Fla. Residents: Vote 'Yes' to Amendment 2 to Avert Tax Crisis
As the property appraisers for Florida's three largest counties, we urge all voters to pay close attention to Amendment 2 on the upcoming November ballot. The amendment asks voters whether to make permanent a 10-percent limit on the annual increase in assessed value of anonhomestead property.
October 12, 2018 at 09:59 AM
4 minute read
As the property appraisers for Florida's three largest counties, we urge all voters to pay close attention to Amendment 2 on the upcoming November ballot. The amendment asks voters whether to make permanent a 10 percent limit on the annual increase in assessed value of a nonhomestead property.
A “yes” vote will avert a sudden and largely unexpected tax crisis for more than 530,000 residential and business property owners in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Broward counties.
Most residential property owners in Florida enjoy the tax savings afforded by two $25,000 homestead exemptions. Business owners, rental property owners, second homeowners and part-time retirees whose permanent residence is in another state are not eligible for those exemptions. For them, Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2008 that placed a 10-percent limit on the annual increase in assessed value of a nonhomestead property. Over the past 10 years, these property owners have enjoyed significant tax savings because of this cap.
What many people do not know is that the 10-percent cap on nonhomestead property is set to expire at the end of 2018. If Amendment 2 does not pass, more than a half-million residential and commercial property owners in South Florida will shoulder a total tax increase of $422 million effective Jan. 1, 2019. In Palm Beach County alone, 134,592 property owners will share the cost of an additional $66.3 million in taxes. In Broward County, 170,000 property owners share the cost of an additional $88.5 million in taxes and in Miami-Dade County, 227,680 property owners share the cost of an additional $267.5 million in taxes.
For many high-value commercial property owners, the prospect of such an increase may be barely noticeable. However, please do not think that this is a problem for someone else who can easily afford it. Consider the ripple effect of a repeal of the 10-percent cap. Think about the rental property owner who raises rent to make ends meet or the small-business owner—your favorite produce stand, car repair shop or family-owned restaurant—who raises prices to cover the additional cost.
The owner of a duplex in a South Florida community forgot that the 10 percent cap was temporary and was surprised to learn that without it, the assessed value of his property will increase by 21 percent on Jan. 1. In addition, his tax payment, compared to last year, will increase by 13.7 percent, or $654, rather than the $300 to $400 annual increases he has experienced from year to year with the cap in place. He prides himself on keeping the rental rates below average for the area so he can maintain good tenants, but admits that his ability to continue doing that will be hampered, if Amendment 2 does not pass.
Finally, consider Florida's part-time retirees, many of whom are on fixed incomes, whose contribution to our local economy benefits us all year long. Can South Florida continue to attract part-time retirees, if the cap expires?
What is perhaps most concerning about the cap's looming deadline is that many of the people whom it will directly affect are unaware of the cap and its expiration date. We encourage all voters to talk to friends, family, local business owners and the part-time retirees in your neighborhood about the importance of this amendment. If you are the owner of a nonhomestead property, we welcome you to call our offices to find out how the repeal of the 10-percent cap will affect your property.
Pedro J. Garcia is the property appraiser for Miami-Dade County, Marty Kiar is the property appraiser for Broward County and Dorothy Jacks is the property appraiser for Palm Beach County.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
- 2The Lawyers Picked by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Term
- 3Pa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
- 4Depo-Provera MDL Could Be Headed to California
- 5Judge Holds New York City in Contempt Over Conditions at City Jails
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250