Democratic leaders gathered in Tallahassee this morning to condemn Gov. Ron DeSantis’ call for a special legislative session, during which lawmakers will consider a proposal that could eventually eliminate property taxes on homesteaded properties across Florida.
DeSantis, who is term-limited and preparing to leave office next year, has sparked concern among local governments that rely heavily on property tax revenue to fund essential services and infrastructure.
The governor’s proposal, dubbed “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes,” would immediately raise Florida’s homestead exemption from $50,000 to $250,000 while creating a pathway for the eventual elimination of property taxes on homesteaded properties through future legislation.
House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell sharply criticized the effort. “He’s on his way out the door and wants to bankrupt local communities in the process,” Driskell said during this morning’s press conference.
Driskell also noted that Republican lawmakers have repeatedly rejected Democratic proposals to eliminate Florida’s gas tax, among other relief initiatives, while now pursuing a far more sweeping change to local government revenue structures.
Property taxes currently help fund schools, public safety, infrastructure, elections, libraries, parks, road maintenance and other local government services. They also support many county-funded programs, including health and social service initiatives.
“In this economy, Floridians are relying more on local services, therefore this is not the time to cut off funding to those local governments,” Driskell said.
“Eliminating property tax is not a tax cut, but a tax shift. Local communities would have to offset this loss in revenue by increasing taxes and fees for public services and potentially making budget cuts — a loss in services and potentially jobs.”
Property taxes represent one of the largest and most stable revenue sources available to local governments. Cities and counties use those revenues to fund everything from police officers and firefighters to stormwater systems, road repairs, parks and emergency management operations. Unlike the state, local governments often have limited options for replacing large amounts of lost revenue, forcing them to vie for funding from the state and federal levels.
Aside from services, Driskell contends that DeSantis’ plan amounts to government overreach, demanding efficiency from communities that local officials, not state leaders, are better equipped to manage.
District 30 Sen. Tina Scott Polsky criticized the title of the proposed constitutional amendment, “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes,” arguing the language itself could mislead voters if it appears that way on the November ballot.
“Getting rid of ‘excessive taxes,’” said Polsky, “is a subjective statement, and that is not right to go directly to the voters.”
Polsky likened the wording to political advertising, noting that the use of public resources for political messaging was restricted by state lawmakers last year. “It’s really unusual and derelict of the governor,” she added.
Driskell reserved some of her strongest criticism for what she believes would happen after local governments lose a major source of revenue: “We absolutely can see our counties and cities collapsing under this, and what it looks like is frankly the creation of welfare counties,” she warned.
The concern, Democratic lawmakers argued, is that cities and counties would become increasingly dependent on Tallahassee for financial assistance through state trust funds and annual appropriations. Critics say that could weaken local control while leaving communities dependent on funding decisions made in the state capital.
This concern is already resonating in St. Petersburg, where city leaders recently warned that major reductions in property tax revenue could jeopardize funding for police, fire rescue, infrastructure, stormwater improvements and resiliency projects.
Whether the proposal ultimately reaches voters remains unclear, but it should be known by week’s end. If approved by lawmakers during the special session, the constitutional amendment would head to the November ballot, where it would require at least 60% voter approval to pass.