City Council :: Commissioner Robert F. Stuart

District 3 Links

Around District 3:

City Commissioners
400 S. Orange Ave
P.O. Box 4990
Orlando, FL 32802-4990
407.246.2382
FAX: 407.246.3010

Constitutional Amendments on the
November 4th Ballot*
(Please note that amendments 5,7,and 9 did not make the November 4th ballot)

AMENDMENT 1 – Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens

SPONSOR: Florida Legislature (Senate Joint Resolution 166 by Senator Geller and others; 2007 Regular Session)

SUMMARY: The proposed amendment would remove provisions from the Constitution which authorize the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens who are ineligible for citizenship.

This provision, also known as Florida’s “alien land law” was amended onto the Constitution in 1926 for the purpose of prohibiting Asian immigrants from owning property. The state of California enacted a similar law in 1913 on the basis that Asian workers, especially immigrants from Japan, would work for lower wages and be able to purchase large tracks of land, thus creating an unfair economic advantage over Americans. According to Senate committee staff, proponents of alien land laws stated that Japanese aliens were so efficient in their farming operations and their living standard was so low that American farmers could not compete successfully with them. Their right to own and use farm lands must therefore be denied if economic conflicts are to be avoided.

Florida is one of the two remaining states to include this provision as part of its constitution. Notably, the Legislature has never exercised its constitutional right to regulate or prohibit property ownership by aliens ineligible for ownership.

PROPONENTS (Include the Organization for Chinese Americans, American Civil Liberties Union): Proponents of Amendment 1 want voters to close what they see as a dark chapter of history by eliminating the obsolete, discriminatory language. They argue that case law has already determined that the "ineligibility" language in such laws targets people based on race, not based on their actions.

OPPONENTS: Opponents argue the provision should remain in the constitution in an effort to fight threats to homeland security. They also state that it could be a useful immigration-fighting tool.

AMENDMENT 2 – Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

SPONSOR: John Stemberger, Chairman of Florida4Marriage.org (Now called Yes2marriage.org)

SUMMARY: The purpose of this amendment is to create within the Constitution the definition of marriage as the legal union of only “one man and one woman as husband and wife” and to prohibit any other legal union that is treated as a marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof from being valid or recognized as marriage. Florida law currently prohibits marriages between persons of the same sex and defines “marriage” as the legal union between one man and one woman. If passed, this amendment would ban gay marriage and civil unions in the state of Florida.

PROPONENTS (Include the Florida Baptist Convention, Florida Catholic Conference, Florida Christian Coalition, Liberty Counsel, Florida Family Action and Exodus International, and Yes2Marriage.org): Supporters argue that the intent of the language is clear and the concerns being raised are simply scare tactics. Proponents also argue that current law does not go far enough, and putting this language in the state Constitution is necessary in order to prevent judges and gay-rights activists from changing the state’s marriage law.

OPPONENTS (Include Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R), Human Rights Campaign, Florida Red and Blue Committee, Florida AFL-CIO, ACLU, Florida Professional Firefighters Association, Florida Clergy for Fairness): Opponents argue that, due to the vagueness of the “substantial equivalent” language, the Amendment could inadvertently wind up endangering publicly recognized domestic partnerships, if they are deemed to be “substantially equivalent” to marriage.

Domestic partnership registries currently exist in Miami Beach, Gainesville, West Palm Beach, Key West, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. These registries are often used by unmarried couples as a way to gain the same rights and benefits extended to married couples on important matters like end-of-life decisions for their partners and healthcare benefits. According to an analysis by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference of the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, Amendment 2 could have a negative impact on these registries. The analysis concludes that terminating marriage-equivalent partnerships “could place registrants at risk of losing specified rights and benefits, such as those related to health insurance.”

AMENDMENT 3 – Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Real Property

SPONSOR: Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission

SUMMARY: Amendment 3 provides a property tax reduction for homeowners who make storm-hardening improvements to their homes such as adding hurricane shutters and hurricane-resistant shingles, doors, and windows. Under the amendment, these improvements, including the installation of renewable energy source devices such as solar water heating systems, would be exempt from consideration in determining the assessed value of residential real property.

The amendment would authorize the Legislature to prohibit the consideration of any change or improvement made for the purpose of improving the property’s resistance to wind damage or the installation of a renewable energy source device in assessing the value of real property used for residential purposes.

The Florida Constitution (Article VII, s. 4) requires all property, with some exceptions, to be assessed at a just valuation (fair market value) for the purposes of ad valorem taxation. Article VII, s. 3(d) of the Florida Constitution, authorizes a limited exemption from ad valorem taxation for renewable energy source devices. The Legislature implemented this exemption in Florida Statute. However, statute provides that no exemption shall be granted with respect to renewable energy source devices installed before January 1, 1980 or after December 31, 1990, resulting in currently no property tax exemption for the installation of renewable energy source devices.

PROPONENTS: Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida TaxWatch, property insurers and businesses supporting renewable energy devices.

OPPONENTS: No organized opposition.

AMENDMENT 4 – Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation

SPONSOR: Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission

SUMMARY: Supported by numerous environmental and business organizations, the proposed amendment to the Constitution provides tax incentives for private landowners who choose to conserve their property. Specifically, the amendment provides for a property tax exemption for real property dedicated in perpetuity for conservation purposes including real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections. The amendment also requires that lands used for conservation purposes are to be classified and assessed solely on the basis of character or use for purposes of ad valorem taxation.

The Nature Conservancy defines a conservation easement as a voluntary, legally binding agreement that limits certain types of uses or prevents development from taking place on a piece of property now and in the future, while protecting the property’s ecological or open-space values.

PROPONENTS: The Nature Conservancy strongly supports passage of Amendment 4, stating that it provides a powerful incentive for more private landowners to engage in conserving Florida's forests, waters and wildlife. Many of the state’s major environmental organizations are in support along with the League of Counties.

OPPONENTS: The Florida Association of Professional Firefighters is opposed to this amendment as they are concerned that it will further erode the tax base for local governments. The association also argues the tax exemption status could be misused by private landowners depending on how the legislature writes the statute.

It is important to note that the amendment does not define which lands will be eligible for the exemption or how much the exemption will be. This will be done by the legislature if the amendment passes. A number of organizations, while not taking a position against this amendment, have voiced concerns about the details of this amendment which need to be addressed appropriately.

AMENDMENT 6 - Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use

SPONSOR: Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission

SUMMARY: The proposed amendment to the Constitution provides that assessments on certain working waterfront properties be based on “current use” of the property instead of its “highest and best” use – or its potential use. Such properties include land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land that is accessible to the public and used for vessel launches into navigable waters; 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. The result would be a decrease in property taxes paid by these businesses.

The assessment would be subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions as specified by the Legislature. If approved, the amendment would apply to assessments for the tax year beginning January 1, 2010.

The goal of this amendment is to protect working waterfront businesses from escalating tax rates based on the properties’ potential for condominiums and resorts. According to some reports, soaring property values and the state’s policy of taxing commercial property at its highest and best use have put a financial strain on owners of marinas, fish houses and boatyards. In Palm Beach County, some marina owners have seen their tax bills increase by nearly 400% over the past several years, based on assessors’ judgments that the best use of waterfront property was for high-rise development (i.e., condominiums) rather than the marina.

According to staff of the Florida Taxation Budget and Reform Commission (TBRC), changes in Florida’s economy and land use may be affecting the economic viability of commercial-fishing and recreational working waterfronts. Increasingly, developers are buying traditional working waterfronts and converting them to private and residential use. “Water-enhanced” and “water-related” activities are replacing traditional or “water-dependent” activities. This has the effect of both decreasing the availability of waterfront property which is necessary to sustain commercial-fishing and recreational boating activities, and increasing the value of nearby working waterfront property. This increase in property value results in higher property taxes, which may cause the working waterfronts to be decreasingly profitable thereby compounding the pressure to convert to the “highest and best” use of the property.

Notably, TBRC’s staff analysis states this amendment may lead to reduced revenue for local governments. However, local governments may increase millage rates on all properties to offset revenue shortfalls.

PROPONENTS: (Include Marine Industries Association of Florida, marina owners, fish house owners, boatyard owners, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida TaxWatch)

Proponents state that this amendment would lower property taxes on working waterfront properties, thereby promoting the continued public access to Florida waterfronts. It would also help to stem the loss of waterfront-dependent businesses and jobs.

OPPONENTS: No organized opposition.

AMENDMENT 8 – Local Option Community College Funding

SPONSOR: Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission

SUMMARY: The proposed amendment requires the Legislature to authorize counties to impose a local option sales tax that would supplement community college state funding. If approved by the voters in the affected county, the local option sales tax would last for five years and could be reauthorized by the voters for an additional five years.

The Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC) generally focused upon ways to reduce taxes for Floridians. However, Amendment 8 will allow counties the opportunity to give the voters a chance, by a two-thirds vote, to impose new local option sales taxes that would be used to supplement state funding for community colleges. Of the 28 community colleges in Florida, only nine of them serve a single county. Unlike those community colleges which serve more than one county, a single county served by a community college may find it easier to gain the voters’ approval for a new sales tax to supplement funding for the college than for those colleges served by two or more counties.

Amendment 8 also requires that the new sales tax be used exclusively to supplement and not replace other funding for community colleges. It is unclear how this requirement will be enforced and adhered to. According to Senate TBRC commission staff, Miami-Dade County is one of the nine counties in the state which is served by one community college. Since it is a charter county, it is already authorized to implement local sales taxes, including a tax benefiting the community college. Such a tax was passed in Miami-Dade County in 1992 and expired in 1994.

PROPONENTS (Includes Community Colleges, Florida Education Association, Associated Industries of Florida, United Faculty of Florida, Florida TaxWatch, and the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce): Proponents state that community colleges are critical to economic and workforce demands by offering training programs and degrees targeting new jobs. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, nearly 80 percent of these new jobs require some postsecondary education, if not a two-year degree from community colleges. Such colleges would benefit from additional funding as proposed in Amendment 8.