What would it take to please these folks?

Columnist Eric Ernst writing in the Herald Tribune said “With taxes, no answer will ever be perfect - To hear the critics tell it, our houses will burn down and our children will be hit by cars on the way to school if we pass the state constitutional tax amendment on the Jan. 29 ballot.

Business owners grouse that a 10 percent cap isn't enough. These are the same people who complained their property taxes had been rising 100, 200, 300 percent in one year. Now a 10 percent cap isn't enough? What would it take to please these folks?

The rest of us aren't much better. We tell the state legislators our taxes are too high. So they give us an opportunity to lower them. Then we say: "Whoa. That means county and city governments won't have as much money to spend."

Supporters

Supporters of the amendment argue that county and local governments can provide the same services they are now providing with a great deal less money.

Many businesses and part-time residents have faced escalating property taxes as property values have shot up in the last decade or so.

There are some people who would like to sell their homes and either move up or down, but can't because of the increase in property taxes they would face because they would lose the Save Our Homes tax cap.

That costs sales for both builders and real estate agents.

Critics

Critics argue that there are real problems faced by local governments.

As population grows, so does the demand for services.

Crist made a comment recently that local governments used to have a lot less tax money to spend and still managed to provide police and fire protection.

Critics say that's true. but what his statement ignores is that the population used to be a great deal smaller. So was the cost of living.

So while local governments got by with less money, they had less need for money.

There are more crimes, car crashes, heart attacks, neighborhoods and streets to patrol, fires calls to answer, etc. etc.

So there is a need for more people on the streets and more people in administration to run things.

And the cost of living is higher, which means you have to pay those law enforcement officers, fire fighters and EMTs more so they can afford to live decently.

More people mean more roads need to be built, and after they are built, they have to be maintained.

And more houses and businesses have been built, which means you have to have more building inspectors, planners and other folks to make sure the buildings are safe.

More kids live in this county and state than 10 years and more ago - which means more parks and other recreational opportunities are needed.

And as the population grows, the need is not only for more parks but also for a greater variety of parks because the critical mass of kids interested in a particular activity reaches a point where playing fields are needed.

Today there are kids who want to play football, baseball, softball and soccer, as well as basketball and tennis. And many of those sports are played nearly all year long by a large variety of leagues.

According to the critics to expect local governments to provide the same services they do today with the revenues from yesteryear is just not logical.

Counter argument 

Countering these arguments supporters of the amendment say that with large growth comes more new homes, with more people selling their homes and upgrading. This comes with impact fees and higher tax bills because most people when they sell and re-buy purchase a larger more expensive home. More businesses to serve this growth in residents which also pay taxes to operate their business. The more retail sells due to the growth local governments earn more taxes. Local governments need to take a closer look at what they approve or disapprove to spend tax dollars on. To make sure what they approve is what we need.

Alachua County

In Alachua County, FL officials said that the Save Our Homes portability plank of the Jan. 29 statewide tax-cut initiative should not cost Alachua County government any revenue, .

County Management and Budget Director Suzanne Gable said as long as the county has continued growth in the overall value of property and in the income of residents, it should offset any losses that could come from the measure.

Commentary

In a commentary titled "Money-hungry governments force tax vote" Lauren Ritchie wrote in the Orlando Sentinel on January 20, 2008 "But I'm going to hold my nose and vote for it. The reason is simple: getting even a portion of what taxpayers are entitled to is better than nothing.

After all that blather from legislators this fall about a thoughtful, intelligent reform of the tax system, voters now are stuck with something that could have been dreamed up by trained chimps using calculators from the Dollar General.

This is only a tax cut, and not a big one, either.

The fact that it's even being offered to voters is a measure of two important things -- the inability of the state Legislature to create a fair tax structure and, most importantly, the inability of elected officials to control themselves with a credit card."

Editorials

Sun-Sentinel Editorial on January 20th said "Constitutional Amendment 1, the property tax proposal before voters on the Jan. 29 ballot, is not a winning lottery ticket.

It's more like hoping for something huge, but instead picking three of the six numbers and taking home a few bucks. Nothing life-changing, not dramatic. But at least it's something, and it's surely more than voters have received up to now."

Keeping that in mind, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board recommends a "yes" vote on Amendment 1."

Also on January 20, 2008 Bradenton Herald's editorial said "Yes on tax cut - Amendment 1 will slow spending. Florida's politicians have put voters between a rock and a hard place with Amendment 1. And in this era of sky-high property taxes and runaway government spending, we support passage.

We need to send a strong message to politicians and bureaucrats. Taxes and budgets are out of control. Residents cannot afford to pay them any longer.

While Amendment 1 does not fix an inequitable tax system, it does put an estimated $9.3 billion back into taxpayers' hands over five years. That will help rein in government spending, and that's a good thing - one we hope is just the beginning of more meaningful tax reform to come. The public outcry for that needs to continue."

So there you have it. It's bad, but leaving things the way they are is probably worse.

Happy voting.