Florida’s Amendment 3 Deserves a Better Conversation

Florida’s Amendment 3 deserves a better conversation than “I’ll save money” versus “we’ll have to cut services.” Homeowners need relief. Municipalities need to explain how they would maintain essential services with less revenue. Both deserve more than talking points.

Parkland illustrates the challenge. At its September 14 budget hearing, the city reported 9,936 homesteaded parcels, approximately 82% of its residential parcels. Its adopted FY 2027 General Fund budget totals $60.8 million, with $37.22 million coming from property taxes, or 61.2%. Public safety and fire rescue account for approximately $28.05 million, or 46.1% of General Fund spending. The revenue figure includes property taxes from all property types, not just homesteaded homes. Those figures help explain the city’s concerns, but residents still deserve a clear explanation of projected service reductions and the alternatives considered.

The amendment identifies public safety as an authorized use of property-tax revenue, but it does not prohibit public-safety cuts. An earlier proposal, HJR 203, contained a minimum funding requirement for first responders. That proposal died in the Senate; its funding guarantee is absent from the amendment voters will decide in November. Amendment 3 also lowers the annual assessment-growth cap for non-homestead properties, including rental and commercial properties, from 10% to 5% for non-school taxes. That additional protection belongs in every discussion about shifting costs to renters. However, it limits assessment growth, not millage rates or final tax bills. Higher rates could still increase landlords’ tax bills and put pressure on rents.

Last year, I proposed a different approach that never got the consideration I believed it deserved. I called it “Let Us Alone.” The premise was simple: establish a homesteaded property’s assessed value at its purchase price and keep that assessment fixed while the owner maintains it as a homestead, regardless of subsequent improvements. Under my proposal, someone could purchase a property for $250,000, replace the existing house with a home worth $1 million, and retain a $250,000 assessment before applicable exemptions. Tax rates and separate assessments could still change, but improving the home would not increase its assessed value.

Consider a family that bought a home with a 2.5% mortgage. A few years and a couple of children later, they need another bedroom. Moving means giving up an affordable mortgage, so they build an addition. Under current law, additions are generally assessed at just value as of the first January 1 after substantial completion. That value is added to the assessment, even though Save Our Homes continues to protect the existing portion. The family has created more living space without receiving income from that added value, yet it faces a larger tax bill.

My proposal would give that family greater predictability. It would also mean local governments forgoing assessment growth they currently receive from improvements and annual increases. That tradeoff deserves an honest fiscal analysis, including how essential services would be funded and how the policy would treat homeowners with different purchase prices. I believe protecting a family’s investment in its primary home deserves that consideration.

Construction also cannot be treated as an unlimited source of money. Rising project prices do not automatically mean larger contractor profits. Material costs and construction wages have risen, and the people building our communities have their own housing bills and families to support. Additional costs imposed on development can make the housing we need harder to deliver.

We need meaningful property-tax relief, transparent local budgets, and a serious discussion about funding essential services. We also need to consider practical alternatives before the debate becomes an all-or-nothing choice.