Court hears Save Our Homes case
TALLAHASSEE (AP) – Retired Florida State University President Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte regaled an appellate court with a “magic potion” tale and invited the judges to a “house of mirrors” as he challenged homeowner tax breaks in two cases Tuesday.
D’Alemberte, now a law professor at the school, represented recently arrived Florida residents in one argument to the 1st District Court of Appeal and out-of-state owners of second homes in another.
They are challenging the 1992 Save Our Homes Amendment that limits assessment increases on primary homes to 3 percent annually and a “portability” provision voters added to the Florida Constitution last year. The latter lets homeowners take at least part of their Save Our Homes benefit with them when they move.
Save Our Homes has given longtime homeowners an unfair tax advantage compared to newcomers and nonresidents while portability has exacerbated that difference, D’Alemberte said.
He used what he called “The Fable of the Magic Potion” to argue the tax breaks violate federal constitutional rights of equality and travel and infringe on interstate commerce.
“Once upon a time, I think in 2006, the Florida Legislature looked out on its domain and saw that there were problems with the tax system,” D’Alemberte began. “Fourteen legislators came forward with constitutional amendments. They were the magic potions.”
D’Alemberte said the Legislature asked University of Georgia professor Walter Hellerstein, a constitutional law expert, to review the proposals, and he concluded portability was “not a magic potion. This is a poison potion.”
“The Legislature did not pay any attention,” D’Alemberte said. “They looked at it and they said it looked like Kool-Aid. They swallowed it. They passed it onto the people of Florida. They swallowed it.”
Solicitor General Scott Makar disagreed with D’Alemberte’s interpretation of Hellerstein’s findings, telling the three-judge panel he didn’t see any “skull and cross bones and poison signs.”
D’Alemberte also argued the tax breaks impair interstate commerce by discouraging Floridians from moving to other states that don’t offer a similar incentive.
“I now ask you to walk into a house of mirrors,” D’Alemberte said. “What happens in other states when they do the same kind of thing that Florida has done?”
The judges may have been entertained, but D’Alemberte acknowledged at the start that they’d be a tough audience.
Judge Philip Padovano wrote an opinion in July rejecting similar arguments in a third case that challenged Save Our Homes. It’s now on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Senior Judge Edwin Browning wrote an earlier opinion upholding the state’s $25,000 homestead exemption – yet another tax break for homeowners – in a case that involved some of the same issues.
“It all boils down to the constitutionality of the homestead exemption itself, which has been upheld again and again,” Makar argued.
Browning noted property values have dropped recently and expressed skepticism about whether the tax breaks discriminate against newcomers and nonresidents.
“A nonresident could, it seems to me, be better off in some circumstances in a down market than the residents,” Browning said.
The third judge, William Van Nortwick Jr., asked D’Alemberte why the July ruling didn’t also cover the other two cases. D’Alemberte said that one didn’t involve portability or the travel rights issue.
Trial judges had dismissed all three lawsuits. D’Alemberte asked the appellate panel to send the cases back for trials he argued would bring out evidence proving the tax breaks are unconstitutional.