Florida Waterfront Property Tax Assessment, Amendment 6 (2008)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Taxes
Taxes.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Florida Constitution
750px-Flag of Florida.svg.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXII

The Florida Waterfront Property Tax Assessment Amendment, also known as Amendment 6 was a commission referral on the November 4, 2008 election ballot in Florida, where it was approved.

Election results

Florida Amendment 6 (2008)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 4,983,313 70.63%
No2,072,04129.37%

Election Results via: Florida Department of State Division of Elections

Text of measure

The ballot title read:

ASSESSMENT OF WORKING WATERFRONT PROPERTY BASED UPON CURRENT USE[1][2]

The ballot summary read:

Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water - dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law.[1][2]

Constitutional changes

The text of the amendment can be read in the ballot pamphlet.

Support

Arguments

Notable arguments made in support of the measure included:

  • Access to public waterfront areas would more likely remain at current levels rather than continuing to diminish.[3]
  • This measure may reduce property taxes on working waterfront properties and thereby reduce pressure to sell those properties to developers.[3]
  • Amendment 6 would apply a "current use" assessment method for working waterfront property. This would be used in place of a "highest and best use" assessment system, which can mean high assessments for small businesses (e.g., fisheries) if their property could be used for other, more expensive purposes (e.g., luxury condos).[3][4]

Opposition

Arguments

Notable arguments made in opposition to the measure included:

  • Local revenues would suffer.[3]
  • The measure allows the Legislature to define terms and impose conditions and limitations on any tax break working waterfront owners receive.[3]

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

External links

References