The first proposed amendment would authorize the legislature to stop local governments from considering flood-resistance improvements when calculating a property’s assessed value for property tax purposes. The second proposed amendment would abolish the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission, which meets every 20 years to review and propose changes to the document. The third proposed amendment would authorize additional homestead exemptions of up to $50,000 for specified critical front-line public employees.

To help Northwest Florida voters understand the proposed changes to the constitution, Sandpaper Publishing consulted three sources: Florida TaxWatch, the League of Women Voters, and the Miami Herald editorial board.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1: Prohibiting property tax on flood-resistance improvements

The proposed text of Amendment 1 would allow the legislature to “prohibit the consideration of any change or improvement made to real property used for residential purposes to improve the property’s resistance to flood damage in determining the assessed value of such property” for local tax purposes; if approved, the state could protect people who make improvements to their homes to guard against flooding from paying higher property taxes. The massive destruction caused by Hurricane Ian has added urgency to this measure.

Florida TaxWatch: YES. According to the 2022 voter’s guide, “climate change poses an existential and generational threat to Florida. The impacts of climate change on every sector of Florida’s economy will be catastrophic unless mitigated. Florida’s continued growth will increase populations and development in flood-prone areas, which will put still more people and property at risk.” The property tax protection will help encourage property owners to make storm-prevention improvements with only a minimal impact on services, TaxWatch claims.

League of Women Voters of Florida: no position. “While the League has a longstanding position that ‘no tax sources or revenue should be specified, limited, exempted, or prohibited in the Constitution’ … Florida has been subject to major destructive storms and flooding across our state in the past; Floridians could be positively impacted by efforts to create more sustainability within our state.’”

Miami Herald: NO. The Herald’s editorial board argues that the proposal is well-intentioned but not well thought-out. The phrase “any change or improvement” is vague, it argues, and could be abused. Besides, it adds, the state already has a program called My Safe Florida Home to help eligible homeowners improve their homes’ vulnerability to storm damage. “Giving tax breaks only shifts the burden of taxation to other homeowners. That is not the best way to address the threat of sea-level rise and climate change to the Sunshine State.”

PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2: Abolishing the Constitution Revision Commission

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission meets every 20 years to review the state constitution and propose changes (In 2017-2018, it offered eight ballot initiatives). The CRC can address issues ignored by the Legislature in front of Florida voters and is the only vehicle, except for citizen petition drives and the Legislature, which can place proposed amendments on the ballot. The commission comprises 37 members, named by the governor, the House speaker, the Senate president and the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court.

Florida TaxWatch: YES. Abolishing the Constitution Review Commission has wide bipartisan support, according to TaxWatch, because it has “strayed from its original mission and become captive to special interests,” according to the Florida National Organization for Women and “did a poor job following its own procedural rules,” according to AFL-CIO Florida. TaxWatch noted that proposed amendments can be placed on the ballot without the commission.

League of Women Voters of Florida: NO. The Legislature already has “significantly” restricted the citizen initiative for amending the constitution. It noted that the 2017 Constitution Revision Commission “was political and questions put before the votes were ‘bundled’ in ways that made it difficult to separate valid issues,” adding that the commission should be saved, but the Legislature should require bipartisan membership and ensure proposed amendments address a single issue. “Eliminating the Constitution Revision Commission will remove a generational opportunity for citizens to update their constitution. The League opposes any limits on citizens’ abilities to be architects of their own Florida Constitution.”

Miami Herald: NO. Editors agreed that the commission has become overtly political and noted the same failings listed by TaxWatch. But, they said, “Banishing the CRC, a proposal from a Republican legislator, seems like another move by the powers-that-be in Tallahassee to muzzle voters’ voices, so that the Legislature becomes the only voice, which Floridians should deem unacceptable.”

PROPOSED AMENDMENT 3: Homestead exemptions for critical public employees

This amendment would grant additional homestead tax exemptions for non-school levies of up to $50,000 of the assessed value of homestead property owned by “Specified Critical Public Services Workforce”: classroom teachers, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, child welfare services professionals, active-duty members of the United States Armed Forces, and Florida National Guard members. The Legislature already has passed a bill that would implement the exemptions on Jan. 1, 2023, if the proposed amendment passes.

Florida TaxWatch: YES. TaxWatch suggests that the exemption for these workers is “well-deserved.” It notes that other taxpayers will pay more to make up the difference but said the state must address shortages in these critical jobs. “In general, Florida TaxWatch opposes efforts to shift the tax burden from one segment of the population to another. In this instance, however, Florida TaxWatch believes the benefits of Amendment 3 far outweigh the negative consequences of a tax shift.”

League of Women Voters of Florida: NO. This proposal may have merit, but the League has a longstanding position that “no tax sources or revenue should be specified, limited, exempted, or prohibited in the constitution.”

Miami Herald: NO. The editorial board recognizes the intent to encourage more critical workers to choose jobs in Florida, but said the cost is too high – as much as $86 million the first fiscal year; includes too many workers whose “critical workforce” status is questionable; and would be difficult to reverse if included in the state’s constitution. “That means we’re passing on this legacy to Floridian in the future. This permanent tax break pus a permanent burden on taxpayers.”