Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

The two roads to tax relief

By RICK KRISEMAN, Special to the Times
Published June 2, 2007

The special session on property taxes is fast approaching, and yet we seem no closer to a solution now than we did at the end of the regular session, when leaders in the House and Senate praised themselves for avoiding an "11th-hour" solution. Such praise is misplaced. What were the leadership's priorities during the first 10 hours? The Legislature I belong to should have been debating, discussing and crafting a solution for property tax relief since the conclusion of January's special session on insurance. How could we spend 60 days in Tallahassee without enacting any meaningful legislation providing property tax relief?

Of course, property taxes weren't the only issue to go unresolved during the legislative session. Despite my pleas and the pleas of many of my colleagues, the leadership neglected children by failing to restructure and simplify KidCare, in a state where 700,000 of our most vulnerable citizens are without health insurance. The leadership risked the sunsetting of Florida's no-fault auto insurance system, which will leave millions without a safety net for their medical care. And while the House attempted to right 24 years of wrongs, how could the Senate fail to provide relief to Alan Crotzer, while approving a budget that allocated $1.3-million for landscaping on ritzy Las Olas Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale?

While I would like to see all of these issues addressed in the upcoming special session, there is a rightful emphasis on property tax relief.

As both a homeowner and the owner of commercial property, I understand the impact increased property taxes can have on our livelihood. My personal experience, combined with my nearly six years of service on the St. Petersburg City Council, gives me a unique perspective on the issue of property tax relief.

While I believe the city of St. Petersburg has been fiscally responsible (St. Petersburg's budget for 2007 increased by less than 5 percent over the previous year's budget), many of this state's cities and counties have not been as responsible with taxpayer dollars. When the value of our homes increased, many local governments spent the additional revenues on worthwhile programs and projects, in an effort to improve the quality of life in their communities. Those same cities and counties must now tighten their belts, but the Legislature must be careful not to place too much of the burden on the backs of local government.

Philosophical policy decisions need to be made. In order for the Legislature to provide true property tax relief, we must have a serious policy debate regarding how we expect local government to fund the services they provide. In this debate, the Legislature has only two practical policy options from which to choose. Under the first option, local government would continue funding services via property taxes. If the Legislature decides that services should continue to be funded solely from property taxes, then one of two things will happen. Either citizens will receive significant property tax relief, resulting in local government services being severely impacted, or modest property tax relief will be provided, with only a slight decrease in services to citizens.

The second policy choice involves changing the manner in which cities and counties pay for the services they provide. Under this option, cities and counties could shift a portion of the cost of services from property taxes to revenues derived from the elimination of special interest tax exemptions. With this policy, all citizens could receive significant property tax relief while local governments could maintain the critical services which ensure our quality of life. This policy would require political bravery. It would require the Republican leadership to repeal $30-billion worth of exemptions. I think property owners will agree that this is no time for giveaways.

Under either policy, we must go beyond relief that focuses mainly on owners of homesteaded property. We must pay special attention to commercial property owners, to those who provide low-cost rentals, to first-time homeowners, to our seniors, and our poor. A recent analysis by this newspaper showed that the current legislative proposal leaves 55,000 area homeowners without relief, and that nearly half of those owning homes assessed at less than $100,000 would not benefit at all. This is unconscionable.

Florida is at a crossroads. Everything is at stake, from our pocketbooks to our quality of life. It's time for good ideas, not just big ideas.

Rick Kriseman, a Democrat, is the District 53 state representative from St. Petersburg.

[Last modified June 1, 2007, 22:07:38]