Politics

Sides stretch truth on tax plan

Both supporters and opponents of Amendment 1 make dubious arguments.

By Alex Leary, Times Staff Writer
Published January 28, 2008

Gov. Charlie Crist stands next to Nancy Prieto of Tampa during a speech promoting Amendment 1. Crist has appeared statewide in TV ads and appearances trying to garner support for the property tax bill. Special report: The Amendment 1 decision
	[Daniel Wallace | Times]

ADVERTISEMENT Former state senator Rod Smith has put out a recorded phone call against Amendment 1.

With a day left and billions of dollars on the line, both sides of the property tax debate have sharpened their messages and shaded the truth to win over undecided voters.

Gov. Charlie Crist appears statewide in TV ads touting Amendment 1, while opponents settle for less expensive mailers and a radio spot that mocks the cuts as "so small" and yet crushing to schools, fire and police.

Both sides are after the small but critical number of voters who have not made up their minds.

A St. Petersburg Times poll last week found that 55 percent of voters support the tax cut package, which needs 60 percent support to pass. Thirty percent of voters polled oppose the measure.

Fourteen percent of voters were undecided, and combatants in the monthslong battle are charging to win them over - even if that means bending the facts.

Who pays for ads?

The opponents have collectively raised about $2-million, half of the $4-million supporters have pulled in. The advantage has allowed Crist to be on TV, the most effective way to reach voters in a state as big and diverse as Florida.

Half of Crist's money comes from two sources: the Florida Association of Realtors and Florida Power & Light Co., the state's largest utility. Smaller donations come from businesses that profit from the real estate market, such as Rooms To Go.

The opposition's campaign funds have come from unions, which fear job losses under the estimated $9.3-billion in cuts to local government and school budgets over five years. The Florida League of Cities has also contributed $801,000.

The money has been spent on fliers, radio ads, phone banks and other get-out-the-vote efforts, including a recorded call from Rod Smith, a former state senator and Democratic candidate for governor from Gainesville.

Portability

Vote Yes on 1, the political committee pushing the amendment, estimates that the average homeowner would be able to transfer $83,000 in tax benefit after moving and save $1,500 a year on the tax bill.

But that statistic, gleaned from state economic data, fails to note that homeowners who bought their houses during the recent real estate runup would have little Save Our Homes benefit. The St. Petersburg Times poll last week found that roughly one in three homeowners bought their home since 2000. And forecasters predict that fewer than 6 percent of homesteads will turn over in the next two years, meaning few homeowners will benefit from portability.

Homestead exemption

Proponents continue to imply that homeowners will see a bigger tax benefit than they will, while opponents have pounced on a relatively small benefit for out-of-state property owners and wrongly imply they'll make out better than Floridians.

Crist, who resumes his statewide tour in Tampa this morning, fudges in TV ads by saying the proposal "essentially" doubles the current $25,000 homestead exemption.

The increased exemption does not apply to school levies, which make up about 40 percent of an overall property tax bill, so the impact of the additional break is more like homeowners getting an additional $15,000 homestead exemption, not $25,000.

Even in a generous light, that's not "doubling." The average savings is $240 a year.

Inaccurate mailer

Like Crist, opponents are shading the truth.

The latest mailer from the Florida League of Cities' political action committee features bug-eyed residents shocked by the "Tallahassee tax scheme." The piece quotes newspaper editorials critical of the amendment and a tax watchdog group that calls it a "mistake and bad for Florida."

But the flier also incorrectly suggests that Amendment 1 gives out-of-state property owners a "chance to make thousands" while "regular Floridians get no real benefit." A previous mailer, featuring a smarmy looking guy in front of an expensive vacation home, was more suggestive.

In fact, most of the savings under Amendment 1 - $7.3-billion out of the overall $9.3-billion - is directed toward Florida homeowners.

The 10 percent assessment cap that would benefit nonhomestead property owners is not expected to have much effect in a soft real estate market.

The Florida League of Cities, which launched the attack through its political committee Citizens for Home Rule, insists there was no attempt to "juxtapose" the benefits for out-of-state and in-state residents. (Yet that is precisely what both mailers do.)

The main point, said lobbyist John Thomas, is that the proposal is unfair. "To just focus on one statement wouldn't be a fair way to evaluate" the mailer, he said.

No taxpayer money was used to produce the mailer, Thomas said. The $800,000 devoted toward killing Amendment 1 came from revenue that the League of Cities earns from its publications and space it rents to businesses at conventions, he said.

[Last modified January 27, 2008, 22:29:52]