False advertising
Florida Amendment 3 – Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes
This amendment benefits Florida taxpayers by: Exempting homestead properties from taxation. Exempts the first $250,000 of a homestead’s value from taxation for all levies other than school district levies and requires, through general law, a schedule for full elimination. Ensuring funding for core services. Requires local governments to use remaining property taxes solely for core public needs including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, and natural resources. Protecting small businesses. Limits future property tax assessments on businesses. Ensuring fairness for Florida residents. Requires any person who establishes Florida residency after January 1, 2027, to maintain Florida residency for five years prior to receiving the increased homestead exemption. If approved, the amendment would take effect on January 1, 2027.
Amendment 3, as it’s currently worded for the General Election ballot, certainly plucks all the pocketbook heartstrings.
Too bad it’s such a pretty lie.
In a scathing 18-page order issued this week, a circuit court judge found that the language for Florida’s touted “tax reform” amendment is more a sales pitch than an accurate summation of what its passage will mean to home and property owners, residents and businesses.
Circuit Court Judge David Frank, of the 2nd Judicial Circuit, started from the top down, giving State Attorney General James Uthmeier 10 days to revise the ballot title or summary.
Regarding the title, “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes”.
Bushwah.
“The title is more akin to a political slogan. It is not fair or neutral. It advocates a policy position: to stop excessive property taxes,” Judge Frank wrote. “The use of the term ‘save’ is rhetoric designed to elicit an emotional response and is improper.”
The very use of “Save our Homes,” a phrase embedded in Florida statutes, was wrong as the proposed amendment does not impact the statute.
“The use of ‘Save Our Homes’ is also misleading. Indeed, the proposed amendment has nothing to do with ‘Save Our Homes,’ which is an existing, well-known and popular cap on increases to annual assessed values of homestead properties…” Judge Frank stated, citing the law and concluding… “and thus the reference to ‘Save Our Homes’ misleads voters into believing they are being asked to reaffirm a popular constitutional provision completely unrelated to the amendment.”
And the alleged benefits cited in the Amendment 3’s ballot summary?
Pure poppycock.
“Even if a voter owns his or her home and it is a primary residence, the voter still may not be ‘saved’ from higher ‘excessive property taxes’ because the benefit from the higher exemption for a particular homestead property (particularly homes with high taxable values) could be offset by a higher millage rate (or by special assessments),” the judge wrote.
His order was issued in answer to a legal challenge by Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, Inc. and two state residents who filed suit contending that the ballot title and ballot summary for Amendment 3 would mislead voters.
They asked the court to declare “that the Ballot Statement is unfair, biased, misleading and inaccurate” and to direct the attorney general to correct deficiencies found by the court.
Judge Frank did.
In spades.
“Simply put, the proposed ballot title does not state the basic legal purpose of the amendment; it endorses it and diverts voters from its actual effect,” the order states before turning to the ballot summary.
“The ballot summary tells voters that the amendment ‘benefits Florida taxpayers,'” the order states. “Whether the amendment would ‘benefit’ taxpayers is the central policy question voters are being asked to decide. The ballot summary then sets forth three political taglines — ‘Ensuring funding for core services,’ ‘Protecting small businesses,’ and ‘Ensuring fairness for Florida residents’ — giving reasons why voters should vote for the proposal. But the purpose of a ballot summary is to explain what an amendment would do, not to advocate for its adoption.”
And boom.
“The Court declares that the title and summary of the present ballot statement are clearly and conclusively defective,” the order states.
The order enjoined the placement of the amendment, as worded, on the ballot and gave Attorney General Uthmeier 10 days to revise the ballot title or summary, correcting the deficiencies identified by the court and to present the revision to the Department of State.
Let us quote one more finding.
“In summary, voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination. The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision,” Judge Frank’s order states.
Indeed.
We urge voters to take note.
The ballot title and summary were carefully crafted lies designed to deceive.
We’d ask why but we all know the answer: To pass, it had to be a simple sell.
Buried within all the false advertising is that Amendment 3 does nothing to prevent higher millage rates and new and higher assessments and fees, property taxes by another name.
Also cloaked is the prospect of a sales tax hike, likely a big one.
Taxing entities are adept at plucking different pockets from the same pair of pants.
Count us among those who are a hard NO on Amendment 3.
Breeze editorial