in 1995. That measure put an annual cap of 3 percent on increases in assessed home values for property taxes. However, a loophole in the Save Our Homes Amendment lost the property tax cap for Floridians who move to a new home. This new measure allows Floridians to take their property tax cap with them when they move.

The amendment is retroactively effective to January 1, 2008.

Details of the Amendment

Florida Amendment One amends the current Save Our Homes property tax cap by allowing the difference between market value assessments to be transfered to new homesteads. The objective of the amendment, according to its supporters, is to promote more movement in the housing market.

Currently, snowbirds and first time home buyers face staggering tax liabilities because they are not protected by the Save Our Homes amendment. Business owners, whose taxable property often outweighs their voting power, are also given little tax relief under the status quo.

The amendment will also:
*Double the amount of each home's value exempt from property tax, from $25,000 to $50,000, on all but the least expensive homes
*Provide a $25,000 exemption on tangible personal property (TPP)
*Create a 10% annual cap on non-homesteaded property

Background

The supporters of Florida Amendment One originally sought to place it on the Florida ballot through the initiative and referendum process. They had collected about 15,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot, when the Florida state legislature made their efforts irrelevant by voting to place the proposed amendment on the ballot through the legislative referral process.

Supporters

Save Our Homes Portability, Inc. is the group sponsoring Florida Amendment One.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist believes that this amendment will stop residents from the "locked-in" effect which prevents homeowners or empty nesters from moving into smaller homes as their needs or lifestyles change.

Florida State House Speaker Marco Rubio also backs the measure, saying that the state legislature has not done enough to cut down on property taxes after Gov. Crist promised during the most recent election campaign that property taxes would "drop like a rock." He is currently plugging the Florida Cut Property Taxes Now (2008) initiative saying it will bring real relief to Florida.

Opposition

Teachers and unions have generally opposed the measure. The League of Women Voters and Florida Tax Watch opposed the first amendment for Save Our Homes on the grounds that it creates inequities in how properties were taxed. Florida Tax Watch also believes that the measure is "probably unconstitutional" and will certainly meet litigation on those grounds if the voters approve it.

Ballot title called confusing

While the proposed amendment itself comes to 15 pages of text, a 498-word summary or ballot title is what voters will see when they go to the polls on January 28. Both proponents and opponents are concerned that voters will be unsure about what they are voting on. Dominic Calabro of Florida Tax Watch said:
Since we only vote on the ballot title and summary, it's absolutely essential that it is clear, in layman's language, so you have a comfort level and really understand it because you're changing your basic rights and freedoms under the constitution. We don't think it's very clear.

Pre-emptive lawsuit filed against Florida Amendment One

Three new Florida residents filed a class action lawsuit in Leon County on November 21, 2007 asking a judge to invalidate both the original Florida Save Our Homes property tax cap, and also to invalidate 2008's Florida Amendment One—if it passes—on the grounds that the new amendment worsens the inequities built into the original property tax cap.

Walter Hellerstein, a professor from the University of Georgia, has argued that the portability provision of the proposed amendment discriminates against those who do not currently own homes in Florida—whether because they have yet to own a home or because they currently live outside the state. The tax advantages only belong to those who sell a house in Florida.
Hellerstein believes that the fact that Amendment One provides benefits to current Florida homeowners, and no one else, could be interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to be an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce and the right of people to travel between states.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist disagrees with the claims in the class action lawsuit and also with Hellerstein's legal analysis. Crist has remarked, "We're changing the constitution. How can it be more constitutional?"

Florida newspapers give their editorial opinions:

The Miami Herald urges a "no" vote, saying that while property tax relief matters, this amendment leaves Florida's "creaky, inefficient and archaic tax system" in place.

The Fernando Beach News Leader says that while the current property tax system has flaws, the amendment is better than nothing and urges a "yes" vote.

The local NBC news took a different take on the recommendation to point out that if it was a simple majority the legislators wouldn't be sweating about their initiative, but instead because of their own recommendation to increase it to a super majority their initiative is likely not to pass.