Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How can I show my support?
A: You can support the initiative by:
Q: Why is a revenue cap so important?
A: Over the last several years, local government tax revenues have increased at a much faster rate than taxpayers' income growth. In 2007, the Florida Legislature placed a cap on property tax revenue that was quickly broken by over 40 percent of local governments. Many local governments raised other taxes and fees to make up for the property tax revenue shortfall. A cap will prohibit this type of behavior, and reign in irresponsible spending by local governments.
Q: When will you have this on the ballot?
A: We hope to gain enough support to place it on the 2010 ballot.
Q: Would this be a problem if local officials were held accountable for their actions?
A: Because local governments can hide revenue increases in a complex variation of taxes and fees it is very difficult to hold them accountable during re-election; a revenue cap breakable only by voter approval is a more effective way to hold them accountable and stop repeated tax increases.
Q: Won't this damage our community's bond rating?
A: This is a frequent criticism of revenue caps. In Colorado, where a similar measure has been in place for several years, they have not experienced any damage to local governments' bond rating as a result of the revenue cap. We believe in bonding, as we still expect our governments to be able to undertake large public works projects: water systems, roads, schools, etc. Our amendment will still provide for bonding.
Q: There are a lot of improvements that my community wants to make; won't this kill a lot of community projects?
A: It will not stop any project that has broad community support. If it does not exceed the revenue cap, the project moves forward. If it exceeds the revenue cap the project will move forward if a majority of the voters support it.
Q: Couldn't the Legislature do this?
A: Yes, but they have chosen not to. The House passed a similar proposal in April of 2008, but the Senate refused to even consider it. Local governments have spent millions of taxpayer dollars fighting all attempts to cut property taxes.
Q: Has this been done anywhere else before?
A: Similar proposals have been passed in other states, most notably in Colorado in the mid-nineties.
Q: How did this work in Colorado?
A: It's worked very well in Colorado. When voters have real authority to determine how much they will pay in taxes, and therefore limit the ability of government to waste money, they become more prosperous. Government can increase revenues and spending, if they make their case to the public and voters approve it.
Q: Could this make residential property taxes go up?
A: Naturally, property taxes rise as real estate values rise. The main reason the property tax issue reached crisis level is the fact local governments held millage rates steady as real estate values skyrocketed, reaping a windfall. Had this amendment been in place at the time, local governments would have been forced to reduce millage rates to remain under the revenue cap and the crisis would not have occurred.
Q: Won't local revenue go back down when the housing and real estate market level out?
A: No. Historically, property values rise consistently over time. If the local government holds property tax rates steady, they should see increased revenues over time. If the revenues increase at such a rate as to exceed the cap, as they did in the real estate spike in the middle of this decade, local governments would be forced to lower millage rates or seek voter approval to exceed the cap.
Q: This is just like Hometown Democracy, which a lot of people oppose, how is this different?
A: Hometown democracy is a property rights issue, and would give voters final approval over land-use changes to someone else's property. This proposal gives voters final approval over how the government collects THEIR tax money.
Q: Won't we be adding a lot of government expense to running more elections?
A: Only if the local governments request frequent tax increases. Proper planning will allow for votes to occur on regularly scheduled election days.
Q: Didn't the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission reject this idea?
A: Yes, due to heavy lobbying pressure from local governments which have spent millions of taxpayer dollars fighting all attempts to cut property taxes.