S.V. Dáte.com home

Write a Comment

January 15, 2008

Crist looking for property tax closure

A recent internal poll by the group Crist is using to push the plan showed 60.3 percent approval – on the knife’s edge, with 60 percent needed for passage. So don’t be fooled by the soft-sell sales pitch – “If you want to cut your taxes, vote yes; if you don’t, vote no.” This is a big deal for him, for a number of reasons.

Crist’s phone has been ringing off its holster of late from Republican presidential candidates hoping for his endorsement – John McCain called the day after his big win in New Hampshire – which is a likely precursor to calls later this spring to gauge his interest as a running mate.

The last thing he needs is a black eye on one of his signature issues. The single biggest thing – perhaps the only really big thing -- Crist can offer the GOP nominee is a guarantee of Florida and its precious 27 electoral votes. If he can’t pass a tax cut he personally campaigned on when he ran for governor, why should anyone think he can seal the deal in a battle where the other side will be fighting a lot harder than they are on this one?

From a governing standpoint, winning on Jan. 29 also would provide the incalculable benefit of ending the protracted and increasingly pointless debate over property taxes – which in turn would effectively silence the increasingly annoying House speaker on the topic.

Increasingly pointless because the real problems with Florida’s property taxes are Save Our Homes, which Florida voters will not fix, and a still-too-pricey real estate market, which Florida voters cannot fix.

Save Our Homes has let homeowners enjoy nearly flat property tax bills, even as their homes have soared in value. Nothing is free, and the price of this protection has been borne by businesses and non-homesteaded homeowners. Yet voters – particularly presidential primary “supervoters” – are not likely to make the system more fair, and elected officials have shown no inclination to ask them to do so (with the possible exception of Senate Majority Leader Daniel Webster, and even he came up with a convoluted scheme to “buy out” homesteaders with an enormous exemption up front.)

Even without the Save Our Homes distortion, though, Florida presents too steep of a mountain for too many would-be homebuyers, particularly in South Florida. The problem for a middle-class family with two middle-class incomes is the monthly mortgage payment on a $350,000 house. True, the 1.7 percent annual tax on that house doesn’t make it any easier – but the fundamental issue remains that the median value house is still beyond the reach of the median household income.

This is part of a much bigger demographic shift – replacing middle-class families with wealthy retirees – that Florida has been encouraging, particularly during the Jeb Bush years with the complete elimination of the intangibles tax. It’s not clear whether those who see this as a good thing have thought through what happens when these retirees get into their 80s and are more worried about their nursing home costs than their greens fees.

So, in the end, if the state is not ready to have a grown-up conversation about the issue, it’s probably best to end the silly conversation we’re having now – and that means moving beyond Marco Rubio’s ideologically driven crusade to gut the property tax.

Indeed, neutering Rubio would be a delicious side benefit of passing Amendment 1. His endless self-aggrandizement stopped being cute a long time ago – much like a Yorkshire terrier might lose its charm after a few hours of yapping. Crist is too much the gentleman to kick him across the room, much as he might want to, so passage of the amendment could bring a blessed silence on Jan. 30 that otherwise might be weeks or even months away.

Few serious observers believe that anyone can successfully mount a second property tax proposal anytime soon, should this one pass. And that’s probably good enough reason even for those think the plan is lousy to hold their noses and vote for it. However bad it might be, they should know Rubio and his allies could still come up with one a whole lot worse. Even those who are convinced that the root problem is the inherent unfairness of Save Our Homes can take heart: The new amendment makes it even more unfair, and therefore more vulnerable to a court challenge.

On top of all that, it provides an average 240 bucks to the typical homeowner. Who’s going to say no to that?

No more, Crist is hoping, than 39 percent.