One of the basic tenants of the Martin County Taxpayers’ Association is that we remain apolitical by addressing issues and letting our members/readers determine how to vote. However, we are daily asked how we recommend residents vote on the Property Tax Amendment included on the January 29 election ballot. Since this subject is central to our very existence, our Board overwhelmingly decided to actively recommend voting “YES” on the amendment, in addition to providing rationale that supports that conclusion.

We have come to this decision even though we have concerns with the Amendment.  In general, we are against legislators obviating their responsibility by having voters amend the constitution to achieve what they do not have the political courage to do.  We disagree with the decision that School Taxes be excluded from this legislation. We also disagree with the lack of property tax relief this amendment provides businesses, commercial properties, and non-homesteaded property owners.  They, not the homesteaded residents, bare the brunt of the County’s overspending.  The facts that part time residents cannot participate in our elections, and commercial owners are seriously underrepresented among voters, are major factors that have allowed such spending.  If elected officials have lots of money coming in without negative political consequences from acquiring or spending it, what is their incentive not to do so?  Our constant warnings over many years certainly did not have any appreciable effect.

Having said all of the above, we have several major reasons that mandate our support.  First and foremost, if voters do not approve this amendment because they are waiting for an even better one from Tallahassee, or anticipate self-restraint by local politicians; they will certainly get neither.  This amendment places major curbs on spending while obviously pandering to those with the most votes.  If this does not pass, what message does it send to the politicians?   It has taken years to convince them that taxes are too high and unconstrained spending is ruining our economy.  If voters reject this amendment it would certainly not encourage more stringent legislation/amendments from Tallahassee, or curb local excesses.

The second reason is the “portability of homestead exclusions” that the mendment provides.  This will allow residents to take the property tax exemption built over time in their current home to a new one.   There are many residents stuck in their current home because of the huge increase in taxes that would result by moving.  Older retirees that need to downsize to a more affordable home cannot do so locally because the increase in taxes from losing their current homestead exemption can far outweigh any mortgage savings.  Our younger residents with growing families that need a larger home are even more constrained.  Not only do they face a larger mortgage, they will have even larger tax increases.   This amendment will provide relief in both cases and perhaps be a factor in keeping both groups (that are corner stones of our economy) from moving to more affordable areas of the country.   It may also provide help to the local economy that is, like it or not, mostly based on providing an excellent location to live.

Tertiary reasons include the additional $25,000 homestead exemption possibility and the10% cap on other commercial and non-homesteaded property. While the additional exemption may help some lower income residents, it will have little effect on most owners or home sales. Combined with portability it becomes slightly more relevant. The 10 % cap on non-homesteaded property is largely ineffectual as a tax savings and more an effort to add some reason for business owners to support the amendment.

In summary, we believe currently homesteaded residents have major reasons to approve the amendment with no discernable downside. New residents/homebuyers have minor reasons to support with no downside. Non-homestead property owners receive little direct benefit, but it should restrict spending and can provide a foundation for further tax relief. More importantly, disapproval will provide no help for anyone, and no incentive for timely relief by any elected official.