Herald recommends: Want to know how to vote on Florida’s constitutional amendments? | Editorial

Florida voters will see three proposals to amend the state Constitution on their Nov. 8 election ballots. All of them were proposed by the Florida Legislature.

Two of the amendments would create new property-tax exemptions for some homeowners. It’s no surprise that lawmakers want to claim credit for tax breaks in an election year. The third amendment would abolish the Constitution Revision Commission, which meets every 20 years to consider changes to the state Constitution.

Each proposed amendment needs 60% voter approval to pass.

We encourage voters to take any proposed changes to the Florida Constitution seriously. Once they are made, it’s nearly impossible to take them back. Here are the Miami Herald Editorial Board’s recommendations:

Amendment 1

Amendment 1 provides incentives for homeowners to make their homes more resistant to flooding and sea-level rise. It would allow Florida lawmakers to “prohibit the consideration of any change or improvement made to real property used for residential purposes to improve the property’s resistance to flood damage in determining the assessed value of such property” for local tax purposes.

Put more simply, people who make improvements to harden their homes against flooding wouldn’t have to pay more in property taxes even if their property’s market value increases as result of those improvements. Such upgrades could be elevating structures, filling in basements or waterproofing a home.

Hurricane Ian has brought special urgency to the need to harden flood-prone neighborhoods, and Amendment 1 is well-intentioned. The problem is, the Legislature is choosing the wrong incentives for such upgrades.

The proposed amendment is vaguely worded and confusing at the same time — what would “any change or improvement” entail? Some seem straightforward, such as building a seawall on an oceanfront property. But we see the potential for the creation of loopholes, where homeowners can claim a property-tax exemption for changes that have less to do with flood protection and more with improving their lifestyle. Take, for example, the addition of new floors to a home, or a complete retrofitting that includes some of the renovations the amendment addresses, but others that it doesn’t. How will property appraisers determine which is what?

Such details would be ironed out by lawmakers who write a law to implement the amendment if it passes. The Legislature has a bad precedent of undermining previous constitutional amendments, such as the one that gave ex-felons the opportunity to vote. Floridians have every right to have trust issues.

Florida already has a program called My Safe Florida Home to help eligible homeowners make their properties less vulnerable to hurricane damage. Giving tax breaks only shifts the burden of taxation to other homeowners. That is not the best way to address the threat of sea-level rise and climate change to the Sunshine State.

The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends NO on Constitutional Amendment 1.

Amendment 2

This amendment would abolish the Florida Constitution Revision Commission, which meets every 20 years to examine the state Constitution for possible changes. The CRC last was impaneled in 2017-2018, when it offered eight ballot initiatives.

The CRC is a unique and powerful entity because its members can address issues ignored by the Legislature in front of Florida voters. In fact, the CRC is the only vehicle, except for citizen petition drives and the Legislature, that can get constitutional amendments on the ballot.

The little-known commission comprises 37 members, named by the governor, the House speaker, the Senate president and the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court.

Once members are selected, they go to work identifying issues they think should be addressed. But here’s the problem: For all the good it can do for Floridians, the CRC can go askew.

Unfortunately, the CRC, like many other bodies, has become more political under the recent state administrations. And lately, they have bundled together several unrelated issues into a single ballot question that confuse or trick voters.

For example, an initiative in 2018 banned vaping and also off-shore drilling in Florida waters in the same ballot question. They had nothing to do with each other. Each topic should rise or fall on its individual merits.

Still, and this is key, eliminating the CRC reduces the number of ways Floridians can modify the state Constitution. The Legislature has already made it harder for citizen petitions to reach the ballot.

Banishing the CRC, a proposal from a Republican legislator, seems like another move by the powers-that-be in Tallahassee to muzzle voters’ voices, so that the Legislature becomes the only voice, which Floridians should deem unacceptable.

The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends NO on Constitutional Amendment 2.

Amendment 3

At first glance, Constitutional Amendment 3 offers a well-deserved and honorable perk: Give first responders an up-to-$50,000 break of their assessed homestead property value. Teachers, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics are among others who would eligible.

But this is a double-edged sword that will hit every other Floridian in their pocketbook. If approved, the mandate would reduce local property-tax revenue for everything other than school taxes by $86 million, starting in the fiscal year 2013-2024, according to the Florida House staff analysis. The loss grows to $96 million in the fiscal year 2026-27.

That’s a heck of a lot of money.

The amendment says the state would make up for the losses in Florida’s 29 “fiscally constrained” counties, primarily rural counties in the Panhandle and South Florida’s interior. For the rest, the money is being drained from local governments, and the make-up money would have to come from our sales taxes or higher property taxes. How is this fair?

This amendment, proposed by the Florida Legislature, includes too many professionals declared “first-responders,” even when it’s more accurate to consider them public-service employees. For example, it includes state child-welfare employees.

Besides the lost revenue, this means property appraisers across the state would have to find ways to determine the legitimacy of those who say they are eligible for the tax break.

No doubt, this is a heartfelt proposal. First responders are a crucial part of our society, and so is everyone else who would be eligible for this break. But here’s our question: Why doesn’t the Legislature increase the salaries for these first responders, especially those who are not making a lot of money. After all, some are making in the six figures. Should we also subsidize a big-city police chief?

And remember, once incorporated into Florida’s Constitution, the only way to reverse such a perk would be to amend the document, which requires a 60% supermajority of voters to approve it. That means we’re passing on this legacy to Floridian in the future.

This permanent tax break pus a permanent burden on taxpayers. The Miami Herald Editorial Board recommends NO on Constitutional Amendment 3.

This story was originally published October 20, 2022 at 1:20 PM.