Jacque, once again your angst at long-time homeowners is misplaced. Dusty hit it right on target. Those of us who have owned our homes for a while aren’t causing the problem, we aren’t part of the growth and we aren’t the cause for the need of new services or expanded current services -why should WE be penalized? If it were not for SOH, many of us long-time owners would have been forced out of our homes simply because new homeowners who paid inflated prices came into town, or wanted to build new developments. SOH does exactly what it was supposed to do -keep us from being forced out of our own homes.
The burdon SHOULD be on the new owners, who are the main cause for the demand in expanded services and wider roads, higher levels of congestion.
I thought this state was ran by conservatives.
The blame lies with Developers and their hand picked Politicians that pass laws favorable for them. The only reason that people buy new homes is that they’re relatively affordable in the beginning. They’re affordable because the tax system is rigged to offload the impact of new development unto the property owners of Florida that cannot vote for those politicians. If the actual impact costs were allocated to new development up front, growth would be slower. The politicians of this state need to be held accountable for the misuse of funds. They’ve blown the “windfall” received from the dramatic rise in real estate market values.
My prediction is that if SOH is not amended, market values will drop because out of state owners and investors will stop buying property here.
I thought this state was ran by conservatives.
The blame lies with Developers and their hand picked Politicians that pass laws favorable for them. The only reason that people buy new homes is that they’re relatively affordable in the beginning. They’re affordable because the tax system is rigged to offload the impact of new development unto the property owners of Florida that cannot vote for those politicians. If the actual impact costs were allocated to new development up front, growth would be slower. The politicians of this state need to be held accountable for the misuse of funds. They’ve blown the “windfall” received from the dramatic rise in real estate market values.
My prediction is that if SOH is not amended, market values will drop because out of state owners and investors will stop buying property here.
Hey goofball - I’m not moving or anything. I’ll die in this house. I can afford the payment unless the Republicans really let the insurance companies have their way. So what happens to market value has no bearing on myself whatsoever!!!
I’m voting against any tax cuts period come January. Anybody who is middle class and works for a living should vote no as well. That list includes teacher, policemen, firemen, civil servants - should all vote no. Hopefully those Unions will bust this tax plan up.
I’ll be voting ‘no’ as well -though I’m ALWAYS in favor of a tax cut. THIS is nothing but smoke and mirrors, it is NOT a true tax cut. IF this so-called ‘cut’ contained protections to keep our taxes down (just as SOH does by capping the amount they can raise ‘em every year) I’d vote for it without further argument. It does not, however. Once its’ in place, they can raise taxes as they see fit, and wipe out any savings within a year or two -and it would be perfectly legal. They would have effectively managed to get the voter to give up any form of protection they had under SOH. Sure, you can opt to keep SOH, but the new buyer won’t have the option, and if you sell your own home, you will lose the option. Its their way of letting SOH die, along with any form of protection the consumer enjoyed under the current system.
I thought this state was ran by conservatives.
The blame lies with Developers and their hand picked Politicians that pass laws favorable for them. The only reason that people buy new homes is that they’re relatively affordable in the beginning. They’re affordable because the tax system is rigged to offload the impact of new development unto the property owners of Florida that cannot vote for those politicians. If the actual impact costs were allocated to new development up front, growth would be slower. The politicians of this state need to be held accountable for the misuse of funds. They’ve blown the “windfall” received from the dramatic rise in real estate market values.
My prediction is that if SOH is not amended, market values will drop because out of state owners and investors will stop buying property here.
Hey goofball - I’m not moving or anything. I’ll die in this house. I can afford the payment unless the Republicans really let the insurance companies have their way. So what happens to market value has no bearing on myself whatsoever!!!
I’m voting against any tax cuts period come January. Anybody who is middle class and works for a living should vote no as well. That list includes teacher, policemen, firemen, civil servants - should all vote no. Hopefully those Unions will bust this tax plan up.
You know Ray I usually vote Democrat, but I really really need to reconsider who my vote helps.
Too much inventory of anything causes prices to fall.
The problem with slow home sales is that home values are kept down.
When home values are down, tax revenues go down and services suffer.
A community where services suffer becomes bighted.
That effects everything especially jobs and income.
Lack of growth usually means stagnation. Some folks might think that’s good, I don’t know of a community where stagnation has been good for the residents.
but too fast a growthrate hasn’t exactly been a GOOD thing, either. Prices go up too fast, and too high for any but the well-heeled to afford, pushing the rate out of reach of any but the upper-crust of the working class, and stretching already stretched resources to the limit.
Stagnation isn’t good, but neither is out of control growth.
Take our water problems for instance. Each year we hear the cry to restrict water -and while I have no problem whatsoever with conservation, its kind of a slap in the face for them to tell us we cannot water, or can only do so once a week etc, but then turn around and approve a multi-thousand home development.
Excuse me, but if water is so scarce that we are under the gun to not water, or do so very sparsely, then why is there enough to add another thousand families everytime you turn around ?
Since my home is not used as some scheme to get rich, I have absolutely no problem with not getting more for it. But your reasoning is highly flawed. My home is worth whatever its worth. It did not go up in value due to any improvements by the county or other taxpayers. Its value will be (at the very least) maintained by my paying to keep it in good shape. It may go up in value according to weather or not others pay more for houses like it, in its’ area.
Hardly an entitlement tax. You wish to liken it to welfare but thats not the case. It was simply designed to put restraints on the rediculously skyrocketing tax rates -which is exactly what it does -nothing more, nothing less. I don’t get anything from you or the government. I certainly don’t get anything I’m not paying for, so all I can say is that this claim of ‘entitlement’ is shot to hell because you cannot back it up.
You would have something of a point if I were getting services I didn’t pay for, but you don’t even get that point.
While it is true that overpriced insurance is forcing people out of the state, if you had YOUR way, the taxes would do so long before the insurance companies did. Does it perhaps escape you that YOU TOO can benefit under the SOH? Or do you simply not care because you earn enough to accomodate higher taxes?
It is only proper that those who move in pay for their increased demand on the infrastructure, not the rest of us. We paid our increase when we bought our homes -and I’ve never griped that my neighbors that have been here before me were paying less than I.
If housing prices plummet (which can happen if a neighborhood tanks, or if the economy does likewise) then my home too, will lose expected value. About the ONLY thing that NEVER goes down, is taxes. Even this so-called ‘tax cut’ that we have this year is in fact not a cut, but a stay on an increase -in simpler language, the taxes simply weren’t allowed to go up for this year, and this year only.
If you wish to abandon the SOH so badly, as you seem to, then don’t take advantage of it. It isn’t mandatory, after all.
I say raise the sale tax from 7% to 10% so everyone will be contributing to the prosperity of this great state equally. Why not privatize many local services on a paid as you need basis. I think property tax is a great deal for the counties, but it sucks for the homeowner. If you own your home outright, the counties have their hand out for payment every year. Just a thought, I do understand and feel both sides on this issues have excellent points, however it’s the local government that is the clear winner when they can collect every year....imagine if you had to pay taxes every year on your nice man fur sitting in the closet for the 15 cold days a year....I would be pissed!
but too fast a growthrate hasn’t exactly been a GOOD thing, either. Prices go up too fast, and too high for any but the well-heeled to afford, pushing the rate out of reach of any but the upper-crust of the working class, and stretching already stretched resources to the limit.
Stagnation isn’t good, but neither is out of control growth.
Take our water problems for instance. Each year we hear the cry to restrict water -and while I have no problem whatsoever with conservation, its kind of a slap in the face for them to tell us we cannot water, or can only do so once a week etc, but then turn around and approve a multi-thousand home development.
Excuse me, but if water is so scarce that we are under the gun to not water, or do so very sparsely, then why is there enough to add another thousand families everytime you turn around ?
Take our water problems for instance. Each year we hear the cry to restrict water -and while I have no problem whatsoever with conservation, its kind of a slap in the face for them to tell us we cannot water, or can only do so once a week etc, but then turn around and approve a multi-thousand home development.
A perfect example of Politicians being in the pockets of developers. Voters in high growth area need to pay special attention to candidates that are capable of managing growth in a responsible manner. Too often we voter get distracted by issues that have little to do with a given offices’ sphere of influence. Voting for City Council or County Commissioner, based purely on weather they are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life is ludicrous. We need capable government officials that view themselves as representing the people rather than an industry.
“Parks Dept”? What do those guys do anyway? If we have to choose between having parks or having comfortable, affordable homes and other necessities, I think that parks can go.
Actually, we once had both parks and low taxes. What happened?
The spending habits of the bureaucrats is definitely out of control.
One of the things the Parks Dept. does is provide free after school care for our children. I should know, for several years that’s where my kids went after school and all summer while I worked. And it never cost me a penny more than what I and everyone else paid just by paying our taxes. That was one area where I actually saw my tax money at work for me! There are many families I’m sure, that still depend on this wonderful program for the kids in our area.
There should be absolutely no reason why people are losing their jobs over property tax cuts. The county has been MAKING money through the recent years because of the sky high taxes that we all have been paying! What is Pam Iorio screaming about!! Maybe she’s the one who’s being paid too much? I would love to see some kind of independent investigation on the monies that have been thrown away on reckless expenditures in recent history. And see just EXACTLY where the money is going.
I don’t trust the story that we hear from our elected officials and their “sky is falling” mentality of the proposed tax cuts.
I heard that! Far time they justify just HOW they are spending all the extra money. Every year (and yes even this year) they make more than they did the year before. Where is it all going? They want to keep raising taxes? They should JUSTIFY IT.
Lord knows that my department must justify when it wants a higher budget. Our household budget is always justified since it us we who must figure out where we are going to get the money to pay for it. Past time that the government follow suit. You want MORE?? Show us WHY we should pay more. If we feel its justified, we will pay it.
Houses only go up in value due to inflation. Unless of course you have water front property then there are no rules.
If you are driving a car that costs as much as your first house you might be living in some form of Upper middleclass with two incomes. If you drive a car that is 10+ years old you are just getting by on a fixed income and there is no middle class at all.
Remember the guy with the rope who said: “When your neighbor is unemployed it’s a recession. When you are unemployed it’s a depression.”
Vote for whomever and whatever you please but vote. It’ll keep your homestead exemption working.
Not necessarily. Not everyone buys a new car every five years. I have friends who get a new car (lease) every two years like clockwork, and have friends who BUY a new one every 5 yrs, and have friends who certainly live in the upper middle class, but drive their cars until they begin to cost more to repair than its worth, and ONLY THEN buy new ones. My last pickup truck was more than ten years old when I decided to buy my ‘new’ one -which is now into its’ 8th year, at just over 200,000 miles, still running strong, and I don’t foresee replacing it in the near future. I fully expect it will be another 5 or 6 years (or more? ) before I considder changing out.
Vehicles are lasting longer, and they WILL last longer if you are of a mind to do proper maintenance, and don’t drive them like an idiot -abusing them.
Just for the record, my last truck had crept into its’ 700,000th mile before I sold it. Ya just gotta love diesels!
Not necessarily. Not everyone buys a new car every five years. I have friends who get a new car (lease) every two years like clockwork, and have friends who BUY a new one every 5 yrs, and have friends who certainly live in the upper middle class, but drive their cars until they begin to cost more to repair than its worth, and ONLY THEN buy new ones. My last pickup truck was more than ten years old when I decided to buy my ‘new’ one -which is now into its’ 8th year, at just over 200,000 miles, still running strong, and I don’t foresee replacing it in the near future. I fully expect it will be another 5 or 6 years (or more? ) before I considder changing out.
Vehicles are lasting longer, and they WILL last longer if you are of a mind to do proper maintenance, and don’t drive them like an idiot -abusing them.
Just for the record, my last truck had crept into its’ 700,000th mile before I sold it. Ya just gotta love diesels!
You’re exactly right! My last car was a brand new 1990 IROC Camaro that I owned and babied for over 12 years. It was in cherry condition when I sold it to a military man that drove down from South Carolina after he saw it listed for sale on EBay.
I now own a Jaguar, and even though I can afford to buy a new car every couple years, why in the world would I?? As long as the current one I have is perfectly good and dependable.
I fully intend to keep it until the wheels fall right off! Every bit as long if not longer than I owned the Camaro. That’s just called good money sense.
I just got an email back from the FL AARP and they have not taken a position on the Constitutional Amendment appearing on the Jan 29th Primary. Doesn’t look like they are going to either.
That’s how hot a ticket item this is. I wouldnt’ expect to see any positions before January?
This is all going to come down to a “personal benefit” vote. In my county the average age is now under 55 for the first time probably ever so it will be interesting.
Personnally I don’t care which way it goes as we will benefit either way and it looks like we’ll get to make a choice.
The real question is how many years will it take for property values to significantly escalate again? I will guess 10 for a round number. Like many - we plan on ending our days in this house (provided we don’t linger - as Carson used to say) so the investment aspect of our house is a moot point unless we end up doing a reverse mortgage to maintain a decent standard of living or provide on site care? That jury will remain out hopefully for a good many years.
Houses only go up in value due to inflation. Unless of course you have water front property then there are no rules.