November 7th is just 13 days away and it’s time for us to vote on some state and local issues. Below are the proposed Amendments and their arguments. I have compiled this info from Vote Smart, Florida Taxwatch, media sources and research:

Amendment 1:(Sponsor: Senator Tom Lee (R-Brandon))
State Planning and Budget Process
Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to limit the amount of nonrecurring general revenue which may be appropriated for recurring purposes in any fiscal year to 3 percent of the total general revenue funds estimated to be available, unless otherwise approved by a three-fifths vote of the Legislature; to establish a Joint Legislative Budget Commission, which shall issue long-range financial outlooks; to provide for limited adjustments in the state budget without the concurrence of the full Legislature, as provided by general law; to reduce the number of times trust funds are automatically terminated; to require the preparation and biennial revision of a long-range state planning document; and to establish a Government Efficiency Task Force and specify its duties.

Arguments:

Pros:
Today, the Legislative Budget Commission has a variety of functions regarding appropriations. This amendment would establish a Joint Budget Commission and would do what has not been done before - put both the budget and revenue estimates together in one document. In addition to the annual budget, it will also require the Commission to create a long-term financial outlook.

Cons:
Current general law which prescribes requirements for each department and agency of state government to submit a planning document and supporting budget request, is adequate and an additional task force is not needed.

Truth:
Amendment 1 will go a long way to helping curb some of the waste, fraud and abuse that occurs in our state government by creating a long term budget planning process. The Government Efficiency Task Force could help formalize a much-needed process of looking for ways to save money without reducing necessary services. The creation though of a Legislative Budget Commission will probably cause some balance of power issues between the branches and, if not properly run and overseen, could become just a corrupt as the system it is trying to reform.

Amendment 3: (Sponsor: Judiciary Committee)
Requiring Broader Public Support for Constitutional Amendments or Revisions
Proposes an amendment to Section 5 of Article XI of the State Constitution to require that any proposed amendment to or revision of the State Constitution, whether proposed by the Legislature, by initiative, or by any other method, must be approved by at least 60 percent of the voters of the state voting on the measure, rather than by a simple majority. This proposed amendment would not change the current requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment imposing a new state tax or fee be approved by at least 2/3 of the voters of the state voting in the election in which such an amendment is considered.

Arguments:

Pros:
Florida’s Constitution is the easiest to amend in our nation. In recent years, ballot initiatives have become a vehicle for well-financed special interest groups to protect their interests via the state’s most sacred document. By implementing a higher threshold for approval of constitutional amendments, it broadens consensus because a higher percentage of Florida’s electorate will be required to pass the initiative.

Cons:
When issues are not passed through the Legislature, the ballot initiative process is critical to ensuring the peoples’ voices are still heard. The citizen initiative process remains a vital check on government when, for whatever reasons, the government refuses to act. Requiring a higher percentage of the electorate could diminish an initiative’s chances of being approved.

Truth:
Look at some of contributers who want us to vote yes, and you can see why they are wanting voters to pass this: National Association of Home Builders, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, The Florida Association of Realtors, U.S. Sugar, The St. Joe Co., Lykes Bros. Inc., the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Publix. All very powerful lobby groups who have had amendments proposed against them in the past. There is also another reason and this is most important. There is an proposed amendment that is gaining ground called the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment. It is an amendment to force state and local elected officials to follow the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,” popularly known as the Growth Management Act, and require any changes to this act to be voted on by the people instead of the county comissioners and city councils who are many times in big corpwhoreations pockets. This act was implimented to stop uncontrolled land development, and the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment is meant to enforce it.

Amendment 4 (Sponsor: Floridians for Youth Tobacco Education, Inc.)
Protect People, Especially Youth, From Addiction, Disease and Other Health Hazards of Using Tobacco.
To protect people, especially youth, from addiction, disease, and other health hazards of using tobacco, the Legislature shall use some Tobacco Settlement money annually for a comprehensive statewide tobacco education and prevention program using Centers for Disease Control best practices. Specifies some program components, emphasizing youth, requiring one-third of total annual funding for advertising. Annual funding is 15% of 2005 Tobacco Settlement payments to Florida, adjusted annually for inflation. Provides definitions. Effective immediately.

Arguments:

Pros:
In Florida, nearly 29,000 deaths are attributable to tobacco use annually, and the threat of tobacco is greatest among youth. Florida receives more than $360 million annually from the tobacco settlement, yet only $1 million is used to educate Florida’s youth about the dangers of tobacco use. Factoring in inflation and increased cost of advertising, $57 million appears to be both reasonable and fiscally responsible.

Cons:
Everyone agrees kids should not smoke. However, the $57 million a year will be coming out of our state’s general revenue budget, which means less money for schools and roads. Technically, this proposed amendment could be achieved through the legislature instead of the Constitution.

Truth:
Education, prevention and enforcement costs will increase. The state will be required to appropriate approximately $57 million from Tobacco Settlement funds in 2007, which will be adjusted annually for inflation. NOTE - The current programs have been cut to $1 million for the past three years. Because the Tobacco Settlement funds are currently fully obligated, the requirement to spend these dollars on the specified programs will result in reductions to existing programs or the replacement of those dollars with $57 million of other state funds.

Amendment 6 (Sponsor: Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera (R-Miami))
Increased Homestead Exemption
Proposing amendment of the State Constitution to increase the maximum additional homestead exemption for low-income seniors from $25,000 to $50,000 and to schedule the amendment to take effect January 1, 2007.

Arguments:

Pros:
Low-income seniors* are vulnerable to sudden increases in property tax assessments, because many live on fixed incomes and simply can’t keep pace with increasing property taxes. This amendment will authorize the Legislature to allow local government to potentially ease tax burdens on those most threatened by increasing property taxes.

* Low income Seniors are those with a family income under $20,000 per year.

Cons:
Property taxes generate a major source of revenue for local government. Reducing property taxes could financially devastate counties resulting in massive tax increases to cover revenue needs for schools and other local priorities. Therefore, reducing property tax burden on owners could result in a shift of tax burdens from the homestead property owner to other taxpayers.

Truth:
The Legislature still has to pass substantive law to authorize the higher exemption
(current statutes only authorize $25,000) and each city or county would then have to decide if it would adopt an ordinance to increase the exemption. Other provisions to protect low-income seniors from rising property taxes already exist: the basic $25,000 exemption for all homesteads; another currently authorized homestead exemption for low-income seniors of $25,000; the Save Our Homes Amendment; and the ability for them to defer taxes until there is a change in ownership. Based on the average state-wide millage rate, a $25,000 exemption is worth $490. It is estimated that if all counties adopted the increased exemption, it would be worth $36 million. It is likely that at least most of those taxes would be shifted to all other properties in the state.

Amendment 7 (Sponsor: Rep. Ray Sansom (Fort Walton Beach))
Permanently Disabled Veterans’ Discount on Homestead Ad Valorem Tax
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to provide a discount from amount of ad valorem tax on homestead of a partially or totally permanently disabled veteran who is age 65 or older who was a Florida resident at the time of entering military service, whose disability was combat-related, and who was honorably discharged, to specify percentage of the discount as equal to the percentage of veteran’s permanent service-connected disability; to specify qualification requirements for the discount; to authorize the Legislature to waive the annual application requirement in subsequent years by general law; and to specify that the provision takes effect December 7, 2006, is self-executing, and does not require implementing legislation.

Arguments:

Pro:
This is a chance to give thanks to veterans who were wounded in combat serving our country. The amendment would provide substantial ad valorem or “property tax” relief for Florida’s military veterans who have fought in a foreign war. The proposed amendment would ensure the exemption is in proportion to the amount of disability a veteran receives.

Cons:
Every permanent Florida resident who has legal title to and resides on real property is eligible for a homestead exemption of $25,000. Currently, disabled veterans receive an additional $5,000 homestead exemption. Providing an additional discount may cause some local governments to lose the income they would normally receive from these taxes.

Truth:
Under this amendment, disabled veterans would be exempt from the same portion of
their property taxes as the portion of their disability. Savings Example: A 50% disabled veteran living in a house assessed at $150,000 would save approximately $1,225. During most of the legislative debate on this proposal last session, it was limited to World War II veterans, and carried a fiscal impact of $1 million. Right before passage, the joint resolution was amended to include all veterans, which, according to the Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR), increased its fiscal impact to approximately $20.1 million. It is likely that at least most of those taxes would be shifted to all other properties in the state.

Amendment 8 (Sponsor: Rep. Marco Rubio (R-Miami))
Eminent Domain
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit the transfer of private property taken by eminent domain to a natural person or private entity, providing that the Legislature may by general law passed by a three-fifths vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature permit exceptions allowing the transfer of such private property; and providing that this prohibition on the transfer of private property taken by eminent domain is applicable if the petition of taking that initiated the condemnation proceeding was filed on or after January 2, 2007.

Arguments:

Pro:
The decision as to whether a taking for economic development purposes is permissible in Florida lies squarely in the judiciary, and will remain so unless the constitution or statutes are amended to restrict such takings. Unless the Florida Constitution is amended, the question of whether a city or a county may take property for purposes of economic development will remain unanswered.

Cons:
A constitutional amendment is not needed to address any eminent domain issues. This proposed constitutional amendment would place strict limits on the circumstances under which private property taken by eminent domain may be transferred to another party.

Truth
As many have seen over this past year alone, as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was lawful for the government to sieze property from private citizens for Economic Development Projects, the local governments jumped right in with both feet. This is something I know, not think, the founding fathers meant to prohibit. If the government intends to seize property, it has to be passed through the legislation and the courts. It is criminal and totalitarian to take property just because it be an eye sore or may prevent the development of yet another revenue generator, but then again, if the government wants it that badly, let them offer a monetary figure. To just sieze the property sounds like a bad Orwellian vision come true. Someone has to tell government they are not the end all, be all. They work for us and need to be reminded of that.

Interesting Links
Florida Hometown Democracy
Vote Smart
Trust the Voters
Florida TaxWatch