Florida Amendments 2008 - A Guide From Me to You
Every election I try to put together some information about the races and ballot measures and post it as a public post. Apparently there are some folks out there who are not on my friends list who find it useful and have been requesting one this year.
So here is the first part focusing in on the Amendments to the Florida Constitution.
If you are voting in the state of Florida regardless of where you are, these will be on the ballot.
****Disclosure time: I am generally opposed to the idea of making changes by Constitutional Amendment. I realize that often the legislature doesn't act on something and if people want to see it happen they have the option of submitting it to the Constitution. But I don't think half the things that end up as amendments should be anywhere near the actual State Constitution. ****
That said, people still submitted these and they are being placed for a Yes or No vote to the people of the state of Florida.
Amendments #5, 7 and 9 were struck down by the Florida Supreme Court for not meeting the guidelines of amendment proposal.
Obviously I have an opinion on all of these. Some are more obvious than others, and I actually outrate state my opinion on Amendment 2 as it relates to it's status as an amendment.
3 - 8 were put on the ballot by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission and not by citizen petition. The board meets every few years to make proposals about budget issues and send them to the voters.
**********
Amendment 1: 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.
YES argument: The language is outdated and pretty much everyone is calling for that section to be deleted. The matter of "aliens ineligible for citizenship" and their property has been dealt with elsewhere.
NO argument: If you want to throw a monkey wrench into deleting a section of language no one really wants in there but can't take out without an amendment. Or if you just really don't like the idea of aliens ineligible for citzenship having property rights and want to make sure that the Legislature can someday revisit the issue via this provision. (Not likely that they ever would - but come on, I'm trying to imagine a scenario where voting NO might make sense on this particular issue.)
Amendment 2: 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.
YES argument: Sure, same sex marriage is already illegal in Florida. But this would insure that a judge couldn't come along and make a ruling that overturns that law. Putting in the State Constitution would insure that a "radical ruling" of that nature could not take place. Since it was approved by the Florida Supreme Court the language must have withstood their interpretation and thus would not cause any harm to domestic partnerships.
NO argument: It's already illegal in Florida and was only put on the ballot to draw in "value voters" for the GOP ticket the same way it is being used in other states. More to the point though the vagueness of the language puts domestic partnerships at risk should a judge come along and make a ruling on the case, and considering the people already lining up to sue - there would be a ruling related to this amendment.
The counter argument to the "it got through the Supreme Court so it doesn't have anything to do with domestic partnerships" is that the Supreme Court only ruled on if it met the criteria to get on the ballot as a single issue. It does. It did not rule on any affect it might have outside of "is this is a single issue being addressed"?
****Disclosure time: The campaign manager for one of the most organized opposition groups to this amendment is an old friend and mentor of sorts of mine who was President of the Student Government when I was a member. He also attended my wedding in 1996. I have probably seen him twice since then and definitely not since 2000.
I have an additional bias on this issue because (1) I do believe that same sex couples should have the same protections as "traditional" couples and (2) I believe the counter argument of the Supreme Court not actually looking at if it would affect domestic partnerships but rather at the "can this be on the ballot" is valid. It would not stop a suit and based on the language I believe a conservative judge who goes by the letter not the spirit would have to rule against protections for domestic partnerships. That's my take on it at any rate. . . *puts opinion back into stealth mode* *****
Amendment 3: 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.
YES argument: People should not be taxed at a higher rate for making improvements in their homes that reduce their insurance rate by making them safer. It's punishing people for doing a good thing.
NO argument: People are increasing the value of their home, and resale value regardless of why they are doing it. The rate needs to stay the same.
Amendment 4: 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.
YES argument: See argument for #3. Give people who are doing "a good thing" a break. If they set aside land specifically for conservation protection and aren't developing it why shouldn't that portion of the land be exempt? We need to encourage conservation and scale back development, why not due it by not making it worth their while to sell to developers?
NO Argument: Land should be taxed on a "highest and best land usage" scale regardless of what they are actually doing with the land.
Amendment 6: "Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law."
YES argument: See Amendment 4. People should be taxed on what they are actually doing with the property not "highest and best use". Commercial fishing is important to Florida and we need to protect it and it's facilities.
NO argument: See Amendment 4 and change "land" to "water front property".
Amendment 8: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require that the Legislature authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax to supplement community college funding; requiring voter approval to levy the tax; providing that approved taxes will sunset after 5 years and may be reauthorized by the voters.
YES argument: Community colleges have become more important than ever as people stay closer to home for higher education and job retooling skills are needed. It's time to provide for more investment in them. Also, this isn't a tax it's offering the counties the permission to *ask* the voters for a tax.
NO argument: We don't need any more taxes. Community colleges have been trying to get this forever and have been denied every time. Also - if it does pass, and the tax passes the voters the first time good luck in getting this particular tax to ever truly "sunset" as it will be reauthorized every 5 years like clock work.
So here is the first part focusing in on the Amendments to the Florida Constitution.
If you are voting in the state of Florida regardless of where you are, these will be on the ballot.
****Disclosure time: I am generally opposed to the idea of making changes by Constitutional Amendment. I realize that often the legislature doesn't act on something and if people want to see it happen they have the option of submitting it to the Constitution. But I don't think half the things that end up as amendments should be anywhere near the actual State Constitution. ****
That said, people still submitted these and they are being placed for a Yes or No vote to the people of the state of Florida.
Amendments #5, 7 and 9 were struck down by the Florida Supreme Court for not meeting the guidelines of amendment proposal.
Obviously I have an opinion on all of these. Some are more obvious than others, and I actually outrate state my opinion on Amendment 2 as it relates to it's status as an amendment.
3 - 8 were put on the ballot by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission and not by citizen petition. The board meets every few years to make proposals about budget issues and send them to the voters.
**********
Amendment 1: 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.
YES argument: The language is outdated and pretty much everyone is calling for that section to be deleted. The matter of "aliens ineligible for citizenship" and their property has been dealt with elsewhere.
NO argument: If you want to throw a monkey wrench into deleting a section of language no one really wants in there but can't take out without an amendment. Or if you just really don't like the idea of aliens ineligible for citzenship having property rights and want to make sure that the Legislature can someday revisit the issue via this provision. (Not likely that they ever would - but come on, I'm trying to imagine a scenario where voting NO might make sense on this particular issue.)
Amendment 2: 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.
YES argument: Sure, same sex marriage is already illegal in Florida. But this would insure that a judge couldn't come along and make a ruling that overturns that law. Putting in the State Constitution would insure that a "radical ruling" of that nature could not take place. Since it was approved by the Florida Supreme Court the language must have withstood their interpretation and thus would not cause any harm to domestic partnerships.
NO argument: It's already illegal in Florida and was only put on the ballot to draw in "value voters" for the GOP ticket the same way it is being used in other states. More to the point though the vagueness of the language puts domestic partnerships at risk should a judge come along and make a ruling on the case, and considering the people already lining up to sue - there would be a ruling related to this amendment.
The counter argument to the "it got through the Supreme Court so it doesn't have anything to do with domestic partnerships" is that the Supreme Court only ruled on if it met the criteria to get on the ballot as a single issue. It does. It did not rule on any affect it might have outside of "is this is a single issue being addressed"?
****Disclosure time: The campaign manager for one of the most organized opposition groups to this amendment is an old friend and mentor of sorts of mine who was President of the Student Government when I was a member. He also attended my wedding in 1996. I have probably seen him twice since then and definitely not since 2000.
I have an additional bias on this issue because (1) I do believe that same sex couples should have the same protections as "traditional" couples and (2) I believe the counter argument of the Supreme Court not actually looking at if it would affect domestic partnerships but rather at the "can this be on the ballot" is valid. It would not stop a suit and based on the language I believe a conservative judge who goes by the letter not the spirit would have to rule against protections for domestic partnerships. That's my take on it at any rate. . . *puts opinion back into stealth mode* *****
Amendment 3: 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.
YES argument: People should not be taxed at a higher rate for making improvements in their homes that reduce their insurance rate by making them safer. It's punishing people for doing a good thing.
NO argument: People are increasing the value of their home, and resale value regardless of why they are doing it. The rate needs to stay the same.
Amendment 4: 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.
YES argument: See argument for #3. Give people who are doing "a good thing" a break. If they set aside land specifically for conservation protection and aren't developing it why shouldn't that portion of the land be exempt? We need to encourage conservation and scale back development, why not due it by not making it worth their while to sell to developers?
NO Argument: Land should be taxed on a "highest and best land usage" scale regardless of what they are actually doing with the land.
Amendment 6: "Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law."
YES argument: See Amendment 4. People should be taxed on what they are actually doing with the property not "highest and best use". Commercial fishing is important to Florida and we need to protect it and it's facilities.
NO argument: See Amendment 4 and change "land" to "water front property".
Amendment 8: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require that the Legislature authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax to supplement community college funding; requiring voter approval to levy the tax; providing that approved taxes will sunset after 5 years and may be reauthorized by the voters.
YES argument: Community colleges have become more important than ever as people stay closer to home for higher education and job retooling skills are needed. It's time to provide for more investment in them. Also, this isn't a tax it's offering the counties the permission to *ask* the voters for a tax.
NO argument: We don't need any more taxes. Community colleges have been trying to get this forever and have been denied every time. Also - if it does pass, and the tax passes the voters the first time good luck in getting this particular tax to ever truly "sunset" as it will be reauthorized every 5 years like clock work.