LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

State Needs To Probe

More Insurance Companies

State officials should investigate Citizen's Insurance along with Allstate. We arrived from Ohio in fall 2006.We purchased a home in Spring Hill in Hernando County. Citizen's was the only company issuing new homeowner's insurance. Our home was $245,000.The yearly tax bill, including sinkhole coverage, was $3,800. Ohio homeowners insurance was $350 on a $200,000 home.

After tax reform, we received a letter from Citizen's Insurance stating renewal cost. Much lower.

The only glitch was that amount did not include sinkhole coverage. We were informed we had to go to the insurance office by a specific date and sign a request to re-institute the coverage. We were told we would have to do this each year. The new legislation allows the "catastrophic" insurance provision to cover your home after it is condemned. We would not feel safe waiting for our home to be condemned if problems occurred.

Our new cost for the insurance with the sinkhole coverage added back - $3,800. We were then handed off to a startup company. Same cost, but you do not have to return to the office each year to document your desire for sinkhole coverage. We wonder how many people understood the whole deal.

Jean and JimBandy

Spring Hill

Vote 'Yes' on Amendment 1

I support Amendment 1. I believe the current bad economic conditions in the housing market are a result of the flawed property tax structure. We need change now and here's why.

First, the current property tax is regressive. It tends to bear down harder on those poorer families than richer ones because the poorer families spend so much more of their income on housing. Voting "Yes" on the amendment will exempt an additional $25,000 from taxable value, thereby allowing those on fixed or low to moderate incomes to pay lower taxes. Freed up tax money could then be used to buy other goods and services that would bolster the economy.

Secondly, the property tax is divisive. Since the true value of any property can't be known until it is sold requires assessors to estimate values, which has resulted in huge value difference and inequities within districts. These value differences and inequities have pitted neighbor against neighbor, district against district. Voting "Yes" on Amendment 1 would help level these value differences by exempting an additional $25,000 and allow homeowners the flexibility to keep or take with them their current savings.

Third, the current property tax structure encourages a kind of "fiscal zoning" that perpetuates the lack of affordable housing by requiring larger minimum home and lot sizes that increase the cost of housing and the tax base but discourage building smaller more affordable homes.

In summary, I believe voting "Yes On 1" will be the first step in reversing the bad economic effects resulting from the property tax.

Lynda L. Ghaedi

Spring Hill

Vote 'No' On Amendment 1

I would urge everyone to vote "No" on the property tax amendment.

In my opinion, this amendment will not lead to a reduction in taxes for the average homeowner. Since the amendment doesn't restrict alternative tax schemes, we will see a reduction in ad valorem taxes, benefiting the owners of the most expensive homes. But the tax burden will be shifted to special tax districts and MSBUs, so that for most homeowners, property taxes will go up.

The class warfare nature of this amendment is revealed by the "doubling" of the homestead exemption. The exemption is doubled for households worth $75,000 or more. Homesteads worth less than that will still have to pay taxes on the second $25,000. This provision preserves a prime function of property taxes: Force lower income people out of their homes to make way for development.

One of the major complaints that people have about the property tax system is the Save Our Homes law. Under this law, property tax increases are restricted, so that longtime homeowners pay lower taxes than newcomers in similar homes. I think that Save Our Homes was a good idea. It helps retirees stay in their homes and preserves community stability. But the amendment makes the Save Our Homes valuations portable. So, under the new amendment, a homeowner can flip a house worth more than $500,000, move to a house worth less than that and pay no taxes at all. How is it fair to create a class of people who are exempt from property taxes forever?

The amendment changes Save Our Homes into an incentive for real estate speculation. That's what caused the property tax crisis in the first place.

The property tax system in Florida makes a mockery of the concept of home ownership. How can a person be said to "own" a home when she has to keep shoveling hundreds or thousands of dollars per month into local government in order to stay where she is? If Florida is to survive longterm, we need to make it possible for people to pay off their mortgages and be secure in their homes and businesses. That means having a tax system based on ability to pay. Get rid of the property tax on homesteads. Tax small businesses on gross receipts, not on the "highest valued use" of their real estate.

In short, Amendment 1 doesn't do what it purports to do. For most homeowners, it will lead to higher, not lower, taxes. I think we should hold out for real tax reform, ideally getting rid of taxes on homesteads entirely. Vote "No" on Amendment 1.

Dallas Dunlap

Brooksville