Amendment questions on Nov. 7 ballot answered
By Paul Roat. Islander Reporter
West Manatee proposes impact fee hike
Voters in the West Manatee
Fire Rescue District will be asked to vote
on a ballot measure Nov. 7 to allow the district to increase the
impact fees it charges on new construction. The measure reads:
“Shall West Manatee Fire Rescue District be allowed to increase impact fees
on new construction only, to pay for new equipment and facilities as necessary
to accommodate growth?” |
There are more decisions to make on the Nov. 7 ballot than just choosing
candidates - Florida voters have six amendments to the state Constitution
to mull.
There originally were eight proposals, but
one was pulled by the Florida Legislature and the other
ruled unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court.
The nonpartisan group VoteSmartFlorida.org,
and its accompanying Web site, offer a purported unbiased
view of the six amendments. Go to the site for more detailed information
than what is provided below:
Amendment
1: state planning and budget process. Ballot summary:
Limits non-recurring general fund appropriation increases to 3 percent
per year unless approved by three-fifths vote of the Florida Legislature.
It would also create a Joint Legislative Budget Commission to deal with
long-range budget financial issues and a Government Efficiency Task Force.
Proponents state the amendment would place both budget and revenue estimates
together in one document, and the committees formed would create a long-term
financial outlook. Opponents state current general law provides all the
necessary measures and additional commissions are not needed.
Amendment 3: create broader public support
for Constitutional amendments or revisions. Ballot
summary: Provides for any changes to the constitution to be approved
by 60 percent of the voters, rather than the current simple majority
approval process. Proponents say Florida has one of the easiest constitutions
to amend in the country and, by having more people approve any changes,
it would mean a greater consensus of the voters would issue such mandates.
Opponents state that a voter-initiated constitutional change requiring
a higher percentage of voters would diminish the chance of such a change
taking place.
Amendment 4: protection of people against
health hazards caused by using tobacco. Ballot summary:
Forces the Florida Legislature to use some tobacco settlement funds for
statewide tobacco education and prevention programs. Proponents state
that Florida receives $360 million annually from the tobacco settlement,
yet spends $1 million in educational programs. The change would earmark
$57 million for such programs. Opponents state the tobacco education
funds would come out of other programs, such as education and transportation,
and the changes would be better served coming from
the legislature.
Amendment
6: increased homestead exemption. Ballot summary: The
amendment would increase homestead exemption for low-income seniors from
$25,000 to $50,000 per year. Proponents state older, poorer residents
are subject to increased property tax values and the change would offer
tax relief. Opponents state tax revenue is an important funding source
for government and that the amendment would shift the tax burden to other
taxpayers.
Amendment 7:
discount on property tax for permanently disabled veterans.
Ballot summary: Provides a formula for permanently disabled veterans
aged 65 or older. Proponents state the amendment would give thanks to
veterans who were injured in a foreign war and would keep the exemptions
in line with their level of disability. Opponents state exemptions are
already in place and the amendment would create exemptions of varying
degrees for each veteran.
Amendment 8: eminent domain. Ballot summary:
Prohibits the transfer of private property taken by
eminent domain to people or private groups, but allowing the Florida
Legislature by a three-fifths vote to permit such transfers. Proponents
state the amendment is needed because current law allows the courts to
determine the eminent domain fate of property, and without the change
the question of whether or not a government may take property for economic
development will remain unanswered. Opponents state the amendment is
not needed and would place limits on the use of property taken by eminent
domain. |
