- October 22, 2026
-
-
Loading
Loading
Editor’s note: This is the second of two parts on Amendment 3.
It’s difficult to imagine the majority of Florida’s 5 million homesteaded property owners voting no on Amendment 3. How could anyone be opposed to reducing their property taxes?
Indeed, a poll of likely voters sponsored by the James Madison Institute at the beginning of October showed 63% of Floridians supporting Amendment 3. If the 63% held, that would be enough to surpass the 60% threshold for approval.
Of course, no one really knows what the outcome will be.
But it seems improbable to expect 50% of those voting in this election to have thought through the likely and unintended consequences of Amendment 3, and then reaching the conclusion to vote no.
Wish that they would.
And wish that they would conclude what we have concluded: In their lack of courage to stand up to the governor, the Republican Legislature hastily threw together a lousy tax scheme that should not become part of the state constitution.
There is a better way.
There is a better way to achieve the objectives of reining in Florida’s constantly rising property taxes and local government spending. And there is a better way to treat all property owners more fairly.
This may be too little too late, but what follows are three proposals that would be far better than embedding more and increasing exemptions and subsidies for homesteaded property owners as Amendment 3 proposes to do.
Two of the three proposals come courtesy of the renowned economist Arthur Laffer. Baby boomers remember Laffer as the author of supply-side economics, which, under Ronald Reagan, ushered in lower tax rates that triggered what became known in the 1980s as “The Seven Fat Years” of robust economic growth, lower taxes and simultaneously higher tax revenues for government.
Since then, Laffer and his team have done extensive research on the effects of property taxes. In a 2024 research report for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, “The Pitfalls of Property Taxes,” Laffer and team irrefutably demonstrated and concluded:
“The consequences of high property tax rates are diminished property values, impoverished neighborhoods and degraded living standards. And, of course, given the mental set of the vast majority of city, county and local officials, the only answer to this downward spiral is to spend and tax more. This vicious cycle truly is an existential threat to the fabric of society. It is the proverbial race to the bottom.”
Herewith, better alternatives to Amendment 3:
To be sure, this would be a shock to local governments.
But rather than cut taxes only for homesteaded Floridians, as Amendment 3 would, this step would benefit all Floridians and require local governments to reset to pre-pandemic spending.
And unlike Amendment 3, which will create chaos and uncertainty for local governments replacing lost revenue with new fees and higher tax rates, rolling back assessments and tax rates to 2022-2023 would give local governments definitive targets to meet.
If you look back, taxable values spiked the most in the two years after the pandemic. That’s when spending took off.
So turn back the clock.
Indeed, local governments have had a mechanism since 1980 to constrain their spending — the “roll-back rate.” But local governments typically ignore it.
The roll-back rate is the tax rate that would raise the same amount of property tax revenue as the prior budget year when applied to the taxable values of the new tax roll, minus new construction.
How would it work? Consider Sarasota County:
2022-2023
Operating budget: $1.083 billion
Taxable value: $82.5 billion
Operating tax rate: 3.2497 mills
2026-2027
Operating budget: $1.921 billion
Taxable value: $112.4 billion
Operating tax rate: 3.2317 mills
To go back to 2022’s operating expenses of $1.083 billion would require the county to cut $838 million in spending. That’s a lot.
But that could be negotiated with lawmakers; perhaps adjusting for inflation or achieving cuts over, say, three years.
The county could maintain its $112.4 billion in taxable values, but it would be required to reduce its tax rate to generate the rolled-back amount of 2022 property taxes.
There is precedence for this. California did it when voters adopted Proposition 13, the famous amendment that has controlled property taxes there since 1978.
Which brings us to our second proposal as a counter to Amendment 3.
Laffer is effusive about California’s Proposition 13. Calling it “A whale of a model.”
In his 2024 and 2025 report, called “The Pitfalls of Property Taxes,” he writes:
“The greatest episode of tax limitation at the state level, the greatest achievement of state-level economic reform consistent with the principles of supply-side economics — over all the centuries of American history — is the California property tax limitation of 1978, Proposition 13.
“Overnight on June 6 of that year, California permanently lowered its property tax, on all classes of property, to a 1%-of-market-value maximum (from a prevailing 2.6%) and permitted property tax payment increases on current owners of a maximum of 2% per annum.
“Since 1978, California property values have increased most handsomely; property tax revenue has been abundant; and the activities of people living in the tax-limited houses have given us economic marvel upon economic marvel.
“Setting aside Hollywood, the defense industries and agriculture — all California economic powerhouses — the Silicon Valley information technology revolution that has taken the world by storm over the past decades largely emanated from engineering and business geniuses living in California tax-limited homes.
“Ensure private property — a man’s home is his castle — and incredible things can result, as California’s experience under Prop 13 has shown.
“A central lesson of American tax history is that property taxes have been the norm, and when this country really took off, these taxes were less than 1% of market value.
“In 1978, via Prop 13, California guaranteed this condition. Exactly what should be expected happened — the state led the global economy to triumph upon triumph.
“Here is the simple rule for states desiring to reform their property tax system: Do what California did in 1978 and has continued to maintain since.
“… Limiting property taxes is the single most imperative priority any state can have in the interest of its long-term well-being and prosperity.
“Prop 13 has assured homeowners that at least the most basic aspect of their life will not be inordinately taxed or otherwise oppressed by government. They can live in their homes without fear of expropriative taxes.
“California has abused its privileges, to be sure. It has a huge progressive income tax and a regulatory regime of ungodly extent. But the privileges still remain, in the remarkable commitment California has made to sanctity of the ownership of property.”
