"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.