[Muggy]

Why should everyone be allowed to keep it? That makes no sense at all. Sounds like everyone wants the best of both worlds. I say you get it once, for one house. It's not "save my house wherever I feel like going at whatever time."

The whole idea is to protect a person from huge tax increases. Why should Florida reward people that move around? Isn't that exactly what the SOH cap was protecting homeowners from, hordes of locusts?

[tallrick]

It's not fair as it benefits the wealthiest homeowners the most. A much fairer way is to raise the homestead exemption to 75% of home values, and remove the presumption of correctness from all assessments. Another good constitutional idea is to base assessments on purchase price. Set the asessment and then raise it by the "core" inflation rate every year. We all know that the legislature has to concoct the most complicated, unconstitutional mess to avoid giving any real tax relief.

[Brasstec]

Originally Posted by tallrick

It's not fair as it benefits the wealthiest homeowners the most. A much fairer way is to raise the homestead exemption to 75% of home values, and remove the presumption of correctness from all assessments. Another good constitutional idea is to base assessments on purchase price. Set the asessment and then raise it by the "core" inflation rate every year. We all know that the legislature has to concoct the most complicated, unconstitutional mess to avoid giving any real tax relief.

What about those of us who moved in the last 2 years? I gave up 20+ years of SOH when I moved in 2005. My taxes quadrupled! This is no help to me at all.

[tallrick]

Originally Posted by Brasstec

What about those of us who moved in the last 2 years? I gave up 20+ years of SOH when I moved in 2005. My taxes quadrupled! This is no help to me at all.

Another reason this is unfair. If it passes it will be struck down by the courts. It probably will not make a difference as I am predicting a serious recession for 2008 and total crash in the near future. Inflation will make dollars so worthless that your taxes will not even matter as no one will be collecting them anymore.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by tallrick

Another good constitutional idea is to base assessments on purchase price. Set the assessment and then raise it by the "core" inflation rate every year.

Isn't this basically already in effect now with current SOH rules?

Originally Posted by tallrick

It's (the portability amendment) not fair as it benefits the wealthiest homeowners the most.

No doubt that the portability amendment benefits the wealthiest homeowners, but remember, the golden age of the US republic has passed and the country is transitioning into the plutocratic stage, just like any other empire in history, nothing unexpected here. The politicians in Tallahassee are simply obeying their moneyed masters.

So, basically, the choice facing Floridians in January is more state-sponsored welfare for the plutocratic class, a $25k sop to what used to be the middle class, and nothing for the poor. Sounds pretty typical.

In any case, I hope someone runs a poll in about a month here on the Florida forum on voting intentions concerning the January referendum.

Either way, though, it will have little or no impact on the real estate market and, as you say, tallrick, Florida may be in deep recession by 2008 and it is probably already in one now. Ditto about inflation.

Maybe rich Venezuelans can save Florida.

[Muggy]

Originally Posted by Brasstec

What about those of us who moved in the last 2 years? I gave up 20+ years of SOH when I moved in 2005. My taxes quadrupled! This is no help to me at all.

I understand completely, but let's say you moved from Miami to Tallahassee; what makes you different to the people of Tallahassee (as opposed to someone from out-of-state)? Isn't it supposed to protect "homesteaders" from "invaders."

Isn't it a reward to those who settle, and a deterrent to those that move?

I'd like to see a combination of spending caps, a phasing out of SOH, and a return to normal home values.

[floridasandy]

how do you set up a poll? do you just type the question and the choices? i would certainly like to see how other floridians feel about this for election day. thanks.

[Magnulus]

Never underestimate Florida's desire to give handouts to people who don't need them.

I'm against SOH portability. The whole idea of Save Our Homes, flawed as it was, was the idea that retirees who settled into an area wouldn't be forced out due to rising property taxes from increasing property values. All this does is add fuel to the fire by making it portable, you will encourage more relocations and thus increase the values and therefore the property taxes. It is feeding the beast.

I do think Florida local governments need to be alot more choosey on what they spend their money on. They need more essential services and less fluff. In Oviedo they spent money on 1) Olympic swimming pool 2) horse park. Tell me, who really benefits from these "services"? The town already had a public pool, just not one good enough for the upper-middle-class aspirants to have junior become an olympian. A private company could have built this, if there was a demand. Instead the roads out in Oviedo are mediocre and being repaired rather slowly, the street network is inadequate, but I guess that doesn't matter to some people.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

how do you set up a poll? do you just type the question and the choices? i would certainly like to see how other floridians feel about this for election day. thanks.

Go to forum tools, new thread, then at the very bottom there is an option to set up a poll.

Certainly portability, without other significant equalizing measures, provides benefits to only one class of the population. The question is, regarding the referendum, what percentage of people with voting rights from different classes of the population will actually go out and vote and assuming that they understand the implications of the question being posed to them.

[Lilybeans]

Originally Posted by tallrick

Another reason this is unfair. If it passes it will be struck down by the courts.

The courts have to do something before it passes. Once it passes, it becomes part of the Constitution. Then it is legal- and constitutional.

You cannot and should not count on courts to solve perceived problems.