October 19, 2008

 

Early voting starts Monday, which means it's time to cram for all those confusing ballot questions. Today, my election cheat sheet covers the six proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution.

Thank the Florida Supreme Court for simplifying things. It threw out three amendment proposals for being vague or misleading, including one that would have radically altered public school funding by cutting property taxes and possibly raising sales taxes.

Also gone: two proposed amendments that could have opened the door to direct public funding of religious schools.

Here's a rundown of the remaining six. And remember, amendments now need 60 percent voter approval to pass, a change mandated by a 2006 amendment that got 57.8 percent approval. That, my friends, is constitutional irony.

Amendment 1 — This would delete an outdated, discriminatory provision that allows the Legislature to bar certain non-citizens from inheriting or owning land. The provision dates to 1926, when xenophobic fears ran high that Asian immigrants would buy up farmland. The Legislature never enacted the ban, but the language remains in the constitution. Florida is the only state that still has such a constitutional clause. It's time to end that. I'm voting YES.

Amendment 2 — This would define "marriage" as between one man and one woman and provide that "no other legal union that is treated . . . as the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

The anti-gay-marriage part is clear enough, but the murky last part has a lot of people concerned, non-gays included. Would this affect domestic partnerships, including those of heterosexuals and seniors? Proponents say it's a baseless fear, but legal experts say the ambiguous language could come back to bite.

Florida law already bans same-sex marriage, but the worry among gay-marriage opponents is that a court could overturn the ban, as has happened this year in California and Connecticut.

I say it can't happen soon enough. Simple human dignity and equality says gays should be allowed to marry. But knowing us, in 100 years Florida will probably be the last state to have a gay-marriage ban on the books. I'm voting NO.

Amendment 3 — This would exempt certain home improvements — for storm protection or renewable energy — from counting toward property value assessments. These tax breaks make sense, because we should be encouraging things like hurricane shutters and solar panels. YES.

Amendment 4 — This would give property tax exemptions to "perpetual conservation" land. Sounds good, but this one has me concerned, because it's up to the Legislature to determine what qualifies as conservation land and all the other fine points.

I don't want this turning into another tax dodge like for "agricultural land," a loophole where developers would keep a few cows grazing for years on undeveloped projects for big tax breaks. A worried YES.

Amendment 6 — This would tax "working waterfront" land based on its actual use, not its highest and best use. Things such as marinas and boat repair yards have been getting slammed with property taxes because of the "highest and best use" law.

A marina should be taxed as a marina, not a condo high-rise. YES.

Amendment 8 — This would give counties the option to hold local votes to raise sales taxes to supplement community college funding. This alone wouldn't raise local sales taxes, but would give counties the chance to ask voters later. If a county's voters didn't like the specifics, they could always vote no at that time. YES.

Michael Mayo's column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at mmayo@SunSentinel.com or 954-356-4508.