On taxes, let the voters decide

By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published September 27, 2007

A Leon Circuit Court judge's decision that a constitutional amendment on property tax relief must be removed from the January ballot has triggered plenty of political maneuvering in Tallahassee. Some support appealing the ruling. Some want to abandon the amendment and quickly pursue even greater tax cuts in a legislative special session scheduled to start next week. Others no longer support the amendment and want to let it die and sit tight for a bit.

The most prudent approach: Fix the ballot language to address the judge's concerns, and let voters decide the amendment's fate on Jan. 29. It is more important to hear their voices now in the great tax cut debate than more bluster from pandering politicians in Tallahassee.

Judge Charles Francis reasonably concluded that the ballot language is misleading when it talks about "preserving application of Save Our Homes provisions." In fact, the amendment would prevent anyone who does not have a homestead exemption now or who buys another homesteaded house after the amendment passed from qualifying for Save Our Homes. Save Our Homes would continue to exist only for those current homesteaded property owners who chose to keep it instead of opting for a new super exemption.

It would be reasonable to expect more care from legislators and their lawyers in wording constitutional amendments. But this is what happens when amendments are quickly rewritten in the dead of night, out of public view, and legislators are forced to approve them hours later without careful consideration or any possibility of further changes. Judges, not voters, wind up deciding policy issues.

In a perfect world, Gov. Charlie Crist and the Legislature could see a silver lining in the judge's ruling and craft a more thoughtful amendment that could command broader support. After all, more than a few lawmakers who voted to put this one on the ballot now oppose it. And the prospects that the amendment will win the 60 percent voter approval required for it to take effect are shaky at best.

The sad reality is the time is not ripe for a sensible approach to tax relief. The Legislature already has its plate full during the special session with $1-billion in difficult budget cuts to make and the fate of no-fault auto insurance hanging in the air. House Speaker Marco Rubio, while open to rewriting the amendment language, seems more interested in rushing to push more draconian tax cuts. No wonder Senate President Ken Pruitt wants to buy time, appeal the judge's ruling and focus on the budget cuts.

Beyond the wording of the ballot language, the constitutional amendment has serious flaws. It does not provide property tax relief for Floridians who really need it, the small business owners and other nonhomesteaded property owners. It allows current homesteaded property owners to choose their own tax relief, either Save Our Homes or the new super exemption of up to $195,000 on homes up to $500,000 in value. It blows a $7-billion hole over four years in the public education budget, and the governor and the Legislature have not explained how they would fill it.

But the amendment would provide some measure of tax relief portability for homeowners who want to move, and it eventually could produce a fairer property tax system than the current one. It is the best the Legislature could come up with, and voters deserve an opportunity to decide the amendment's fate on its merits. Lawmakers should clarify the ballot language during the special session, and the voices of all Florida voters should be heard in January.

[Last modified September 26, 2007, 23:19:09]