“Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010.”
The full text of this amendment is found in PDF format here.
As I understand it, if you have land that has had its value to you reduced or irrevocably altered by its designation as a conservation area, thus keeping you from developing it, that land is exempt from being taxed. I have read the amendment, but I am not a land use attorney, and it would be great to get one to weigh in here.
“Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property’s value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect.”
The full text version can be found in PDF format here.
This seems to change the way that you are not taxed for certain improvements. Instead of getting an exemption, you are simply not assessed for the value of the improvement. This seems to be a bigger benefit to the taxpayer in the long run. Instead of merely getting the exemption once, at the time of purchase, and then possibly getting assessed every year in the future for the value of the improvement, you cannot be assessed for that value ever. Feel free to weigh in an correct me if you think I am wrong. Experts are welcome.
“This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
The full text version of this amendment can be founf in PDF format here.
This amendment got on the ballot through the efforts of a citizens’ group, Florida4Marriage.org.
“Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.”
The full text of the amendment in PDF format is found here.
After reading this over several times, it appears that the State Constitution allowed the Legislature to regulate or prohibitthe ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship. This amendment will strike that out and protect those basic property rights instead.
In what will be a bitter pill for Gainesville City Commissioners, the Supervisor of Elections plans to certify the petition count results that will allow a charter amendment on the ballot that overturns the city’s new provisions that allow anyone to use any public restroom based on an inner sense of their own sexuality. The city must hold a special election not less than 90 days after certification, and that date is not yet known. It would be most logical, and cost effective, to hold it on the same day as the 2009 city elections.
The certification will be announced Monday, August 18th, at that day’s Gainesville City Commission meeting. Details will follow.
With just two weeks to go to get their ballot initiative qualified, the Citizens for Good Public Policy are a long way from getting it done. They need 5,581 signatures by July 29, and so far they have collected only 1,847. And it gets worse. Of the 1,190 that have been checked so far by the office of the Supervisor of Elections, only 738 are valid city residents, which means they have had an exceptionally high failure rate of 38%. I got these numbers from SOE just yesterday by going down there and talking to one of the clerks.
I am, by nature, a suspicious person, so I asked why there was such a high failure rate. The clerk I spoke with said tha t she can only speak for the petitions that she had personally checked, and she said that it was residency that kept tripping people up. My other question was where this 5,581 number came from to begin with. She said that it needed 10% of the registered voters in the city to sign petitions. When I ran for a county-wide office in 2002, I only needed 1260 signatures, or 1% of the registered voters, to get on the ballot. Why was there such a high threshold for this item? And if it’s because it’s a law and not a candidate, did the two charter amendments on the city’s 2003 ballot both have to pass the same test? I could not get an answer to that at this time, but SOE is certainly welcome to have their day on this website.
I found the failure rate stunning, but sadly believable. People who are not used to engaging the system make a lot of mistakes. When I get signatures for a candidate, I always have to double check their work, and I frequently find unfilled blanks and information that does not match their voter ID. And most of the voters I have encountered are not even aware that their precinct numbers and voting districts are all on their voter IDs in their wallets. Volunteers really have to know what they are doing, or they do a lot of work for nothing.
Of course, if you do the math you can see that 4800 more signatures needed divided by 14 days (about 343) divided by 20 volunteers makes a little over 17 signatures per volunteer per day. It’s still a tough number, but it shows how steady, careful effort can get it done.
Before getting to the City Commission races, I just want to say that as of this writing, Amendment 1 is heading for victory. Our local government has been squealing like stuck pigs in advance of this property tax cut. As of 9:13 PM this evening, it has garnered 63.5% of the vote statewide. It needs 60% to pass. Updated: Passed with 64% of the vote statewide. Alachua County voters approved by a margin of 51-49%.
At Large Seat
With all the precincts in, Thomas Hawkins, Jr. has defeated Robert Agrusa by a 65-35% margin. This race had an astonishing 35.3% turnout, more than double the usual level of participation. Updated: Margin of victory was 67-33% after early votes and absentee ballots were counted. And Turnout was 42.3%
Heading for a Runoff
Bonnie Mott won, but did not get more than 50% of the vote. She had 42% and was followed Lauren Poe, who had 35%. Bryan Harman finished last with 23%. Mott and Poe will face each other in a runoff that will be held on February 19, when there will not be a presidential primary to help boost voter turnout. This time, the turnout was 45.8%, which is even higher than the presidential contests. But District 2 usually outperforms the rest of the city. Updated: Margin pretty much unchanged. Turnout was actually 51.7%
Nuclear Devastation!
Jack Donovan’s hyperbole about the effect of the Spring Hills development on the environment turned out to be an apt description of his victory. The incumbent commissioner got 70% of the vote, while his nearest competitor, Armando Grundy, got 16%. Chris Salazar brought up the rear with 14%. Updated: Actual margin, in same order, were 71-16-13%. Turnout was 40.3%.
Alachua County Commissioner Lee Pinkoson faces State Representative Larry Cretul on North Florida Journal to debate the merits of the Property Tax Amendment we are voting on this Tuesday.
According to a recent article in the Gainesville Sun, there is a growing demand for an extra 1% sales tax for Alachua County residents. And it is being sold to the public by appealing to every wish list as builders and sports organizers begin to dream of how they could spend the estimated $40 million per year that it could generate. However, the general public, already suffering from tax sticker shock, may not bite.
Local political activist Scott Camil is planning on putting together opposition to the sales tax. However, his problem is that such a tax should have to wait in line behind more impact fees. If the fees get the attention he thinks they deserve, then even he is all for a higher sales tax.
This tax should be on the ballot in the Fall, if it is at all.
There is a ballot initiative working its way through the pipeline. It has about half the signatures it needs so far, and it’s sponsor, Florida Hometown Democracy, is working hard to get it done. Here is their Youtube offering:
This story was originally brought to my attention by an article in the High Springs Herald. In it, mayors of Alachua and High Springs are asked about the wisdom of having a voter referendum on every comprehensive plan change, and they are against it. So, is it a bad idea? Or is it just a case of elected officials guarding their turf?I first started paying attention to growth issues in 2001, when I decided that I wanted to be a better citizen and learn about my local government. It was just then that our own Comprehensive Plan was under attack as being too restrictive on private property rights. The next year, two of the incumbent county commissioners who were responsible for that plan were turned out in their party’s primary.That year, the forces of growth and no-growth had fought to portray growth in diametrically opposed ways. And since it was a county wide vote, the breaks went toward the growth side. People who own land in the unincorporated area don’t like a lot of restrictions on their land, whether they are living on it, or if it’s an investment. The environmentalists who portrayed growth as a habitat holocaust lost the argument with the general public, but they have not gone away.
Anti-growth forces are now flexing their muscle through the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor. They succeeded in getting the brakes applied to the Spring Hill development by marshaling the fears along Millhopper Road that their tree canopied, single-lane road needed to be saved from the ravages of development. If this amendment is passed, all plan changes, “shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.”
Now, you might ask, “Why does the plan have to be changed so often?” My theory is that the plan is usually crafted with the oversight of the environmentalists and their lawyers. The average person or business owner does not know what’s going on until the activity that he wants to engage in, and that the plan was created to prevent. At this point, the business owner requests a change in the plan, and if it seems reasonable, he or she can usually get it.
Sometimes plans have to be changed because there are loose ends from old plans that need to be tied up. I had a customer who could not get a permit to build a swimming pool because, according to an old plan, a road had been planned to go through her yard. She had to seek the help of a county commissioner to rectify this, since it was impossible for this road to be built anyway.
Regardless of which way this goes, it underscores the difference in how people approach growth. People who are for it vote for it with their car trips and their wallets. People who are against it, manipulate the rules to prevent it. The Florida Chamber of Commerce also used Youtube to get out this message: that out of state petition gatherers are hired to get signatures from unsuspecting citizens, even if it requires deception.
If this ballot initiative is passed, who will usually turnout for these local referendums? I suspect it will be the same 10% of local voters who usually think to vote in local elections. They will be those most motivated to use the political process. And that is not the average person
