TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Hernando Today

'Yes' On 1 A No-Brainer

ADVERTISEMENT

By CHRIS WESSEL

Write Stuff

Published: January 28, 2008

OK, I'm new here, but as I understand it, we can go to the polls on Tuesday and vote to cut our exorbitant property taxes.
Or we can cast a ballot against cutting our excessive property taxes.
OK, so who in their right mind would vote against such a measure?
Government bureaucrats and unions representing them who have gotten fat and happy spending the cash cow's money, that's who. They won't be too delighted if taxpayers don't continue to fill their troughs as full in the future. And they have much glut to lose. That's why they're coming out with all sorts of campaign scare tactics and gobbledygook reasons to try to convince voters that cutting their property taxes would somehow be a bad thing, a nightmare, a sham.
Emergency services would be cut, so your house will burn to the ground. Schools will lose funding, so Johnny won't be able to read. It's not real tax reform; it's a gimmick for the wealthy. Amendment 1 is flawed and adds further inequities to the state's already inequitable property tax structure. It's not fair to nonresident property owners. Government officials can simply raise mill levies to make up for the loss in revenue.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Horsehockey, as M*A*S*H's Col. Potter used to say.
Here's what Amendment 1 will really do: It will take about $300 out of the pockets of bloated government by keeping it in yours. I don't know about you, but I'd rather save or spend that money than have government squander it for me.
If, for instance, Hernando County's budget hadn't more than doubled in the past six years while the population climbed 21 percent, I could better understand the opposition's point of view. If property values, and subsequently taxes, hadn't skyrocketed in the past six years, I could better see their point of view. If government hadn't wasted so much money on incredible raises and grandiose expenditures, I could better sympathize with their point of view.
But I don't.
I have empathy for the overburdened taxpayer and understand that when the taxpayer has more money to spend, the economy improves. When government has more of the taxpayers' money to spend, the economy suffers.
Why do you think the feds want to send out checks to everyone to spark our stagnating economy? Amendment 1 would do the same statewide.
Besides, Amendment 1 wouldn't be on Tuesday's ballot if local governments had been responsible in reducing tax levies when millions more in tax dollars kept rolling in to stuff the coffers.
What's happened in recent years is that local governments have convinced themselves that they're more important than the taxpayer. "Government Gone Wild" wasn't conceived from a fairytale. The truth is government has not been altogether good stewards of our hard-earned tax dollars. A Hernando Today series last summer documented much of the abuse.
If I understand correctly, Amendment 1 basically is a way for voters to tell their elected officials to learn to lead with less — forget excessive raises, get by with fewer employees, buy fewer new vehicles, learn to live with something less than a John Deere, understand that government works for the taxpayer and not vice-versa.
Amendment 1 will send a message to government officials that the blank-check days of eternal growth and skyrocketing property values are over, that government officials must learn to live within their means, sharpen their pencils and look for ways to do business cheaper, leaner and better — to do more with less.
After all, isn't that what private business that funds this government excess has had to do?
Most of us don't get huge raises every year. Many of us can't afford a new vehicle. Lots of us have to settle with something less expensive than a John Deere. That's government arrogance.
On Tuesday, the voters have an opportunity to tell their elected officials: "It's time to operate within our means."
The way I understand it, the electorate can cast a ballot in favor of Amendment 1 that would essentially double the Homestead Exemption from $25,000 to $50,000 on properties with values of $75,000 and higher; add a $25,000 exemption to the tangible property taxes that businesses pay; add portability to the Save Our Homes legislation to allow homestead property owners to transfer up to $500,000 of their SOH tax benefit to their next primary home; and cap at 10 percent each year rises in assessments of nonhomestead properties.
That's, of course, as long as the politicians don't simply raise mill levies to make up for the loss in revenue.
Amendment 1 will have little to no effect on the funding of public education. Property value declines may. Longtime homeowners won't lose their 3 percent cap, even though that's been one of the scare tactics used. Private businesses, especially smaller ones, will benefit greatly from the $25,000 exemption on tangible property — an unfair business tax that should be eliminated anyway. Government will always work to cut excess before essential services and personnel are cut, so emergency services would likely be the last to see reductions. The truth is, they could probably use a good look under the microscope as well, especially when it comes to consolidation.
Here's another way to think about it: If Amendment 1 is so bad and passage of it will lead to all these ruinous things, maybe that will finally be impetus enough to get our local government leaders and our lawmakers in Tallahassee to get serious about providing real tax reform for the property owners of Florida.
The taxpayer has lived with the pain long enough.
A "No" vote will send a message to Tallahassee that this issue isn't that important to the electorate, and lawmakers will set their priorities on other issues.
A "Yes" vote will get their attention.
Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

Chris Wessel, editor of Hernando Today, can be reached at 352-544-5295 or by e-mail at wwessel@hernandotoday.com.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT