Amendment 3 Goes Too Far!
By: Jack Kardys
Retired Director, Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces
Amendment #3 Goes Too Far!
Thank you Eleanor for a great post on coaching our broadening our definition of public safety. As Eleanor posted, “a safe community is not simply one where someone responds when an emergency happens. It is a community that has the resources to prepare for emergencies, maintain its infrastructure, protect its residents, provide places for people to gather and thrive, and sustain the quality of life that makes people want to call that community home.”
in 2016, Miami-Dade County began studying the impacts of restoring afterschool sports development programming in neighborhoods where juvenile crime had spiked during the great recession. What we found by 2017, after 2 years of restored programming, juvenile crime had been reduced by 31% within a half mile radius around our parks. So, not only are we the stewards of land and facilities that serve in disaster recovery but also serve as the premier youth crime prevention programs throughout the community. We have a broader impact on community safety and health than any single department in municipal and county government and the data proves it!
The problem with Amendment #3 is that what constitutes public safety is at best vague and can easily be manipulated to exclude parks and programs from the funding prioritization of whatever might actually be left in the property tax coffers after they are so profoundly reduced. Access for all to parks and programs, especially for those who cannot afford it, may well cease to exist in Florida.
Before anyone casts a vote for or against Amendment #3 we should remember why Florida established Home Rule in the first place: because decisions that are fundamentally local should generally be made by the people who live in those communities and the local officials they elect. The concept of Home Rule is straightforward: Tallahassee should not make every decision for every Florida community. Without a doubt, Amendment #3 goes too far!
The Florida Constitution does more than recognize Home Rule—it separately establishes the framework for local taxation. It provides for counties and municipalities to levy ad valorem taxes for their respective purposes and establishes constitutional millage limitations, generally 10 mills for county purposes and 10 mills for municipal purposes. Florida voters also approved the Save Our Homes amendment for homesteaded property, limiting annual increases in assessed value to 3 percent or the increase in the Consumer Price Index and providing portability to transfer accumulated assessment value to a new homestead.
The point is Florida already has a constitutional framework that attempts to balance taxpayer protection with the ability of local governments to finance local services. Florida's property-tax system was never designed to give local governments UNRESTRICTED access to rising property values. Local property taxation and local self-government have coexisted within Florida's constitutional structure for more than half a century. And there is a practical reason for that: Florida is not one homogeneous community with one set of homogenous needs.
Miami-Dade is different from Monroe County. A small rural community is different from Fort Lauderdale, Tampa or Orlando. Coastal communities face hurricane protection, stormwater, flooding and infrastructure challenges that may be very different from those confronting inland communities. Rapidly growing cities may need additional parks, police officers, firefighters, roads and public facilities. Older communities may face expensive replacement of aging infrastructure.
Residents also have different expectations concerning the level of local services they want. One community may support extensive parks, libraries, recreation programs and public safety services. Another may prefer fewer services and lower taxes. Home Rule provides an important mechanism for accommodating those differences. But there is an important difference between establishing reasonable statewide safeguards and substantially restricting the principal general revenue source upon which local governments depend to provide locally determined services. Not all municipalities, counties or neighborhoods can afford to take a hit like the proposed $250,000 homestead exemption. What happens to them? Will they cease to exist? Will they become wards of the State?
Instead of fixing Florida’s real problems like homeowners insurance, State legislators propose a bait and switch of community property tax revenues with some unknown, yet to be determined regressive taxing scheme, usurping county and municipal authority provided for in Home Rule to make decisions based on the needs and wants of the local residents.
Their original ballot language was shot down by the courts for its blatant attempt to mischaracterize and inaccurately portray the intent and outcome of this power grab to ultimately create a pathway for the full elimination of non-school property taxes on homesteads. To add insult to injury, state legislators are telling the electorate what “core services” they will allow property tax revenues to be used for, restricting their use solely for core public needs including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, and natural resources. The devil will be in the detail of how these are defined by the legislature AFTER the votes are tallied and just where community parks and recreation fit.
By codifying an ambiguous list of allowable expenses at the local level, Amendment #3 would preempt local choices about what services to finance with property taxes. Without replacing the lost revenue created by the $250,000 homestead exemption or the potential full elimination of non-school property taxes, overall funding for local services would have to decrease and localities would have to prioritize allowable expenditures like public safety, a term most often used to narrowly define police services, over other expenses.
As my dear friend Micky Fearn, former National Park Service Deputy says, “We must end the perception that recreation is done with leftover time, on leftover land, with leftover money.” Given the false flag choice of an intentionally vague definition of public safety, an unenlightened electorate may likely vote for the amendment, rationalizing away any potential impact on park and program access. If I’ve learned anything working in and around government for 46 years, it is that their original ballot language speaks volumes about their intent and is exactly where they will go, given the opportunity! While we can do our best to expand the definition of public safety to include parks and recreation after the vote, it may well be that this ship has sailed and our future will be determined by user fees and select special assessment districts where recreation and parks can be afforded by higher income residents. Access for all will cease to exist in our state.
None of this means property taxes should be immune from criticism. Taxpayers should demand efficiency from their local governments. They should question unnecessary spending, examine employee and administrative costs, challenge excessive millage rates and insist that increases in property values do not automatically become an excuse for continuously expanding government. And Home Rule provides a powerful accountability mechanism for doing exactly that.
For more than 50 years, Florida's constitutional structure has recognized both meaningful local self-government and locally levied property taxation within defined limits. Vote no for Amendment #3 and tell your legislators with your vote to work on the real priorities and let Home Rule charter do what it is intended to do and ultimately protect access for all to parks and recreation.
Jack Kardys is retired Director of Miami Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces, and now provides consultation services to parks and recreation agencies