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.

Jacksonville's budget crisis

Across the United States, federal, state, and local governments are struggling to generate sufficient revenues to fund the services citizens expect. Jacksonville, Florida is struggling to pay for city services after state initiatives to reduce property taxes have lowered revenues.

The Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. (JCCI) published a study, "Our Money, Our City: Financing Jacksonville's Future" that reports:

the City of Jacksonville is facing significant financial issues which threaten its future financial sustainability. Managing these problems is particularly difficult because Jacksonville lacks a shared community vision of what the proper role of government should be… Jacksonville has not defined the core services citizens expect our local government to provide.

Solutions include building community confidence in local government by increasing transparency and creating benchmarking and measurement systems to assess our effectiveness. You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Increased public involvement in the process is important as the city faces the hard choice to increase revenues and/or cut services. These decisions must be made in an environment in which Jacksonville already spends less than the state average on nearly all services…and Florida ranks near the bottom nationally on its funding of services.

Click here for the full Spring 2009 pdf report.

California's Fiscal Crisis: The Legacy of Proposition 13

In his June 27, 2009 TIME magazine article California's Fiscal Crisis: The Legacy of Proposition 13, Kevin O'Leary argues California's current fiscal crisis is directly attributable to the June 6, 1978 passage of the "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation," better known as Proposition 13, which was a ballot initiative to amend California´s state constitution:

The financial crisis in California grew worse this week as State Controller John Chiang warned that if legislators and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger fail to come up with a budget-balancing package, he would begin paying California's bills with IOUs on July 2. The last time the state did this was during the Great Depression.

What has brought California to such a perilous state? How did its government become so wildly dysfunctional? One obvious cause is the deep recession that has caused tax revenues to plunge for all states. But California's woes have a set of deeper reasons: direct democracy run amok, timid governors, partisan gridlock and a flawed constitution all contribute to budget chaos and people in pain. And at the root of California's misery lies Proposition 13, the antitax measure that ignited the Reagan Revolution and the conservative era. In Washington, the Reagan-Bush era is over. But in California, the conservative legacy lives on. (Read TIME's report: Can the U.S. Afford to Let California Fail?)

Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase. Governors Earl Warren and Pat Brown responded to the population growth of the postwar boom with a massive program of public infrastructure — the nation's finest public college system, the freeway system and the state aqueduct that carries water from the well-watered north to the parched south. When Ronald Reagan was governor he actually raised taxes. Then Proposition 13 shot the tires out of Pat Brown's liberal state. Liberal legislative leaders such as Willie Brown and John Burton jerry-rigged repairs and kept the damaged vehicle running for 30 years. Now Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger says there is no choice but to complete the demolition by slashing essential services. (TIME's Joel Stein weighs in on California's state of insanity)

Proposition 13 was the brainchild of the late Howard Jarvis. The antitax crusader was a policy genius not unlike Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both shared an affinity for designing deep structural change that, once embedded in the political system, is nearly impossible to alter without a massive change of heart by voters. Social Security is the lasting legacy of the New Deal era because F.D.R. understood that workers who contribute payroll-tax deductions from their paychecks would not want politicians tinkering with their retirement dollars. Conservatives have mounted assaults on Social Security through the years but to no avail.

Jarvis created a similarly impregnable institution. When he rode the wave of anger over skyrocketing property-tax assessments to pass Proposition 13 in 1978, he included a two-thirds vote requirement for the passage of any new taxes in California — an insurmountable obstacle built on populist allergy to any kind of new levy. Beholden to a tax-averse electorate, the state's liberals and moderates have attempted to live with Proposition 13 while continuing to provide the state services Californians expect — freeways, higher education, locking up felons, assisting needy families and, very importantly, essential funding to local government and school districts that vanished after the antitax measure passed.

Now, however, that balancing act no longer seems possible. In the state's current fiscal crisis, California's public schools stand to lose $5.3 billion on top of $7.4 billion in cuts last year. Superintendents and school boards foresee teacher layoffs, increased class sizes, the loss of computer labs and libraries and, in some districts, insolvency. Superintendent Ramon Cortines says the Los Angeles Unified School District will lay off more than 2,500 teachers.

"If not for the county [welfare program], lots of people would be out on the streets and I'd be one of them with my two kids," says Cinnamon McDaniel. Petite and well dressed, McDaniel is hardly the Reagan-stereotype welfare mom of yore. The 26-year-old African American mother of two was employed until a year ago when her doctor ordered her to stop working because of complications with her second pregnancy. A high school graduate and a preschool teacher's aide for six years, she is working toward a nursing degree. Following a divorce, she now receives a welfare check for $623 as well as food stamps and the state's health coverage for low-income families. "Last year I was able to work and pay my own bills. I'd like to see if Gov. Schwarzenegger could cut it on $600 a month."

South of Los Angeles at California State University, Fullerton, Nicole Muth, 22, has just finished her junior year with straight A's. Muth grew up in Modesto with "lots of love but no money." Raised by her aunt and uncle, she receives a Cal Grant of $4,500 a year. "It definitely helps," says Muth, who credits the grant with allowing her to focus on her studies. As part of his proposed budget cuts, however, Schwarzenegger says Cal Grants should be phased out and that money promised to the incoming college class eliminated. "I appreciate the grant very much and I'm concerned about students coming after me not having the opportunities I've had," says Muth. "I'm really sad to see our state in this economic crisis. It's bewildering." Muth is not alone.

The governor has addressed the need for shrinking the state, saying, "We have to go and make certain cuts in health care. We have to make certain cuts in education, in higher education, in all these various different programs, in prisons, law enforcement and so on." But Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a nonprofit advocacy group, says, "These are no longer cuts. These are amputations, and the question is, Which limb are we cutting off today?"

Do You Support a Property Tax Increase?

A poll appeared in The Jacksonville Observer on June 23, 2009 asking "Do You Support a Property Tax Increase?"

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.