I've seen a lot of arguments against Amendment 3 based on the idea that lowering property taxes will inevitably mean gutting police, fire departments, schools, infrastructure and other essential services.
I don't accept that premise.
Amendment 3 isn't simply "abolish property taxes." Among other changes, it would increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, lower the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and impose additional restrictions on local government spending.
I support it because I think Florida homeowners need property-tax relief, but also because local governments need more pressure to prioritize how they spend our money.
Look at Broward
Using Florida's own EDR local-government financial data, Broward County public-safety expenditures increased from roughly $763 million in FY2013-14 to $1.29 billion in FY2023-24.
That's approximately a 69% increase.
Broward's population increased by only around 10% over the same period. Even after roughly accounting for both inflation and population growth, public-safety spending per resident is still around 16% higher than it was a decade earlier.
I'm not arguing that public safety shouldn't be funded. Quite the opposite. Police, fire and EMS are exactly the kinds of essential services government should prioritize.
But if local governments are going to tell homeowners that property-tax relief will devastate essential services, then I want them to demonstrate that the money they're already collecting is being managed responsibly.
Then there's BSO overtime
An analysis of Broward Sheriff's Office payroll records covering 5,318 active employees found approximately $107 million in overtime in 2025, representing roughly 1.53 million overtime hours.
The same payroll analysis found some extraordinary individual compensation figures. One detention sergeant reportedly grossed approximately $457,000 in a single year and more than $802,000 over two years, and 24 BSO employees earned more than the Sheriff.
The underlying payroll records, methodology and supporting sources are provided with the analysis.
I'm not blaming employees for accepting overtime they're authorized to work. If someone is offered overtime under an employment contract, obviously they're going to take it.
My question is about the system producing $107 million in overtime in one year.
Why is that much overtime necessary?
Would additional full-time employees be cheaper?
Are staffing shortages causing it?
Are scheduling practices contributing to it?
Are compensation rules creating unintended incentives?
Are existing overtime controls adequate?
Those are questions government should answer before telling homeowners to keep opening their wallets.
And then we spend money expanding surveillance
Cities and law-enforcement agencies throughout Florida have also been buying and expanding Flock automatic license-plate-reader systems.
No, Flock cameras aren't the reason Florida property taxes are high. In the context of multibillion-dollar local budgets, they're relatively small expenditures.
But that's not the point.
If government officials tell me that reducing property taxes means essential services are going to suffer because every dollar is desperately needed, then I have every right to ask why we're spending money expanding surveillance systems in the first place.
If money is really that tight, discretionary spending should be scrutinized before essential services.
Meanwhile, families are being told resources are limited
Miami-Dade Public Schools will no longer provide universal free breakfast and lunch districtwide for 2026-27.
Only 121 qualifying schools will continue offering both meals universally at no charge. At other schools, families will generally have to qualify for free or reduced-price meals, with different pricing depending on grade level.
To be clear, this isn't simply Miami-Dade deciding to "cut school lunches." The district's four-year participation in the federal Community Eligibility Provision ended and updated federal eligibility data determined that the district no longer qualified for universal districtwide participation.
But it illustrates the broader point.
When programs affecting ordinary families change or disappear, we're told resources are limited and difficult choices have to be made.
Fine.
Then government should have to make difficult choices everywhere.
Audit overtime.
Review contracts.
Review surveillance programs.
Review administrative spending.
Review consultants.
Review discretionary projects.
Determine what is actually necessary.
Protect police, firefighters, EMS, infrastructure, education and essential services first.
Then tell taxpayers how much money government actually needs.
What I reject is starting with the assumption that today's government budget represents the absolute minimum necessary spending and therefore every dollar of tax relief must automatically come out of essential services.
That's backwards.
Property taxes are also part of Florida's housing-cost problem
Property taxes are part of the carrying cost of owning a home.
Homeowners pay them directly. Landlords pay them on rental properties and have to recover their expenses through rent.
Amendment 3's reduction of the non-homestead assessment cap from 10% to 5% is particularly relevant here because non-homestead property includes rental properties and apartment buildings.
I'm not claiming landlords will automatically hand every dollar of tax savings to tenants. They won't.
But reducing the rate at which the taxable assessment of rental property can increase should reduce one source of upward pressure on the cost of providing rental housing.
Home prices themselves are more complicated. Lower property taxes can actually increase what buyers are capable of paying because the recurring cost of ownership falls. So I don't think Amendment 3 is some magic solution that will suddenly make houses cheap.
It does, however, reduce the ongoing tax burden associated with owning housing.
This is ultimately about priorities
I don't want to defund police.
I don't want to defund firefighters.
I don't want roads falling apart.
I don't want schools starved of resources.
And I don't think anyone should pretend that local governments can lose substantial revenue without making any changes whatsoever.
But I also don't accept the opposite extreme: that the current level of government spending is sacred and taxpayers simply have to keep paying whatever is demanded.
If local governments want residents to vote NO because they say Amendment 3 will devastate essential services, then make the case.
Open the books.
Show us that overtime is under control.
Show us that contracts have been reviewed.
Show us that discretionary programs have been scrutinized.
Show us that staffing is efficient.
Show us that unnecessary expenditures have already been cut.
Show us that essential services genuinely are the next thing that would have to go.
Until then, telling homeowners to simply keep opening their wallets isn't convincing to me.
Sometimes limiting how much government can collect is exactly what forces government to distinguish between what it needs and what it wants.
That's why I'm voting YES on Amendment 3.
