Communism for the rich!

Aside from the governor’s race and one of Florida’s two Senate seats, Amendment 3 will be among the most talked-about issues in the November election.

As currently written, Amendment 3 would significantly change Florida’s property-tax and local-government spending rules. It would increase the non-school portion of the homestead exemption from the current $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and to $250,000 in 2028. Beginning in 2029, the $250,000 amount would be adjusted annually for inflation.

Let me explain that in plain English.

If you own a home in Florida and it is your permanent residence, you may qualify for a homestead exemption that reduces your property’s taxable value by up to $50,000. The first $25,000 applies to all property taxes, and the additional $25,000 applies only to non-school taxes. The property appraiser determines the assessed value and your eligibility for the exemption.

The proposed amendment would substantially increase that non-school exemption. And for someone like me, that sounds pretty damn good.

My condo is paid for. But every year I watch property taxes and building maintenance costs climb, while insurance premiums push those maintenance costs through the roof. Like many other homeowners, I sometimes wonder how long I will be able to afford to remain in the place I own outright.

So yes, Amendment 3 sounds like a huge, crying-out-loud relief.

But wait a second.

There are people warning us that this could have serious consequences.

The state’s Revenue Estimating Conference projects billions of dollars in lost local-government property-tax revenue as the larger exemption takes effect. Under its middle estimate, the non-school homestead change alone would have a cash impact of about $4.6 billion in 2027-28 and a recurring annual impact of about $9.6 billion thereafter.

That is a lot of money.

And if local governments lose that much revenue, the argument goes, where will the money come from for police, fire protection, infrastructure, and other services?

Okay. That is a legitimate question.

And yet I live in the Miami area, and I look around at what our local governments spend money on. I can’t help wondering whether finding ways to live within a reduced budget isn’t, at least in part, what politicians are supposed to do.

We’re constantly told that there isn’t enough money to go around.

We hear that we can’t do this or that—especially when it involves helping bus riders, working families, and people in our communities who are struggling to survive while working two, and sometimes three, jobs to make ends meet.

But then FIFA comes to town.

Miami-Dade County approved a World Cup funding package that included up to $10.5 million in cash, up to $25 million in in-kind services and public-safety expenses, and $3 million in matching funds for legacy projects, for a potential commitment of $38.5 million.

And let’s be clear: I understand that the World Cup is a major international event that brings visitors, attention, and potentially substantial economic activity to South Florida. County officials have argued that it did just that.

But when the government tells ordinary residents that there isn’t enough money to meet their needs, people have every right to ask questions about priorities.

And then there’s our newly elected Miami-Dade sheriff, who has repeatedly sought additional funding for her department. In the county’s 2025-26 budget, the Sheriff’s Office had a total budget of about $1.16 billion.

Again, I believe in public safety. I believe police officers and firefighters should be well paid, and public employees should be compensated fairly for difficult and sometimes dangerous work.

But accountability is also necessary.

What about overtime? What about pension costs? What about the thousands of county employees earning six-figure salaries? What about the overall growth in government payrolls and benefits?

The examples abound.

I believe in well-paid, competent public employees. But folks, taxpayers in Miami-Dade—many of whom are leaving because this place has become so expensive—should not simply be expected to keep writing bigger and bigger checks while asking whether everyone at the top of the economic ladder is contributing their fair share.

What we are witnessing sometimes feels like Robin Hood in reverse. The rich get the benefits, while everybody else gets the bill.

The old—but now new again—buzzword among politicians running for office is “communism.” And I say: Hell yeah.

Communism for the rich!

I’ll leave you with one more thought.

Have you noticed how much money is being spent on political campaigns these days? Millions of dollars are poured into television commercials, mailers and social media campaigns—much of it devoted to telling voters how terrible the other candidate is.

And we’re supposed to believe the government can’t find the money to make life a little more affordable for the people who actually live here?

I’m not buying it.

I will be voting in favor of Amendment 3.

And may the chips fall where they may.