"Stretching Truth" on Amendment 1?

In the St. Petersburg Times, Alex Leary draws attention to "truth-stretching" in the Florida property tax debate.

Leary argues that proponents of Amendment 1 are suggesting, falsely, that homeowners will see bigger tax cuts than many are likely to. In fairness, this isn't the simplest thing to characterize: there are two kinds of property tax cut involved in Amendment 1. Homeowners who aren't going anywhere will receive a larger homestead exemption, with an annual tax cut averaging $240. But homeowners who do sell their homes (as long as their next home is in Florida) will see a larger benefit, as they'll get to keep the tax break they gradually accumulated due to the "Save our Homes" assessed value cap. So it's hard to characterize the "average tax cut" in a soundbite.

But even this nuanced explanation of the expected tax cut omits the troubling fact that the huge cost of the resulting homeowner tax breaks-- call it Save Our Homes on Steroids-- would force local governments to jack up property tax rates on the remaining base-- including what's left of the homeowner tax base. And the indirect cost to the public in terms of reduced quality public services won't be known until it's too late.

Because the Florida legislature punted on its chance to enact true tax reform by creating a "circuit breaker" credit that ties property taxes to ability to pay, there's no point in wishing that the current debate would focus less on how big everyone's tax cut is, and more on why this particular type of tax cut is the right move (which it's not).

But I'll go ahead and wish that anyway.

Police Chiefs Oppose Amendment One

The Sun-Sentinel reports that the Florida Police Chiefs Association is the latest group to weigh in against Amendment 1, the ballot measure that would double Florida's property tax homestead exemption. The (sensible) reason: they're afraid the resulting hit to local governments would endanger funding for basic police functions.

For that matter, the Association thinks these functions are already in danger:

[Juno Beach Police Chief H.C. "Skip"] Clark said police departments across the state have already had to make budget cuts as the result of the Legislature's mandate last year that cities roll back taxes. Some departments have frozen open positions, eliminated officers at elementary schools and consolidated services.

As they have throughout the fall, proponents of Amendment One are poo-pooing this idea:

"You're telling me the first thing they're going to cut is police and fire? I find that intellectually dishonest ... not being forthright with voters," said Senate Finance and Tax Chairman Mike Haridopolos, R-Indiatlantic.If faced with less revenue, Haridopolos said, city officials will have to prioritize their spending and "the basic responsibility of local government is police, fire and roads."

In other words, police groups should stop worrying, because the cuts will come from other areas first. This is a dispiritingly narrow way of defending this tax cut: Haridoupolos is basically saying "why should you oppose something that doesn't hurt you?" Leaving aside the problem that police groups are saying their budgets have, in fact, been hurt already, that's not the way policy decisions should be made. It's not about whether you personally win or lose-- it's about whether the proposed change is the right thing to do.

Anyway, chalk up one more statement of opposition to the amendment...