09/11/2026
The question isn’t simply:
“Do I want lower property taxes?”
Almost everyone does!
The real question is:
“How do I want to pay for the services that my property taxes currently pay for?”
THERE is the question we should be asking about Amendment 3.
The promise of lower property taxes is certainly appealing. But there’s a part of this conversation that seems to be getting lost in the excitement:
Lower taxes don’t make the bill disappear. They just move the bill somewhere else.
Amendment 3 could ultimately remove billions of dollars in recurring revenue from local governments. That money currently helps pay for police, fire and EMS, roads, infrastructure, parks and other services we all expect.
So what happens to that revenue?
Maybe some of it is replaced through economic growth. Maybe through fees. Maybe through assessments. Maybe through sales taxes or greater reliance on non-homesteaded property.
And that last part matters — because renters, businesses, second-home owners and landlords don’t get to simply opt out of the costs of government. Those costs have a way of finding their way into rents, prices and other expenses.
Then there’s Florida’s dependence on tourism and consumer spending.
That’s fantastic when the economy is humming.
But what happens when the next recession hits?
Tourism, retail spending and other consumption-based revenues can fall quickly. Property taxes, by comparison, provide local governments with a much more predictable source of revenue.
I’m not arguing that property taxes are good. They’re not. And I certainly don’t blame anyone for wanting to pay less.
I’m arguing that we should be intellectually honest about the other side of the equation.
Before we celebrate what Amendment 3 takes away, let’s ask what replaces it.
Because the money doesn’t disappear.
The tax might. The bill doesn’t.
And ultimately, somebody still pays it.
