Sticking It to Newcomers

We'd try to spend all of our money by buying everything we landed on, strategy be damned. You'd think by playing so zestfully that we'd run out of money very quickly, but we never did. The games went on and on.

I've been thinking about that in the midst of our governors' race. Charlie Crist, the Republican candidate and eventual winner, campaigned on a no "new taxes" platform.

Two of Crist's main campaign promises were to raise the homestead exemption, from $25,000 to $50,000, and to let homeowners take their "Save Our Homes" tax savings with them if they moved.

Save Our Homes, adopted as an amendment to the state Constitution in 1992, mandated that property taxes increase by no more than 3 percent per year regardless of how much property values rise. The idea was to prevent those who bought their homes decades ago-primarily the elderly, according to proponents-from being taxed out of their neighborhoods.

In that respect, it worked. But the biggest beneficiaries have been longtime (and typically well-to-do) owners of prime lakefront and oceanfront homes, which have soared in value.

And since newcomers-as well as current residents who sell their homes and move across town-get no such break, next-door neighbors living in similarly valued homes often find themselves with vastly disparate tax obligations.

So, if tax revenue sources are reduced even further by doubling the homestead exemption and making the Save Our Homes cap portable, who'll pay the tab for providing essential government services?

You will, that's who. And by "you," I mean buyers of new homes-the primary readers of Orlando Homebuyer.

I agree that longtime residents shouldn't be unduly burdened with costs related to growth. As much as possible, growth should be self-sustaining, which is the concept behind impact fees. The problem comes when newcomers are forced to foot the bill for "growth-plus."

In other words, it's easier for elected officials to stick newcomers with costs that should be borne equitably by all the residents of our state.

For example, I live in a well-established, older community near downtown Orlando. My kids attend school in ramshackle buildings that are at least a half-century old while there are beautiful new facilities being build in the suburbs, where most of the region's growth is taking place.

Sure, my kids' schools are on Orlando" target="_blank">Orange County's infamous "list" of planned refurbishment projects. But year after year, these improvements are delayed, cancelled, ignored or forgotten. In the meantime, new schools get built out of necessity.

If there were a modest real estate transaction fee that applied to all residential and commercial purchases, there'd be money to do what we need to do without piling the burden on new development, thus making it all but impossible for builders to provide affordable housing.

A transaction fee, combined with an equitable division of the tax burden among all our residents, newcomers and longtimers alike, is the direction we need to take.

I learned from all those Monopoly games years ago that it's not bad to spend money when you're investing in something important and an overabundance of caution can mean defeat. Similarly, to have a healthy community, and to maintain and enhance our quality of life, we have to be willing to pay for it.

-Mimi Briegel, Publisher

mimib@florida-homebuyer.com