Florida’s property tax fight: Why a plan to help homeowners could leave renters worried

A Leon County judge has ruled that the title and summary of the proposed property tax amendment contain political language and could mislead voters. Judge David Frank said voters must be given clear information about what the amendment would actually do.

“Voters are entitled to a fair, clear, accurate and non-misleading ballot statement to assist them in making their critical determination,” Judge David Frank wrote in his 18-page ruling. “The present ballot language would deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a meaningful decision.”

The ruling does not remove Amendment 3 from the November ballot. Instead, if the decision is not appealed, Attorney General James Uthmeier has 10 days to revise the ballot summary according to the judge’s instructions.

The groups that challenged the amendment welcomed the ruling. Their aim, they said, was not to stop voters from having their say, but to ensure they understand what they are voting on.

“Our goal here right from the beginning was not to take this off the ballot,” Jamie Cole, attorney for Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, told the News Service of Florida. “We want the voters to have the opportunity to make an informed decision and in order to do that they need fair and accurate language.”

But time is running short. Former state Sen. Jeff Brandes said the court has a deadline near the end of August to settle the ballot language before November ballots are finalised. An appeal could therefore put the amendment’s future at risk.

“It’s an option but we’ll see if the (Attorney General) exercises it, but they run into a real time crunch if they start doing that,” Brandes said.

What the amendment would change

The proposal, also known as ‘Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes,’ was pushed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and approved by the Republican-led state Legislature in June after months of negotiations between the House, Senate and governor.

DeSantis had initially argued for eliminating property taxes in Florida. Amendment 3 does not go that far, but it would significantly increase the homestead exemption available to homeowners.The current $50,000 homestead exemption would rise to $150,000 in January 2027 and then to $250,000 in January 2028. The increased exemption would not apply to the portion of property taxes used to fund public schools.

The proposal would also cut the annual assessment-growth cap for non-homestead residential properties from 10 percent to 5 percent. Another major change would affect how cities and counties use property tax revenue. Their spending would be limited to certain “core services”, including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, employee retirement benefits, operations and administration, as well as certain other expenses approved by local authorities.The judge said the original ballot language failed to properly explain how this could affect the constitutional powers of local governments.

The amendment would, critics argue, give the state Legislature greater control over how cities and counties spend property tax revenue. “The amendment purports to change the constitutional baseline of city and county power by placing in the Constitution for the first time the Legislature’s right to control ad valorem tax spending,” Frank wrote.

Why homeowners are supporting it

For homeowners, the proposal could mean a substantial reduction in property taxes. Florida’s property tax burden has grown sharply in recent years. Between 2019 and 2024, the state’s total property tax revenue rose by about 62.8 percent, from roughly $31 billion to $55 billion, according to the Florida Department of Revenue.

That increase has become an important part of Florida’s broader housing affordability debate. Homeowners have also faced years of rising insurance and housing costs.

Supporters say the amendment could provide much-needed relief, particularly for older Floridians and people living on fixed incomes. Camilo Mejia, director of policy and advocacy at Catalyst Miami, acknowledged why some homeowners see the proposal as a lifeline.

“There’s a lot of people who are on fixed incomes who purchased their homes 20 or 30 years ago.” For some homeowners, the change could reduce the non-school portion of their property tax bill dramatically. In some cases, that portion could even fall to zero. But the benefits would be concentrated among people who own and live in their homes.

Renters could face a different reality

Florida has a large population of renters who would not receive the expanded homestead exemption. About two-thirds of Florida households own their homes, according to 2025 Census Bureau data, while 2.83 million households rent, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Renters are already under significant financial pressure. Research cited by Florida Phoenix found that Florida is the most cost-burdened state in the country for renters, with rent taking up 37.4 percent of typical income.

The biggest question surrounding Amendment 3 is whether those renters could end up paying more if local governments lose a large part of their property tax revenue.

The Tax Foundation has warned that eliminating a substantial part of the state’s property tax base would not eliminate the cost of running local governments. Instead, local authorities could have to find the money elsewhere.

According to the independent tax policy nonprofit the Tax Foundation, if voters approve Amendment 3 in November, “eliminating such a sizable share of Florida’s property tax base would not reduce the cost of providing local government services; it would simply require that the lost revenue be generated elsewhere, including from higher millage rates on all property that remains taxable.”

The Florida Policy Institute has raised a similar concern. If local governments need more revenue, they could turn to properties that do not receive the homestead exemption, including rental and commercial properties.

As the independent, non-partisan, nonprofit organization Florida Policy Institute (FPI) put it, this would lead “to a cost shift as localities turn to non-homesteaded properties like rental units or commercial properties to raise property taxes.”

That could create another problem. If commercial property taxes rise, businesses could either absorb the additional costs or pass them on to customers and tenants.

If property taxes increase for commercial properties as a result of the amendment, and all businesses end up paying more, “they would have to decide whether to absorb those costs or shift them onto renters and consumers,” the FPI wrote.

A Leon County judge also explained this concern while examining the proposed ballot language. He said the amendment would provide relief “only to owners of homestead properties” while renters could face higher costs if landlords pass on higher tax bills through rent.

Landlords could benefit, but renters are not guaranteed savings

The amendment would not give landlords the same expanded homestead exemption available to people living in their own homes.Rental properties would not qualify for the increase from $50,000 to $150,000 and eventually $250,000. Landlords could nevertheless receive some tax benefit because the proposal would reduce the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead residential properties from 10 percent to 5 percent.

But there is nothing in the proposal requiring landlords to pass those savings on to their tenants. State Representative Rob Long summed up the concern, “A landlord might get a tax benefit, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the renter sees a lower rent payment.”

Long also warned that local governments could respond to lost property tax revenue by increasing other charges. “Renters are not going to receive the homestead exemption. A landlord might get a tax benefit, but there is absolutely no guarantee that a renter sees a lower rent payment. At the same time, cities are going to have to increase fire assessments, utility charges, or other fees to keep services running.”

The amendment is also about local services

The debate is therefore not only about property taxes. It is also about what happens to the services that local governments provide. The proposed constitutional changes would restrict how cities and counties can spend property tax revenue. Critics fear that reduced revenue could affect services such as public transport, education, fire protection and other local programmes.

Jackson Peel, communications director for Save Our Services — No on 3, the main opposition coalition, said voters become less supportive when they understand the possible effect on public services. “Education equals opposition when it comes to this amendment.” “When people hear what this bad policy will do to their communities, they reject it. They don’t like what it stands for.”

A recent James Madison Institute survey of 1,400 Floridians illustrates the divide. Seventy-four percent of voters said they currently support the amendment. But support fell to 55 percent when voters were told that it could reduce funding for local government services.

That figure is important because constitutional amendments in Florida need at least 60 percent support to pass. Mejía, of Catalyst Miami, warned that the consequences could extend beyond renters. Amendment 3 “could be an anvil that finally sinks” renters, moms who rely on after-school programs, residents who need public transit, or families on food assistance — even though many homeowners see it as a lifeline. “It actually has a compounding effect.”

The ballot language itself became part of the fight

The legal challenge focused heavily on how the amendment was presented to voters. The original ballot summary said the amendment would benefit Florida taxpayers by “exempting homestead properties from taxation,” “ensuring funding for core services,” “protecting small businesses,” and “ensuring fairness for Florida residents.”

Judge Frank said those descriptions should not appear in the ballot summary because they were not neutral explanations of the amendment.

He described them as “political rhetoric, not neutral, not explanation.” The judge also said the ballot summary failed to explain the possible effect on the state’s “home rule” provisions, which give local governments broad authority over how they spend their revenue.

The legal challenges were brought by several groups and individuals, including Save Our Voters From Misleading Ballot Language, former Stuart Mayor Thomas Campenni, former Key Biscayne Mayor Michael Davey, former U.S. Rep. Al Lawson and former state Sen. Jeff Brandes. The three lawsuits were later combined into one case.

Voters will have the final say

Despite the legal battle, Amendment 3 is still expected to reach voters in November, provided the ballot language is rewritten in time. It will appear as a “yes/no” question. If at least 60 percent of voters approve it, the amendment will take effect on January 1, 2027.

The proposal has already shown strong support in polling, but that support appears sensitive to how voters understand its possible consequences. For homeowners struggling with rising costs, the amendment could offer significant relief. For renters and local governments, however, the concern is that the money saved in one part of the system could have to be recovered somewhere else.