Get Involved :

Home In The News Contact

For More Information

For more information on Amendment 6 and Save Our Waterfronts, email us at info@saveourwaterfronts.org

In The News

Fort Lauderdale City Commission Adopts Resolution
Supporting Amendment 6
City Joins Effort to Protect Waterfronts and Preserve Marine Industry

October 30, 2008 Press Release by the City of Fort Lauderdale – At its most recent meeting, the Fort Lauderdale City Commission unanimously passed a Resolution supporting Florida Constitutional Amendment 6, which will be considered by voters on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot.

Amendment 6 would change the way marine-related businesses and working waterfronts are taxed. Currently, these businesses are appraised and taxed based upon the potential use of the land, such as high-end condominium or waterfront resort, rather than on the current use of the property.

Amendment 6 would add the following language to the Florida Constitution:

The assessment of the following waterfront properties shall be based upon the current use of the property:

a. Land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes.

b. Land that is accessible to the public and used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable.

c. Marinas and drystacks that are open to the public.

d. Water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities.

Supporters contend that the current tax system is forcing many marine businesses to sell their properties and relocate out of state. Losing marine businesses is detrimental to the state’s economy. The marine industry provides more than 220,000 jobs and contributes more than $18 billion to Florida’s economy. In South Florida, marine commerce accounts for 134,000 jobs; $3.7 billion in gross wages; and $10.8 billion in economic impact.

The City Commission supports Amendment 6 to protect public access to the state’s waterways and preserve marine businesses and working waterfronts, all of which are vital to sustaining and expanding economic growth on a local and statewide basis.

Statewide amendments on ballot made easy

Exceprt frin artucke by WES BLACKMAN, www.floridablade.com. Oct. 30, 2008 — Besides the much-ballyhooed Presidential election and a variety of other state, county, municipal candidates, there will be six statewide amendments on the November 4th election ballot. Amendment 2, the anti-gay “marriage protection” amendment, is one of these ballot initiatives. But what about the other five?

To help the GLBT community vote in an educated manner, here is a quick summary of the various amendments that voters statewide will face. (Notice there are some numbers missing—Amendments 5, 7 and 9 have been removed from the ballot.) ...

Amendment No. 6 - Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use:

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… (continues)

Amendment 6, although very wordy, is like Amendment 4 in many ways: it provides for assessment of waterfront properties to be assessed based on current use, instead of “highest” and “best” use. This will turn down the heat on working waterfront properties that are endangered by redevelopment, including hotels and condos, by lowering their property tax burden. ...

‘Yes’ on Amendment 6 keeps waterfronts ‘working’ and accessible

The Island Report - Friday, October 31, 2008, by MARGARET PODLICH, Vice President of Government Affairs, BoatU.S.— In Florida, public access to the waterfront and water-dependent businesses are being taxed out of existence. That’s due to the state’s inequitable tax code that appraises every single waterfront parcel — marina, boat ramp, commercial fishing operation or any other water-dependent facility — at “highest and best use” tax rates, not what the property is actually used for. On Nov. 4, Sunshine State voters will have a chance to level the playing field by voting “yes” on Amendment 6, which if passed will allow waterfront parcels to be assessed on their present use as a marina, launch ramp or other waterfront business, and help keep the state’s waterways accessible to all Floridians.

Currently in the state of Florida, a small marina with public access is taxed as having the same revenue potential as a multi-unit waterfront condominium development. It’s only a matter of time before a marina, fishing operation or other water-dependent business succumbs to the crushing tax burden. It’s simply bad math that doesn’t add up for boaters, water-dependent businesses, or anyone interested in preserving the state’s maritime heritage and dwindling waterfront access.

Amendment 6 simply states the following marine venues and working waterfronts will be taxed at the property’s current use:

Marinas and docks open to the public for access and recreational uses
Public vessel launches into navigable waterways
Commercial fishing facilities
Water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities
Marine vessel construction and repair facilities

Florida cannot afford to lose any more access, and its marine industry, which contributes $18 billion to the state’s economy and provides 220,000 jobs. Unlike other businesses, these operations cannot relocate. It’s ironic that a state known for its world-class recreational boating could have such a self-defeating measure in its tax code.

The amendment was introduced by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission and is supported by a large coalition of organizations including the Marine Industries Association of South Florida, Marine Industries Association of Florida, Florida Council of Yacht Clubs and Boat Owners Association of The United States (BoatU.S.).

Visit www.SaveOurWaterfronts.com to learn more. The public, boaters and business all have big stakes in this issue.

Stay informed

Excerpt from article in Alachua County Today, 10/30/08 by CRAIG COX — In the final addition to our reviews of the six amendments proposed for the Florida Constitution, Alachua County Today is taking a look at Amendments 6 and 8 in preparation for Tuesday’s election.

Amendment 6: “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.”

Amendment 6 will allow maritime businesses to be taxed based on their current use rather than the property’s potential use.

Currently, properties located along waterways are taxed based on potential use, so businesses such as marinas are charged the same property tax as condominiums, even if the business is not generating as much income as condominiums.

As the population in Florida expands, more people are fighting for less land along the coasts. Property taxes continue to rise, so small maritime businesses are being forced to sell their land to developers.

Maritime businesses represent an $18 billion a year industry in Florida, employing about 220,000 people, and the industry is likely to suffer if small businesses continue to fold.

Proponents of Amendment 6 claim it will protect access to public waterfront areas, because privatized condominiums will not be able to claim the properties.

Opponents of the amendment argue that local revenues will suffer, because maritime businesses will not be taxed as much as other uses. ...

Those amendments on the Nov. 5 ballot: What they mean

Sun-Sentinel, 10/28/2008 — Although major ballot questions on school property taxes and vouchers were removed by the courts, voters still face a roster of six amendments they'll vote up or down Nov. 4. Each requires 60 percent approval to pass:

Amendment 1: Amendment 1 would repeal a clause in Florida's constitution allowing legislators to ban Asian immigrants from owning land. Florida is the last state in the nation with a so-called 'alien land law' in its constitution.

The amendment would remove language allowing legislators to prohibit or regulate land ownership among 'aliens ineligible for citizenship' - a standard drawn in 1926 to target Japanese immigrants. Florida legislators never invoked this authority, however, and it couldn't be enforced today because of equal protection laws. Supporters describe Amendment 1 as a symbolic vote to remove racism and discrimination from the constitution. Amendment 2: For the first time, Florida voters will decide whether to enshrine a gay-marriage ban in the state constitution with Amendment 2

The proposal would define marriage as between one man and one woman, a standard that has been in state law for more than a decade. Supporters say outlawing same-sex marriage in the constitution will protect it from a court challenge.

The amendment also prohibits any legal union that is treated as marriage or an equivalent to marriage. This would ban civil unions and, critics say, could place in jeopardy domestic partner benefits offered by many companies and governments.

Amendment 3: Amendment 3 allows the Legislature to give tax breaks to property owners who harden their homes against hurricanes or install renewable-energy technology, such as solar panels.

Currently, upgrades including storm shutters, impact windows or solar panels can increase an owner's tax burden, since these improvements increase property values. This amendment would allow - although not require - the Legislature to discount wind-hardening and renewal-energy improvements from property tax bills.

The average tax savings would be $17 a year for every $1,000 worth of shutters or solar panels added to a home.

Amendment 4: Conservation land would be eligible for a major property tax break under Amendment 4.

Land owners who preserve their properties for conservation or water-storage purposes would get a tax break much like the agricultural exemption as long as the land remains undeveloped. Also, owners who agree to a permanent conservation status would pay no property taxes.

Supporters, including environmental and business groups, say this will be an incentive for private owners to conserve environmental lands.

But it's unknown how much it would cost local governments in lost revenues, and Florida Tax Watch warns it would result in some shifting of the tax burden to other homes and businesses.

Legislators would be given wide discretion over major details, such as defining what qualifies as conservation land.

Amendment 6: Amendment 6 would give a tax break to working waterfronts, such as marinas, boatyards, commercial fisheries, boat-launch sites and waterfront boat repair and manufacturing shops.

Waterfront businesses have been some of the hardest-hit by rising tax bills in Florida, after high-rise condo developments drove up land prices near the water.

This amendment directs county appraisers to consider only the current use of working waterfront properties, based on how much income the business generates, as opposed to using the more lucrative market price of the land to set the value (the so-called 'highest and best use'). In Palm Beach County, this change would cut marina tax bills by two-thirds, according to the property appraiser. In Broward, the effect would be much less significant because of differences in the way properties are appraised in the two counties.

Like Amendment 4, this proposal's implications on local government are unknown and likely would result in some shifting of the tax burden.

Amendment 8: Amendment 8 would authorize a local-option sales tax to boost funding for Florida's 28 community colleges.

If approved, counties could seek voter approval for an additional sales tax earmarked to the local community college. The amendment places no restrictions on the size of the local-option sales tax. When county voters approve a tax, it automatically expires after five years and requires new authorization from voters. Broward College and Palm Beach Community College could benefit from the plan.

Josh Hafenbrack can be reached at jhafenbrack@sun-sentinel.com or 850-224-6214.

Fernandina News Leader Editorial ~~ Our view on amendments

Fernandina News Leader, October 26, 2008 — Nassau County voters will help decide six proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution in this election. Here is our view of each:

~~ Amendment 1 would repeal obnoxious provisions authorizing the state legislature to prohibit aliens ineligible for citizenship from owning, inheriting or possessing property. This decades-old law was aimed at thwarting Chinese people from property rights. Today, it could be used to prevent a British citizen from buying a second home on Amelia Island. Vote Yes to repeal it.

~~ Amendment 2 stipulates that the state shall recognize only those legal unions of men and women as marriage. This anti-gay legislation is draconian, misguided and complicated. We believe the church should regulate marriage, and the state should be cautious in prohibiting the behavior of consenting adults in their private lives. This law doesn't affect just gay people, it also could restrict the rights of heterosexual couples who live together but are not married. Certain rights to health insurance benefits and other legal partnership benefits could be compromised if this is approved. There are many senior citizens in Florida, and others, who have lived together for years who could be adversely affected. Vote No.

~~ Amendment 3 would lower property taxes for homeowners who make certain energy-saving and hurricane protection improvements to their residences. Homeowners should not be penalized with higher property taxes when they make improvements that save energy or safeguard their homes. Vote Yes.

~~ Amendment 4 would require the legislature to exempt property taxes for parcels encumbered by perpetual conservation easements. This allows rural landowners to set aside property for conservation without having to pay higher taxes that might be levied because of prospective development. We remind you that Crane Island, which will be developed for residences, was once labeled Conservation property, so clever developers and lawyers will circumvent this law. Still, it's another tool worth having to keep rural property from being developed if a landowner wishes to preserve it. Vote Yes.

~~ Amendment 6 (a judge ruled proposed Amendment 5 invalid) would provide a property tax break for land used predominantly for commercial fishing or other commercial and industrial marine purposes. This might have saved our Amelia River waterfront from the condos that eventually will be built there, but the shrimp docks and waterfront industries already have sold their land partly because of crushing property taxes. While it may be too late for us, others may benefit from saving their working waterfronts. Vote Yes.

~~ Amendment 8 (Amendment 7 failed to make the ballot) would allow counties to levy a local option sales tax to benefit community colleges if voters approve. This would give FCCJ another option for funding, though Nassau voters would have to endorse any additional taxation. We generally oppose any additional taxes, but we can imagine circumstances that someday might lead voters to levy a tax for FCCJ. Thus we urge you to vote Yes.

Gasparella Gazette Recommends Vote YES on Amendment 6
Amendment recommendations; constitutional and charter

Gasparella Gazette, October 26, 2008 — In addition to national, state and local races, the Nov. 4 general election ballot includes six proposed amendments to the state constitution and two proposed amendments to the Lee County Charter.

The state constitution is Florida’s foundation document; the charter, Lee County’s government base. Voters are being asked to make some substantive changes to each.

Let us make our philosophical position concerning constitutional amendments clear: It’s a bad way to make changes that can be approached legislatively, and it’s an even worse way to enact laws.

We have a representative form of government. We do not have a pure democracy. We elect officials who are charged with the responsibility of representing our best interests.

The constitutional amendment process has been so abused in Florida that voters have approved, yes, a constitutional amendment that requires a super majority vote to get any more amendments passed. That means the proposals on the state level now need a 60 percent majority to be approved.

We do, however, have respect for the recommendations tendered by the State Legislature and the Florida Budget and Taxation Reform Commission, a panel appointed once every 20 years and vested with the authority to bring its recommendations directly to the voters via the amendment process.

That said, we present the ballot language, a summation, and our opinion and recommendation on each of the proposed amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot: ...

Amendment 6: Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use.

Ballot language: 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.

What it means: In terms of direct impact, Amendment 6 has the greatest potential to affect, and benefit, Lee County property owners. Placed on the ballot by the Florida Budget and Taxation Reform Commission, the amendment would require that waterfront business properties be taxed based on their existing use, rather than the “highest and best use,” i.e. as intensively developed property

Our opinion: Every square inch of Florida’s waterfront does not need to be developed with high-rise commercial or residential buildings and complexes. Nor should properties that choose to remain as commercial fishing docks, marinas and the like be overtaxed because current law allows waterfront sites to be taxed based on what they could be, rather than what they are. This amendment, proposed by the Florida Budget and Taxation Reform Commission, also is a preservation amendment, one that allows private property owners to voluntarily preserve our precious waterfront and its variety of uses. Voters in Cape Coral, on Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel, Captiva, Gasparilla and Pine Island should take particular note: This one affects you and if you don’t want the owner of the little marina down the street to sell to a developer because he can’t pay his “highest and best use” taxes, a yes vote is in order.

If approved, the State Legislature would need to formulate the details. Be prepared to hold our elected officials accountable.

Our recommendation: Vote yes on Amendment 6. ...

The case for Amendment 6
Passage would protect Florida’s waterfront businesses

BY DENNIS ROSS • GUEST COLUMNIST, Florida Today • OCTOBER 26, 2008 — Florida’s waterways are an intrinsic part of our state’s unique tapestry and the hallmark of the Florida lifestyle. Whether you are a recreational boater, weekend fisherman, or just enjoy Florida fresh seafood, Amendment 6 is important to you.

And it’s why you should vote “yes” on the measure Nov. 4 and add it to Florida’s Constitution.

Presently, public access to our waterways is diminishing and once it is lost it will be lost forever. Amendment 6 protects and preserves public access to our waterways for future generations.

Unfortunately, waterfront businesses so critical to Florida’s cultural identity are in jeopardy. Marinas that rely on direct water access for their livelihoods are being taxed out of business because they are being taxed at “highest and best use.”

This unfair system appraises and taxes Florida’s working waterfronts based on the potential use of the land not the current use of the land. Marinas that offer public access to our waterways should not be taxed as high rise condominiums, they should be taxed as the business they are.

Working waterfronts are unique and can not relocate. The dramatic increases in taxes and the unfairness of the application are forcing these businesses to close. Once working waterfronts that provide public access to our waterways disappear, they will be gone forever, and public access will be lost to future generations.

Florida’s marine industry contributes more economic output to our state than both our citrus and cruise industries combined. Economically, Florida cannot afford to lose an industry that pumps $18 billion into Florida’s economy and employs more than 220,000 people.

The proposed amendment states that marinas and docks open to the public for water access and recreational uses, public vessel launches, commercial fishing facilities, water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities and marine vessel construction and repair will be taxed at the property’s current use.

This is an exemption; it is a fairness issue. Working waterfronts simply want to be taxed as the business they are. It is not a blanket tax exemption for waterfront property. Amendment 6 is narrowly defined and very specific, minimizing any potential for abuse.

If passed, this amendment will allow Florida’s marine industry to continue providing Floridians, tourists and future generations with public access to the state’s waterways, as well as support our state’s economy with billions of revenue every year. On November 4, you can preserve public access to Florida’s extensive waterways and revitalize the state’s marine industry by voting “yes.”

Visit the Save Our Waterfronts Web site at www.SaveOurWaterfronts.org to learn more about this important issue.

State Rep. Dennis Ross is a Lakeland Republican and chairman of Save Our Waterfronts.

Herald Tribune Recommends YES on No. 6

Excerpted from October 26, 2008 article in the Herald Tribune — When proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution appear on the ballot, voters can choose between two one-word answers: "yes" or "no."

Such a simple choice suggests that constitutional questions can be easily answered and, for that matter, the questions themselves easily explained. That has often not been the case in previous elections, and it's not in this general election.

It has taken the Herald-Tribune Editorial Board more than a few words to explain the six amendments on the general election ballot, and we've continued to get calls and e-mails from readers about our explanations and recommendations. So, we'll take another stab ...

Amendment 6 would also give some property owners a break from the "highest and best use" law.

The change would allow appraisals to be based on the current use of properties "predominantly" used as "working waterfronts" -- commercial fishing, bait shops, boat launches and marinas open to the public, and marine-repair operations.

The devil could be in the details of legislation that would implement this amendment: The tax benefits should be extended only to waterfront operations that offer public access or preserve historic uses.

We recommend YES on No. 6. ...

Amendments simplified

By Brad Rogers. Ocala Star-Banner, October 26, 2008 — Not a day goes by that I don't receive a call from a reader asking me to explain what the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot are all about. Obviously the existing amendment requiring that the wording be easy to read and understand isn't working.

Here's a rundown and my take on them. Don't mind the odd numbering. There were originally nine amendments, but the courts booted amendments 5, 7 and 9.

Amendment 1 calls removing antiquated wording from the Florida Constitution that makes it legal to outlaw land ownership by people deemed "aliens ineligible for citizenship." The Legislature put this on the ballot, and it is aimed at getting rid of xenophobic and outdated language inserted into the constitution once upon a time. I voted yes.

Amendment 2 is the one amendment we've all probably heard about. The Florida Marriage Protection Act, aka, "gay-marriage amendment," is an unnecessary piece of mischief that would outlaw same-sex marriages, something Florida statue already does. The problem is the wording "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

This seeks to outlaw something that is already outlawed. Supporters say it is needed because some scary "activist judge" might someday allow two men who love each other and care about each other to actually be legally united.

The danger of this divisive measure is it could affect senior citizens who live together but don't marry because they risk losing pension and Social Security benefits. Or domestic partnerships. This is needless legislation. And besides, if two people, regardless of gender, love each other and want to care for each other in this day and time, more power to them. I voted no.

Amendment 3 is a no-brainer. It would keep the tax man from raising your taxes if you made improvements to your house to protect against hurricanes or installed renewable energy devices. Anyone got a problem encouraging less hurricane damage or more energy conservation? Me either. I voted yes.

Amendment 4 is a wonderful opportunity for taxpayers and landowners alike. It would allow the Legislature to create tax breaks for people who set aside land for "perpetual" conservation purposes. It would be sort of a green version of the ag exemption. The worry is the Legislature will sneak in a bunch of loopholes to benefit big corporate landholders. Barring that, it is a great deal for Florida, which cannot afford to buy enough land to preserve future water recharge areas and wildlife habitats. Yes, yes, yes,

Amendment 6 would protect "working waterfront" businesses like marinas, fish camps and marine manufacturers from exorbitant taxes. Florida's law calls for property to be taxed at "its highest and best use." If you own one of these businesses and they build a Club Med next door, what do you think the next tax bill will look like? The only problem is it stops at waterfront businesses. What about mom-and-pop businesses of other kinds in other developing areas? Just asking. Still, I voted yes.

Finally, Amendment 8. This would allow voters in any county to pass a five-year sales tax to support the local community college. It's one more instance of the Legislature shirking its educational funding responsibilities onto local government, but if a community wants to tax itself, what better cause than getting more people a college education. Yes.

That's it. Maybe next time the authors of these amendments could actually follow the law and write them so we can understand them.

Letter: Yes on Amendment 6 needed to save businesses

TCPalm, Saturday, October 25, 2008 — Everyone likes to complain about their property taxes, but nowhere are property taxes more abusive than assessments on waterfront businesses.

Marinas, fisheries, boat repair facilities and similar facilities are taxed not on how they are used, but on how they might be used — for multimillion-dollar condominiums and resorts.

If you are a mom and pop marina that is being taxed at the same rate as 100 condominiums, eventually you must sell to developers or lose everything.

Taxing an $18 billion-a-year recreational industry out of business is an outrage in a state that is so dependent on visitors who come here for the water. And it’s insane to let this unfair taxation strip away boaters’ access to the ocean, gulf, lakes and rivers.

According to saveourwaterfronts.org, a yes vote on Amendment 6 will reverse this unfair situation and allow taxing authorities to assess taxes based on how the property is currently being used. That is our only hope to save the remaining fisheries, marinas and boat yards on the Treasure Coast.

The city of Stuart and the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners have passed resolutions in support of Amendment 6. Please join me on Nov. 4 so we can show our support, too. In the voting booth. Vote yes on 6.

Ralph Oakey, Fort Pierce

Amendment 6 could give state’s working waterfront a tax break
Land would be assessed by actual use over market value

By JOHN BERNARDO For the Waterfront News, October 2008 — The sight is common throughout Florida: High-rise condos looming over a waterfront anchored by fewer marine repair shops and working boatyards. As taxes rise, boat facilities have sold out to developers in recent years. Now state constitutional Amendment 6 would give a tax break to waterfront businesses that don’t convert their land to more lucrative condos and resorts. The ballet initiative goes before voters on Nov. 4.

“South Florida is about water, yachting, boating, and fishing,” said Broward County Property Appraiser Lori Parrish. “The marine industry is … a big part of our economy and if these businesses are not protected, then everyone would sell out to a developer.” Broward currently taxes working waterfront on its actual use. Marine facilities are located mostly along Fort Lauderdale’s New River, the Dania Cut-Off Canal and adjacent waterways.

But in many Florida counties including Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, waterfront land is appraised by its market, or best value. Rising taxes force many property owners to sell to developers who often build upscale condos with private dockage, leaving less public dock space for boaters and fewer places to have boat work performed.

If passed, Amendment 6 would require all working waterfront to be taxed on its current use.

Frank Herhold, executive director of the Marine Industries Association of South Florida, says approval of Amendment 6 would bring equilibrium to the industry. “It needs to be passed. There’s plenty of horror tales in Palm Beach.”

Florida’s marine industry “generates a greater economic output than both the state’s cruise ship and citrus industries combined,” states a website sponsored by political action committee Save Our Waterfronts, sponsors of the proposed legislation. Over $18 billion from marine businesses is pumped into the state’s economy, contributing about 220,000 jobs, the group states.

South Florida’s waterscape includes public docks and marinas, drystacks, commercial fishing operations, boat launches, marine vessel repair and construction complexes and marine manufacturing companies that all depend on water. Restaurants too have become less familiar on the waterfront.

As these facilities vanish, so too do jobs, said Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle. “Marine businesses create and maintain nice, labor-intensive jobs and stimulate our local economy.”

Marine services can’t easily relocate since they’re dependent on direct access to the water, Naugle said. “Marinas and boatyards need to be here on the water but condos don’t have to be built on the water; they can be built on land,” he said. “We are now very concerned about the loss of marine companies to residential development in Palm Beach and especially on the Miami River; that would definitely affect our industry and economy here.”

The amendment grew out of a grassroots effort from marine businesses whose industry is already hurting from dropping boat sales and fewer skilled marine workers. Some marine businesses have relocated outside Florida to areas with a lower cost of living.

If approved by 60 percent of voters, the new tax system would take effect Jan.1, 2010. Requiring a clear majority makes approval tougher, said amendment sponsor State Rep. Dennis Ross. The presidential election is expected to boost the number of voters coming out.

Limited funding has been available for advertising or polling to gauge the proposed amendment’s approval rating. “It’s really a question of making sure we educate the voters,” said Ross, who spoke on the issue Sept. 24 at the 10th Annual Marine Summit in Palm Beach.

Taxes on “coastal property has gone up dramatically, as opposed to other type properties,” said Rodney Clouser, a University of Florida economics professor specializing in public policy. But whether the amendment would spare more marine businesses from going condo is hard to say.

A devastating hurricane or other harsh economic factors such as a downturn in the boating industry could also prompt boatyard owners to sell, Clouser said. Municipal coffers could suffer from the reduced revenue source, and cities may try to recoup taxes in other ways. The amendment also does not specify how long marine businesses must keep their property at its current use, nor does it have provisions to recoup lost tax revenue from “best use” if a business owner converts to condos anyway.

Ross said a thriving marina could bring more tax dollars to city coffers than declining real estate in today’s market, especially if condos become a glut on the market. Some cities say that the amendment will help keep a marine culture going, especially in areas like the Panhandle where a working waterfront reflects a generational way of life, Clouser said.

John Terrill, chairman of the City of Fort Lauderdale Marine Advisory Board backs Amendment 6 because, “we have only seen a negative return on conversions from marine businesses to condos.”

On the Net:
For more information on Amendment 6 check out the following sites:

University of Florida: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE745 .

State of Florida: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=12&seqnum=7

Letter: 'Highest and best use' statute reducing access to waterways

TC Palm, Wednesday, October 22, 2008 — The News missed the point of Amendment 6 by giving it a “thumbs down” Oct. 12. The public is rapidly losing access to our waterways because condo developers are gobbling up the marine facilities that allow access for boat launching, storage and service. Why? Because the state constitution encourages property appraisers to tax them at their “highest and best use” (i.e. as condos, instead of the use they are currently zoned and used for).

Such taxes become prohibitive for waterfront marine businesses to pay, so they sell out to developers.

Remember when Palm Beach County passed a $50 million bond issue a few years ago for that very reason? You should endorse this amendment, as have the vast majority of newspapers across the state. I urge you to reconsider.

W.E. “Ted” Guy Jr., Stuart

Letter: Working waterfronts should not be taxed out of existence

TC Palm, Wednesday, October 22, 2008 — Amendment 6 is not a “tax break” for special interests. Taxing marinas, boatyards, commercial fishing docks and other water-dependent business facilities as though they were high-rise waterfront residential condominiums or hotels is counterproductive.

In addition to public access to public waters, Florida’s working waterfronts and coastal communities provide food, transportation, jobs and careers, and tourist destinations. People are drawn to waterfronts to enjoy the ambience of quaint and historic sites. They don’t come to see “concrete canyons” so prevalent elsewhere.

Florida’s marine industry has an annual economic impact of $18 billion statewide, providing approximately 200,000 jobs.

The “highest and best use” concept of taxing working waterfronts as something that “could be” rather than current use drives many waterfront business owners to sell to developers. In many cases, taxes increased as much as 600 percent. Couple this unreasonable taxing structure with outrageously high insurance premiums and you have a recipe for business failure and loss of thousands of jobs to other states.

Year-round recreational boating and fishing bring new residents and visitors to Florida. They buy boats here — and boats need marina slips. They need boatyards with skilled workers for repair and maintenance — jobs! Floridians and visitors need access to our beautiful waters.

People come from all over America, Europe, South America, Canada, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean for excellent sportfishing and diving opportunities. Fishing tournaments bring in additional dollars. Charter fishing vessels need docks. This segment of the boating community brings millions of tourist dollars to the state’s economy.

Florida boats need waterfront hurricane storage availability.

Florida’s working waterfronts should be saved, not taxed out of existence. Assess and tax these facilities at current use to preserve our rich maritime history for future generations. Vote yes on 6.

Vera Locke, Executive Director
Marine Industries Association of the Treasure Coast
Palm City

Amendment giving waterfronts relief faces scarce opposition

BY JENNIFER LEBOVICH AND MARC CAPUTO, Miami Herald, October 21, 2008 — While lobster and stone crab catches held steady at the docks over the last decade, property taxes at Manny's Sea Food went skyward as new condos rose near the Miami River.

Owner Manny Prieguez could do little about it, because state law basically requires counties to assess properties for what is known as their ''highest and best use'' -- rather than their actual use.

''So I've been getting taxed as if I was going to build a condo any day now, not running a seafood business'' Prieguez said. ``It's all crazy.''

Perhaps not for long. On Nov. 4, voters will decide on a proposed constitutional amendment designed to shield so-called ''working waterfronts'' from hefty tax assessments. Recent polls suggest the amendment will likely get 60 percent of the vote, the required threshold for passage.

Under the proposal, publicly accessible marinas, waterfront marine-manufacturing facilities and commercial fishing businesses would be taxed based on their current use, not what the property could become. Waterfront residences would not be covered.

Estimated statewide tax savings for all working waterfronts: $70 million to $80 million next year, according to the Legislature's Economic and Demographic Research division. The five-year savings: up to $350 million.

No one is sure of the exact savings because the Legislature will have to write laws to put the amendment into effect if it passes. The more broadly lawmakers interpret the amendment, the bigger the business savings and the bigger the revenue hit to local governments and schools.

That said, opposition is scarce. Even the Florida Education Association, which vociferously and successfully opposed two other constitutional amendments this year, hasn't taken a position on the amendment, though it could take about $30 million annually from schools statewide every year.

The amendment was proposed along with six others by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, which has the power to directly place amendments on the ballot. The commission acted at the urging of marina associations and commercial fishermen who said high tax assessments were all but forcing them to sell out to condo developers, thereby reducing public access to the water.

The marine industry had an economic impact of as much as $18 billion a year in the state when the economy was booming, employing 220,000 people, said Keyna Cory, chief lobbyist for Associated Industries of Florida.

''It's not that they don't want to pay taxes,'' Cory said. ``It's just that they want to pay their fair share. Some of these businesses have been passed from generation to generation. They're fishermen. They want to be the fish house.''

Prieguez, a former Miami legislator and lobbyist, said he began paying more than his fair share when the Neo River Lofts were built. His tax assessments at Manny's Sea Food started to jump, and now his $53,000 tax bill is almost double what it was in 2003.

But the amendment won't mean big savings for everyone on the water.

In the Keys, the property appraiser says, he already can't assess marinas as if they were condos because state growth-management laws make it tough to add more residences. So the change could be minimal.

Broward County's property appraiser, Lori Parrish, said she also uses a different interpretation of the state's highest-and-best-use standard that enables her to assess marinas at their current use. Palm Beach County's property appraiser, Gary Nikolits, whose waterfront assessments are often higher than Parrish's, sparred with the Broward appraiser last spring over her methods.

Max Fricker, owner of an eight-acre marina in Palm Beach Gardens, clearly can't wait for help. From 2005 to 2006, his bill nearly doubled, jumping from $107,000 to almost $199,000 -- and that's after he and a slew of waterfront property owners in the area banded together to fight Nikolits' assessments.

All along, Fricker said, he has had to eat the higher tax bill. ''There's no way you can pass on that kind of an increase among your customers. They'll scream,'' he said.

There's less shouting in Miami-Dade because many of the working waterfronts were long ago converted to condos. The sponsor of the amendment, Sen. Gwen Margolis -- who is running for Miami-Dade property appraiser -- incorrectly assumed it would apply to small residential waterfront properties, which it does not. But she said in an interview that, if elected, she would lower assessments anyway by using more of Parrish's approach.

At Manny's Sea Food, Prieguez said he'll take whatever relief he can get.

''Any savings we get makes it easier for us to stay in business,'' he said. ``I don't want to build a condo. I don't want to be taxed like I'm building a condo. And neither do the fishermen who work for us.''

Yes on 6: Waterfront property

Excerpt from editorial posted in The Times-Union October 21, 2008 — Yes on 6: Waterfront property

There is much to like about Amendment 6, the so-called waterfront property assessment proposal.

Taxable values of waterfront properties are based on a variety of factors, including the "highest and best use," says Duval County Tax Appraiser Jim Overton.

That means the land for a marina might be appraised as if a condo stood on it. Some landowners, being unable to pay the taxes, are selling the properties.

As a result, Florida increasingly has lost land for marinas, commercial fishing operations, and boat construction and repair. A lot of housing projects are taking their place.

Housing with beautiful views is important, too. But let Florida be Florida. Remove the tax policies that threaten to wipe out much of the state's traditional, water-based businesses.

Do you know what the proposed Amendments really mean?

North Florida News Daily, October 20, 2008 — On November 4, the 2008 election day, Florida voters will have the last opportunity to step into that proverbial voting booth and cast their votes. Many already have made their minds up about particular candidates, but what about the six proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot?

Those proposed amendments from incentives for conservation and renewable energy to gay marriage and land ownership for non-U.S. citizens. All of the amendments require 60 percent "Yes" votes in order to pass.

Unfortunately, many voters probably don't have a clue what the amendments are or probably don't understand their meaning or implications. It seems like the way the amendments are written, it takes a law degree to interpret what they actually mean.

For those of us who have trouble understanding the proposed amendments, the League of Women Voters of Florida explains them in plain, simple language.

The overview offers a summary and outlines the pros and cons of each amendment.

This is invaluable information for voters who want to make intelligent, informed decision at the ballot box. ...

AMENDMENT #6 : ASSESSMENT OF WORKING WATERFRONT PROPERTY BASED UPON CURRENT USE

Reference: Article VII, Section 4, and Article XII, new section

Summary: 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 waterdependent 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.

Sponsor: Florida Budget and Taxation Reform Commission

Background: Access to public waterfront has been reduced as marinas and the like cannot afford to resist developers’ offers to convert the land into condominium towers or other private buildings. The amendment would require those properties to be taxed based on their current use rather than on their "highest and best" use.

PRO: Access to public waterfront areas would more likely remain at current levels rather than continuing to diminish. This measure may reduce property taxes on working waterfront properties and thereby reduce pressure to sell those properties to developers.

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

Early voting here, so cast your ballot

Excerpt from article posted in Southwest Florida's News-Press, 10/20/2008 — Early voting starts today and runs through Nov. 1 for the Nov. 4 election. Here is a recap of The News-Press Editorial Board's recommendations. Also, visit news-press.com/election for stories, columns, editorials, candidate profiles and videos of candidate interviews. Voters had to register by Oct. 6 and must have photo ID that bears a signature. ... Amendment 6, tax breaks for working waterfront property. Our recommendation: Vote yes.

Jody Foster: Vote yes on Amendment 6

TC Palm, October 19, 2008 — On Nov. 4, vote yes on Amendment 6 to help safeguard public access to Florida’s waterways so our kids can go fishing and families can go boating.

Amendment 6 represents the two-year effort of boaters, marine industries, marina owners, property appraisers, local governments and other organizations to develop a plan to protect public access to Florida’s waterways and to preserve one of Florida’s leading industries, the marine industry. To be approved, Amendment 6 must receive more than 60 percent of the votes cast.

Vote yes because the marine industry contributes more than $19 billion annually to Florida’s economy and provides more than 220,000 jobs. On the Treasure Coast, the marine industry contributes more than $930 million to the local economy and provides 7,600 jobs. Tourism is Florida’s No. 1 industry and has a $57 billion impact on our state each year. Working waterfronts are a critical link, connecting residents and tourists with Florida’s abundant fish, wildlife and other natural resources by providing public access to the state’s navigable waters.

In recent years, however, property tax bills for working waterfront property have increased dramatically in many areas of the state because property appraisers have begun the application of “highest and best use” as the criteria for appraising waterfront property. What this means is that some local property appraisers have determined they can tax working waterfront property — including small mom-and-pop operations — as though it is high-rise condominium property. This adds up to property tax bills on the working waterfront doubling and tripling over the past few years, forcing marine-related waterfront businesses out of business, and forcing these property owners to sell out to high-rise developers.

This amendment is not a tax exemption or special tax credit for working waterfront properties. It simply states that land that is accessible to the public and used for vessel launches into navigable waters, marinas and drystacks that are open to the public, water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities and marine vessel construction and repair facilities be assessed by the property appraiser at their actual use rather than being unfairly taxed as something they are not.

Unlike other businesses, the marine industry cannot move to another location to resume its operations. Needless to say, it is dependent on direct access to the water. As a result, this leading Florida industry has been dealt a major blow by property appraisers, working waterfront is disappearing, and some marine related business are selling out and relocating out of state, taking highly skilled, highly paid workers with them. In fact, two major boat manufacturers have relocated to other southern states because of lower taxes and, in general, to avoid the high cost of doing business in Florida.

Approval of this amendment will allow the marine industry to continue to provide public access to the water for Florida’s kids and families, tourists and future generations. Without it, we may lose public access to our waters forever.

Foster, a partner at Guy Yudin & Foster in Stuart, specializes in admiralty and maritime law. She’s on the Marine Industries Association of the Treasure Coast board of directors.

Waterfront Business

Excerpt from article posted in The Florida Times-Union by Steve Patterson, October 19, 2008 — Property tax measures to help make houses greener and more hurricane resistant, boost conservation and protect working waterfronts will be on Florida ballots next month. ...

Waterfront business

Amendment 6 would change the way tax assessments are done on waterfront businesses such as marinas, boat repair yards and commercial fishing property.

It would require county property appraisers to value each site as it's currently used, rather than considering more lucrative potential uses based on the land's zoning and features. That latter standard, called "highest and best use," is a normal way commercial value is set.

If a boat yard could be sold at a higher price to a condominium developer, for example, right now the land's tax bill could be based on that higher value.

A boom in waterfront development has made highest-use values dangerous for many businesses, especially in South Florida, said John Lowe of Jacksonville, who sits on the Marine Industries Association of Florida legislative committee.

"It's been raising the valuation of the property sometimes 300 or 400 percent," Lowe said. "It's causing a lot of our boat yards and marinas to have to go out of business because they can't afford the taxes."

Lowe said marine groups asked lawmakers to help, but were told they had to change the constitution to change the way lands are valued.

Excerpt from article posted in the South Florida Sun Sentinel by Michael Mayo, 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 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 6 will standardize waterfront taxes

By Josh Hafenbrack, Sun-Sentinel Tallahassee Bureau, October 18, 2008 — On Nov. 4, Floridians will vote on whether to give working-waterfront businesses a tax break.

Before Amendment 6 became a statewide issue, the valuations of marinas and boatyards was grist for a heated feud between the property appraisers of Palm Beach and Broward counties.

Palm Beach County's veteran appraiser, Gary Nikolits, is a firm believer in applying the so-called "highest and best use" standard — government-speak for valuing marinas at the prices they would command on the condo market.

But Lori Parrish, his Broward counterpart, didn't use the "highest and best use" standard. She relied on the assumption that marinas would stay marinas and valued them as such.

The differences in their approaches mean marinas in the two counties would see sharply different results from Amendment 6, which requires appraisers value marinas based on their current business incomes.

An average marina in Palm Beach County would see a two-thirds cut in their tax bill, Nikolits said.

In Broward, Parrish said the reduction would be minimal because Amendment 6 follows her appraisal approach anyway.

BreezeNewspapers.com Give Pros and Cons on Amendment 6

Excerpt from article posted on BreezeNewspapers.com by McKenzie Cassidy, October 18, 2008 — Millions of Florida voters will go to the polls beginning Monday to decide the next president and their local elected officials, but they also will put forward a yes or no vote on six amendments to the Florida Constitution.

These amendments include property rights of non-citizens, a statewide definition of marriage, changes in assessed value of residential property, property tax exemptions, assessments of waterfront property, and options for funding community colleges. ...

Amendment 6: Assessment of working waterfront property based upon current use.

The amendment provides an assessment upon land use for commercial fishing purposes, land used for vessel launches into water, marinas and dry-stacks, water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, and other fishing facilities.

Pro: Access to public waterfront areas would more likely remain at current levels rather than continuing to diminish. This measure may reduce property taxes on working waterfront properties and thereby reduce pressure to sell those properties to developers.

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

In Your Corner: MCTA looks at proposed amendments
on Florida ballot

Excerpt from article written by the Martin County Taxpayers Association (Don Pickard, president) Saturday, October 18, 2008 — Your Martin County Taxpayers Association is an apolitical organization. However, we do offer Martin County voters our thoughts and recommendations on other ballot issues requiring voter approval. This year there are six proposed constitutional amendments on your ballot. We believe most of these propositions do not deserve to be constitutional amendments.

However, we also believe that voting for some of these amendments may be the only way to get our elected officials to do their job on critical issues. A yes vote will require that they write the implementing legislation that will really determine the effectiveness of these amendments.

The 12 members of the board of directors who attended our October meeting reviewed each amendment and were unanimous in the following recommendations: ...

Amendment 6: Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use. This amendment addresses the appropriateness of ad valorem taxes that are calculated on waterfront property statewide. Currently, it can be assessed at a much higher value than warranted in its current use. For example, an existing boat storage facility vs. the property’s potential as a waterfront resort. This amendment requires that such property be taxed at the lower value if it is used for public access (for fishing, boating, etc.) to the water or supporting activities, such as boat building, maintenance or storage. This will help protect one of our major local industries and public access to the water. We recommend voting YES. ...

Excerpt from article posted on ByNews9.com, By Joe Wisinski — As if trying to decide who the best person to run the country isn't hard enough, Florida voters also have several constitutional amendments to vote on Nov. 4. ...

Amendment 6 deals with assessment of working waterfront property.

According to the League of Women Voters, "Access to public waterfront has been reduced as marinas and the like cannot afford to resist developers' offers to convert the land into condominium towers or other private buildings. The amendment would require those properties to be taxed based on their current use rather than on their ‘highest and best' use."

Summary: In theory, the amendment could reduce property taxes on some working waterfront properties, or at least provide that taxes would remain at current levels rather than be raised based on the fact that the property could be used for another purpose. Thus those properties may be more likely to continue to be used for their current purposes, e.g., boat launches, rather than be sold to developers. ...

The Lakeland Ledger recommends a "Yes" Vote on Amendment 6

Excerpt from article posted in The Lakeland Ledger, October 16, 2008 — ...

AMENDMENT 6: YES

This amendment, from the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, would allow "working waterfront" businesses to be taxed on how their property is actually used instead of on its "highest and best" use. It's an attempt to keep long-standing businesses like marinas and commercial fishing facilities from being forced to leave because of high taxes. It's a good idea. The Ledger recommends a "YES" vote on Amendment 6. ...

The Fort Myers News Press recommends "Vote Yes"

Excerpt from article posted in The Fort Myers News Press, October 2008 — ...

AMENDMENT 6

We like this one because it helps preserve traditional waterfront businesses such as marinas, shipyards and commercial fishing facilities from being taxed based on what their land is potentially worth for residential development - the so-called "highest and best use."

These businesses are struggling to survive. Without them, we lose jobs and economic diversity, as well as the flavor of a working waterfront.

Title: Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based on Current Use

Ballot language: 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 dry stacks 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.

Our recommendation: Vote yes

So, what else is on the ballot?

Excerpt from editorial posted in the Suwanee Democrat By Barbara Gill, October 15, 2008 — Amendment 6 Working waterfront properties - such as land used for commercial fishing purposes; marinas and dry stacks open to the public; land accessible to the public and used for vessel launches; commercial fishing facilities and their support activities; and waterfront dependent marine manufacturing - would be assessed at a lower rate: "current use" no longer be taxed at the same rate as a luxury Oceanside resort. If approved, Amendment 6 would provide relief to properties that have experienced some of the largest property tax increases in the state. There is no organized opposition to this measure.

Amendment 6 to decide tax value of waterfront land

Jupiter Courier, 10/15/2008 — Florida voters will be asked Nov. 4 to decide if waterfront property should continue to be taxed at its 'highest and best use.' Amendment 6, one of six amendments going before voters, would allow marinas, commercial fish houses, boat-building operations and other 'working waterfront' businesses to be taxed based on their current use, not how an appraiser deems the land could be used.

The Marine Industries Association of South Florida, which represents businesses servicing the region's 150,000 recreational boaters and pumps an estimated $13.6 billion a year into South Florida's economy, say that without the tax break, the land used by marinas eventually will have to be converted into private waterfront developments. 'It's inherently unfair. This is the only type of property in the state of Florida that is taxed this way,' said Jody Foster, attorney with Guy & Yudin Law Firm in Stuart, a firm that specializes in maritime and admiralty law. 'This really has an effect on local mom-and-pop waterfront businesses,' Foster said. 'First, they see their insurance premiums triple (following the hurricanes), then their property tax bills triple. The long-term result is that one of the leading industries in the state of Florida is being driven off the water.' The amendment is receiving mixed reviews from property appraisers.

David C. Nolte, Indian River County property appraiser, said the amendment appears to shift the tax burden from the marinas to homeowners. 'All property is held now to the standard that is the highest and best use,' Nolte said. 'With this you're saying you can't look at what can be done with the property.' With the amendment in place, appraisers would need a new standard to appraise marina and other waterfront property that is different from how the worth of every other property is judged, Nolte said.

Martin County Property Appraiser Laurel Kelly said the amendment is beneficial for the region as the Treasure Coast had yet to experience the South Florida trend of developers turning marinas into condos. 'I think this is a good amendment to prevent that from happening here, where marinas can't afford to hold on to their properties,' Kelly said. 'It wasn't quite at that level in Martin County, but it probably would have been just a matter of time.' The amendment needs 60 percent to get approved and polls show that 57 percent of voters support the amendment, said Doug Wheeler, the Florida Chamber's vice president of grass-roots advocacy and political action development.

Florida marina industry asks voters for property tax lifeline

By Josh Hafenbrack | Sun-Sentinel, October 15, 2008 TALLAHASSEE — South Florida marina owner Ray Graziotto did a double take when he opened his tax bill a few years ago.

His Loggerhead Club & Marina franchise hadn't changed a bit, but during the high-flying days of the real estate boom, his property taxes did.

When condo developers snapped up waterfront land at hyper-inflated prices, government appraisers marked up marina values, too. As a result, the tax bill for Graziotto's flagship marina in Lantana jumped from $50,000 in 2004 to $125,000 two years later.

"I came completely unglued," said Graziotto, who owns eight marinas in South Florida, from Miami to Palm Beach Gardens. "I thought, 'How in the world can this business survive if this is right, if this is what's going to happen?'"

On next month's election ballot, voters will have a chance to give Graziotto and other "working waterfront" businesses a major tax break, in what supporters say is an attempt to preserve public access to Florida's postcard-blue waters. Without marinas, they argue, people will be blocked off from the lifeblood of recreational boating: places to store boats and have them repaired.

At issue is Amendment 6, which would direct property appraisers to value marinas, boatyards, boat-launch sites and commercial fisheries based on their current business use, rather than at the premium condo developers are willing to pay for their land.

If approved, the plan could cut some working waterfront tax bills in half, appraisers say. But it also would cost local governments in lost revenue and shift some tax burden to other businesses and homeowners.

Convincing voters won't be easy. With little money, supporters of Amendment 6 are struggling for attention amid the din of presidential politics and a fight in Florida over gay marriage. In their first foray into advertising, supporters turned to the cheapest medium possible: Donated billboard space in South Florida pleading with voters to "Save Public Access to Our Waters."

Among those who make a living on the water, taxes are seen as a big culprit in their declining fortunes. A third of Broward's boatyards were sold to developers or folded in recent years, leaving 13. Palm Beach County plunged $50 million into buying development rights to save marinas from going condo. Even the Lauderdale Marina had to shake off tempting offers, said President Ted Drum.

"They'd come and we'd say, 'It's not for sale,'" Drum said. "But you just can't keep this expense of taxes, which is controllable by the government. At some point you say, if someone wants to buy this, fine."

For now, the housing market collapse has relaxed the pressure to sell. But Florida's $18 billion marine industry is facing challenges on other fronts. Sales of South Florida boats, from water scooters to mega-yachts, are down 20 percent this year, according to Info-Link, a Miami research firm that tracks the industry. Fuel runs $5 a gallon on the water, scaring away even some die-hards.

Graziotto said if marinas close up shop, middle-class folks won't have access to the water. "If you're rich," he said, "you can buy a condo or a house on the water. But if you're a guy that lives in Wellington and you're making a regular living, where are you going to get your boat fixed?"

There's no organized opposition to Amendment 6, although Florida Tax Watch, which endorsed the plan, did point out that tax breaks to waterfront businesses means other property owners will pay a little more. There are about 2,000 marinas and boatyards statewide.

Supporters argue that lower taxes will allow marinas to stay in business, affecting not just their owners but a million boaters in the state and its top industry, tourism.

"The boating lifestyle is not only a mainstay of Florida's culture, but it's also a large source of revenue for the state," said Frank Herhold, executive director of Marine Industries Association of South Florida.

Josh Hafenbrack can be reached at jhafenbrack@SunSentinel.com or 850-224-6214.

Regulatory Review Florida marine businesses seek tax relief

Boating Industry, October 14, 2008 MIAMI – A measure to change the way maritime businesses in Florida such as marinas, bait shops and boat yards are assessed has been added to the Nov. 4 ballot in the state and seeks to help them cope with skyrocketing property taxes, the Miami Herald reported in a story today.

Under the current state policy, property is assessed at it "highest and best" potential use. That means a marina could be taxed as if it were a condo complex.

Amendment 6 would change the way these businesses are taxed, based on their current use rather than the property's potential. Like other amendments, it will require 60 percent approval to pass.

The amendment is needed because current policy "is the equivalent of being taxed on what you could potentially make rather than on what you're making," Michele Miller, spokeswoman for the Marine Industries Association of Florida, told the newspaper.

There is no organized opposition, according to the Herald.

Miller called the amendment "a fairness issue" and noted marine businesses represent an $18 billion a year industry in Florida, employing 220,000 people.

"Do you want 220,000 unemployed people?" she asked rhetorically.

A few merchants have already shuttered under the condo crush, taxed out of business, the Herald reported.

Amendment 6 seeks to save Fla. marine industry

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Miami Herald, Oct. 14, 1008 — As Florida's coasts become lined with high-rise condos, mansions and luxury marinas, developers are looking inland to expand residential construction, particularly along remaining waterfront in areas that have been historically industrial, kicking up property values astronomically.

As a result, property taxes have skyrocketed statewide for maritime businesses such as marinas, bait shops and boat yards, squeezed under the current state policy that assesses property at its "highest and best" potential use. That means a marina could be taxed as if it were a condo complex.

Amendment 6, set for the Nov. 4 ballot, aims to throw a lifeline to Florida's multibillion-dollar maritime industry by changing the way these businesses are taxed, based on their current use rather than the property's potential. Like other amendments, it will require 60 percent approval to pass.

The amendment is needed because current policy "is the equivalent of being taxed on what you could potentially make rather than on what you're making," said Michele Miller, spokeswoman for the Marine Industries Association of Florida. There is no organized opposition.

Miller called the amendment "a fairness issue" and noted these businesses represent an $18 billion a year industry in Florida, employing 220,000 people.

"Do you want 220,000 unemployed people?" she asked rhetorically.

Tugboat captain Tom Hempstead, 54, is one of those people. He's spent his life working on the Miami River. "When I was a kid growing up here, when my dad was a kid growing up here, this river made Miami what it is," Hempstead said.

Today, about 100 exporters, importers, tug operators and repair firms employ 6,100 people and do about $4 billion in business annually along the 5.5-mile stretch of water just west of downtown.

"This place produces revenue for the city," Hempstead said. "It made Miami Miami."

But in recent years, industrial acreage along the river has shrunk from 80 acres to just 37. In the last eight years alone, about 7,400 new condo units have either been built or are under construction along the river, according to the Miami River Commission. Another 6,548 new units are in final permitting stages.

A few merchants have already shuttered under the condo crush, taxed out of business.

Many also fear that the fall of "the working waterfront" could mean less access for typical Floridians, as mom-and-pop boat yards are replaced with luxury marinas.

"Old Florida is based on the water. Our history is based on the water," said Fran Bohnsack, executive director of the Miami River Marine Group, which represents 55 companies along the water. "But if access for the public disappears, what's left is access only for the wealthy people who can afford a mega-yacht."

The measure is proposed by the state Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, which generally meets once every 20 years to push constitutional amendments and make recommendations to the Legislature about changes to current law.

The measure's passage could mean less tax revenue for cash-strapped local governments, but the Florida Association of Counties supports it.

"We think preserving small businesses within our communities is important and looking at that greater good over that potential loss of tax revenue is ... the highest priority," said association spokeswoman Cragin Mosteller.

Alberto Lamadrid, president of Miami Yacht and Engine Works, called the amendment "a ray of hope for the industry."

"What else can we do? What other assistance can we get?" Lamadrid said.

Dennis Young, general manager of the Jacksonville Marina in Atlantic Beach along the St. Johns River, said just few years ago, a developer bought up property nearby with plans for condos.

Not long later, his marina taxes nearly doubled - from $38,000 a year to $65,000.

"And the amount of money coming into the marina has remained the same," Young said. "We're not going to go out of business but that extra $30,000 sure could go a long way for us."

Homebuilders on board for Amendments 3 and 6

Orlando Sentinel Blog, Posted by Aaron Deslatte on Oct 13, 2008 — The Florida Home Builders Association has endorsed Amendments 3 and 6 on the November ballot, albeit with a sense of longing for something meatier in the property-tax cutting department.

"While we’re disappointed that comprehensive property tax reform is not on the ballot, we believe these two amendments are smart public policy and should enjoy the support of Floridians," said David Hart, Vice President of Legislative and Governmental Affairs for the Florida Home Builders Association. "Florida’s home builders intend to lend our grassroots support to help both measures pass."

In the interest of full dsclosure: the Home Builders were never on board with Amendment 5, the sales tax for property tax swap kicked off the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court. Although Gov. Charlie Crist was ready to campaign for it, home builders were more skeptical about the potential tax shifts that might befall their industry if it passed.

By contrast, Amendment 3 offers an incentive to to homeowners by exempting hurricane-hardening improvements and renewable energy devices like solar panels from property tax assessments. Amendment 6 would offer an assessment break to waterfront businesses to prevent them from facing huge spikes in their tax bills as newer development sprouts up around them.

Amendment 6 could give state’s working waterfront a tax break
Land would be assessed by actual use over market value

If passed, Amendment 6 would require all working waterfront to be taxed on its current use.

As these facilities vanish, so too do jobs, said Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle. “Marine businesses create and maintain nice, labor-intensive jobs and stimulate our local economy.”

John Terrill, chairman of the City of Fort Lauderdale Marine Advisory Board backs Amendment 6 because, “we have only seen a negative return on conversions from marine businesses to condos.”

Sarasota Herald Tribune Recommends Voting Yes for Amendment 6

Excerpt from article published in The Sarasota Herald Tribune, October 12, 2008 — Three of the six proposed constitutional amendments on Florida's general election ballot deal, in some fashion, with property taxes. They were proposed by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. The commission, a board appointed under a constitutional mandate, had the authority to recommend comprehensive changes to the state's tax policies ...

Amendment No. 6

"Assessment of working waterfront property based on current use" is the title of Amendment 6. This proposal also addresses the "highest and best use" requirement -- in this case, for "working waterfront" properties.

The change would allow appraisals to be based on the current use of properties "predominantly" used for commercial fishing, bait shops, boat launches and marinas open to the public, and marine-repair operations.

The reduction of tax revenue could be significant. Again, reliable estimates are hard to find. But the taxes paid by "working waterfronts" have skyrocketed, in part because they are assessed as if they're being used for high-end residential development.

The amendment wouldn't affect small hotels, restaurants and stores; that's a shortcoming, but there are other solutions available to help those owners and some tax relief in the public interest is better than none at all.

We recommend voting YES for Amendment No. 6. ...

The Miami Herald recommends a "Yes" Vote on Amendment 6

Excerpt from article posted in The Miami Herald, October 12, 2008 — The annual ritual of adding amendments to Florida's Constitution is fraught with danger. It has been used for good and ill, from mandating education standards for schools to requiring pens for pregnant pigs. State lawmakers often resort to amendments as a way to duck politically sensitive issues, passing the buck to the voters instead of using the legislative process. Fewer amendments would be better. ...

No. 6: Assessment of working waterfront property

Owners of marinas, boat ramps, dry-docks, commercial-fishing operations and the like are under tremendous pressure to sell or convert their property to condominium or other high-end retail uses. That's because most property appraisers assess property at its ''highest and best use'' instead of at the property's ''current use'' value.

As a result, working-waterfront properties are disappearing around the state, changing the nature and character of communities and of Florida's identity. This amendment would partially correct the problem by requiring that certain working-waterfront properties be assessed at their current-use value.

The amendment should, but doesn't, include other waterfront properties such as small hotels, restaurants and shops. That will have to be addressed later.

Even still, the amendment addresses an urgent need.

We recommend a YES vote. ...

Florida Voters to Weigh in Nov. 4 on Six Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Excerpt from article by Paul Flemming, Florida Capital Bureau, October 11, 2008 — Floridians in November will decide on six proposed constitutional amendments. Less than a month before the election, most voters don’t know much about them. In a poll conducted Oct. 4-6, more than 40 percent declared themselves undecided on five of the six ballot questions. ...

Amendment 6

Name: Assessment of Working Waterfront Property based upon current use
The skinny: Tax breaks for commercial fishers, marinas, boat builders and other working-waterfront operations.
For: Waterfront landowners getting socked by taxation at highest and best use.
Against: No organized opposition
Pocketbook: The difference between assessment of property as a high-rise condo instead of an oyster processing operation is tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Language: “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.”
Sponsor: Taxation and Budget Reform Commission
Outlook: Polling in early October showed 33 percent support, 20 percent opposition and 47 percent undecided. ...

St. Pete Times Recommends "YES" Vote on Amendment 6

Excerpt from Article titled "On the amendments," St. Pete Times, October 10, 2008 — With one exception, the constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot are not particularly high profile. The most publicized amendments, involving tax reform and school vouchers, were removed from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court. But there are a half-dozen amendments that voters should carefully consider. ...

Amendment 6: Fast-rising property values along Florida's waterfronts have made it tough on marinas, boatyards and commercial fishing operations. With those properties appraised for tax purposes for their highest and best development use, it made more economic sense to avoid the high taxes and sell out to developers. Amendment 6, proposed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, would allow those sorts of properties to be assessed based on their current use instead of their highest and best use. That should help keep some marine-related businesses viable and help preserve public access to marinas and boat ramps. This targets property tax relief to some of the property owners who need it most. On Amendment 6, the Times recommends YES.

A Guide to Amendments

The Florida Times-Union, by Ron Littlepage, October 9, 2008 — When you take a look at your general election ballot, try not to faint. Besides the top two presidential candidates, you will find the names of 12 other people seeking the office. There's also a bunch of other races - the Legislature, public defender, City Council, just to name a few.

Tired yet? You may want to give up when you get to the six constitutional amendments.

Don't. Amending the state constitution is serious. Today, let's look at the easier ones.

Amendment 1 would repeal what's known as the alien land law. This one is a no-brainer. In 1926, Florida voters inserted a provision into the constitution that gave the Legislature the power to ban Asian immigrants from owning land. Florida is the only state with such a provision still on the books. It clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and needs to be removed from Florida's.

Amendment 3 would give homeowners a small property tax break for strengthening their homes against hurricanes, such as adding storm shutters. It also would provide a property tax break for adding renewable energy sources, such as solar water heating panels. Both are good ideas.

Amendment 4 also deals with property tax breaks, this time to encourage land conservation. Private landowners who agree that their land will never be developed would be exempt from paying property taxes on that land. The amendment also would allow the Legislature to create a conservation classification similar to the greenbelt designation now allowed for agricultural property. Land with the conservation designation would be valued lower for property tax purposes. There's room for abuse by developers, just as there has been with the greenbelt classification, but considering how much property in Florida is being gobbled up by development, this amendment merits approval.

While we are handing out property tax breaks, Amendment 6 would do the same. This time the benefit would go to the owners of "working waterfront" property. Instead of that property being taxed at its "highest and best" use, such as condos, owners of marinas, fish houses, boatyards, etc., would pay property taxes based on the current use. This amendment also deserves a positive vote. Without it, working waterfront property will continue to disappear.

Amendment 8 would allow voters in a county to impose a local option sales tax to supplement funding for community colleges. I doubt Duval County would go along unless the surrounding counties that send students to FCCJ also agree to a higher sales tax, but I favor giving voters the option. The amendment numbers are out of order. That's because the state Supreme Court removed three from the ballot.

As for Amendment 2, which would ban gay marriage, that's the most controversial of the proposed amendments. I'll take that one up Friday.

Dennis Ross: Save Our Waterfronts

Gainesville Sun, 10/8/2008 — Sun Florida's coastline and waterways are an intrinsic part of our state's unique tapestry and the hallmark of the Florida lifestyle. What would Florida be without beautiful sandy beaches, sunsets glistening on the water, opportunities to enjoy our natural resources through recreational boating, kayaking and canoeing, some of the best sport fishing in our nation and a commercial fishing industry supplying fresh seafood from Key West to Pensacola?

This is the Florida we know and love, and a way of life we must preserve for future generations of Floridians.

Unfortunately, the waterfront businesses so critical to Florida's cultural identity are in jeopardy. Many businesses that rely on direct water access for their livelihoods are being taxed to the point of extinction because landowners cannot pay their property taxes. Based on language in the Florida Constitution, property taxes are calculated according to "highest and best use" of the land. This unfair system appraises and taxes businesses on Florida's waterfronts and coastlines based on the potential use of the land. Rather than taxing a marinara or a boat repair facility for what they are, they are taxed the same as a hotels, waterfront resort or high-rise condominium would be. It simply does not make sense.

Relocating a business is not only expensive; it is not an option for many of these businesses. They must be located on the water. Our coastline is not infinite and very little land remains available. Where will these businesses go? The more these property taxes rise, the more of these businesses will be forced to close up shop and leave the state or close their doors forever. A Stuart marina has seen their property tax double in just two years due to the "highest and best use" system. This is unreasonable, especially when the assessed value of the property was a mere fraction of the actual tax levied on this small landowner.

Working waterfronts are a critical link connecting residents and tourists with Florida's abundant fish, wildlife and other natural resources by providing public access to the states' navigable waters. Rising property tax burdens will condemn waterfront businesses to closure or out-of-state relocation making room for private developers to gobble up the land they leave behind. Little by little, public access to our waterways will be diminished as hotels and condos spring up restricting water access to "guests" and "residents" only. Florida's waterfronts must be protected to continue promoting commercial industries and recreational activities that are highly important to Florida's cultural character.

Taxing these businesses out of existence will also have a ripple effect on our state's economy. Florida's marine industry contributes more economic output to our state than both our citrus and cruise industries combined. With the nation in an economic downturn and another dour state budget forecasted in the next fiscal year, Florida cannot afford to lose an industry that pumps $18 billion into Florida's economy and employs more than 220,000 people.

There is solution and every Floridian will have the opportunity to save the state's working waterfronts and protect public access to our waterways by voting "YES" on Amendment 6. Amendment 6 offers tax incentives for landowners who wish to maintain their working waterfront properties and protects public access to Florida's waterways. The proposed amendment states that marinas and docks open to the public for water access and recreational uses, public vessel launches, commercial fishing facilities, water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities and marine vessel construction and repair will be taxed at the property's current use. Some claim this is a just a special tax exemption, or will create a loophole that can be manipulated by those seeking to make a profit. This is not a tax exemption; it is a fairness issue. These businesses simply want to pay taxes based on the type of business they actually are. Further, Amendment 6 does not grant a blanket tax exemption for waterfront property. It is very descript on what types of water-dependent businesses qualify minimizing any potential for abuse.

If passed, this amendment will allow Florida's marine industry to continue providing Floridians, tourists and future generations with public access to the state's waterways, as well as support our state's the economy with billions of revenue every year. On November 4, you can preserve public access to Florida's extensive waterways and revitalize the state's marine industry by voting "YES' on Amendment 6. Visit the Save Our Waterfronts Web site at www.SaveOurWaterfronts.org to learn more about this important issue.

Dennis Ross is chair of Save Our Waterfronts, an advocacy group promoting Amendment 6 to the Florida Constitution.

YES On County Change; NO On State Amendment 2, Yes On Others

Town-Crier Staff Opinion 10.OCT.08 — The Nov. 4 general election ballot will include one county charter amendment and six state constitutional amendments for voter approval.

COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT Voters countywide will be asked whether or not to require both county and municipal approval of charter amendments affecting municipalities. The genesis of this ballot question was a controversial 2004 county charter amendment on annexation policy specifically designed to block Wellington’s possible western expansion. Voters in the western communities rejected the new annexation limits, but the amendment narrowly passed countywide. Municipal governments, led by the Palm Beach County League of Cities, support the current amendment to protect home rule and make sure that the county can never again run roughshod over the needs of its cities, towns and villages. Should this amendment pass, future charter amendments will not apply to municipalities whose voters do not support the measure. The Town-Crier has long maintained that the 2004 charter amendment was an unfair snub of the western communities, the legality of which is questionable in light of subsequent revelations regarding the activities of former county commissioner Tony Masilotti. Such an unnecessary display of county might should not be allowed to occur again. The Town-Crier strongly endorses a YES vote on the county charter amendment regarding future charter amendments and municipal power.

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1 — This amendment, known as “Declaration of Rights,” would delete constitutional provisions allowing the legislature to prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship. A long un-enforced vestige of Florida’s xenophobic past, this constitutional provision was originally designed to stop Asian immigrants from buying land. Florida is the only state to still have such a law on it books, and it should be removed. The Town-Crier endorses a YES vote on Amendment 1.

Amendment 2 — This amendment, the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment,” defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and that no other legal union that provides marriage or “the substantial equivalent thereof” will be recognized. Amendment 2 is bad public policy on a number of fronts. First, Florida has several laws on the books restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Those laws have not been seriously challenged here, and given Florida’s constitutional background, any challenge is not likely to be successful. Second, the broad wording of the amendment is very likely to be used to throw out the limited “domestic partner” benefits (such as hospital visitation) currently offered by counties such as Palm Beach and cities such as West Palm Beach. While supporters of the amendment suggest that will not happen, it has happened in other states that have passed broadly worded bans. Thirdly, seniors advocates are very worried that an unintended consequence of Amendment 2 will be to limit the rights of elderly widows and widowers on fixed incomes who choose to live in “domestic partner” arrangements rather than remarry and jeopardize survivor benefits from pensions and Social Security. Finally, Florida’s constitution is not the appropriate place to insert intolerant language specifically designed to relegate a minority to second-class status. Amendment 2 is a cynical ploy, funded largely by the Republican Party of Florida, which on its face has little merit and is designed primarily to boost conservative voter turnout during a presidential election year. The Town-Crier strongly endorses a NO vote on Amendment 2.

Amendment 3 — This amendment allows the legislature to prohibit the consideration of hurricane-resistant improvements and the installation of renewable energy devices in determining the assessed value of residential property. Currently, there is a financial disincentive for people to upgrade their homes to make them more storm-proof or energy-efficient because such improvements could increase its assessed value. Amendment 3 would eliminate the disincentive and encourage people to make such worthy improvements. The Town-Crier endorses a YES vote on Amendment 3.

Amendment 4 — This amendment would provide a tax break for property permanently dedicated for conservation. If the amendment passes, conservation land would be assessed on the basis of the character of its use, rather than the “highest and best use.” It will help encourage non-profit organizations and others to buy land for conservation, rather than continue to encourage excess development. The Town-Crier endorses a YES vote on Amendment 4.

Amendment 6 — Like Amendment 4, this amendment provides for the assessment of some working waterfront properties based on current use instead of “highest and best use.” The proposal came about after some marina owners could no longer afford to pay their property taxes following construction of highrise buildings nearby, which caused the marina’s taxes also to go up. Amendment 6 will help small business owners, slow waterfront overdevelopment and offer more economic diversity on Florida’s coasts. The Town-Crier endorses a YES vote on Amendment 6.

Amendment 8 — This amendment, called “Local Option Community College Funding,” would allow the creation of a local option sales tax to supplement funding for community colleges. If the amendment is approved, voters in each county seeking extra funding for its community college would then need to approve the tax by referendum. Should Palm Beach Community College want to benefit from this extra funding source in the future, it would have to make its case to county voters, but given the shaky state of education funding in Florida, it would be good to have the option. The Town-Crier endorses a YES vote on Amendment 8.

Amendments 5, 7 and 9 were removed from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court. State constitutional amendments require 60 percent approval to pass.

Pass tax-cutting changes to Florida Constitution

Palm Beach Post Editorial Tuesday, October 07, 2008 — The Florida Supreme Court removed from the Nov. 4 ballot the three most controversial constitutional amendments put there by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. Three other amendments, all aimed at reducing property taxes, remain on the ballot, and The Post recommends that voters approve them.

Amendments 3, 4 and 6 are well-meaning attempts to create exemptions from property taxes for adding hurricane protection, conserving lands and preserving marinas. They don't pack the wallop of Amendment 5, the property-tax-for-sales-tax swap, and Amendments 7 and 9, which would have legalized vouchers for religious schools. But each would achieve a good public purpose. All three amendments have been endorsed by Florida TaxWatch, which opposed the amendments stricken from the ballot.

Amendment 3

Strengthening homes to prevent hurricane damage and installing renewable energy sources add to a home's value, which means higher property taxes. Under Amendment 3, the increased value from such improvements would be exempted from property tax.

The amendment would offer relief to owners of homesteaded property, who benefit from the Save Our Homes cap, and owners of non-homesteaded property such as snowbirds, who don't. It would encourage hurricane hardening and renewable energy, both of which benefit the state. Unfortunately, the amendment would not extend the benefit to owners of business property, who also receive no Save Our Homes protection.

The cost of the program, according to TaxWatch, would be relatively small - about $3.4 million the first year, rising to $4.2 million the third year.

Amendment 4

Three of the state's top environmental groups - the Florida Wildlife Federation, Audubon of Florida and The Nature Conservancy - are leading the effort for Amendment 4, which would provide a property tax break for land set aside for conservation. Significantly, among the measure's other backers is the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Preston Robertson, a wildlife federation vice president, said he came up with the idea when he compared property taxes on two pieces of conservation land he owned, one in Georgia and one in Florida. In Georgia, the fact that the land never would be developed cut his taxes by 70 percent. In Florida, he got no benefit. He pitched the idea to the tax and budget commission, and Brian Yablonski, a vice president with one of the state's largest landowners, the St. Joe Co., sponsored it.

The amendment has two parts. One would grant a tax exemption for property "dedicated in perpetuity for conservation purposes." The other would allow conservation land to be taxed at a lower rate even if it can be developed later. That would work like the existing agricultural exemption, which lets developers run cows or grow crops on an urban property to have it qualify as agricultural and benefit from lower taxes.

The Legislature will determine the rules. As Florida TaxWatch notes, "potential for abuse exists."Mr. Robertson suggests that the Legislature set the bar high - restoring wetlands, for example - for landowners to get the exemption. The groups backing this amendment will be responsible for making sure that legislators don't undermine it later.

Amendment 6

The sound argument behind Amendment 6 is that it's better to collect a reasonable amount of taxes on marinas than to risk losing more public access to the waterfront.

The proposal responds to the Palm Beach County clash between marina owners and Property Appraiser Gary Nikolits. During the housing bubble, tax bills for marinas quadrupled in some cases because Mr. Nikolits followed a law saying that marinas must be assessed for tax purposes at their highest and best use. In many cases, the highest and best use of a waterfront property in 2005 was not as a marina but as a condominium. That meant sharp increases.

Marina owners organized and fought the valuations, winning reductions of $130 million on properties valued at $330 million. But the source of the problem remained in the state constitution. Amendment 6 would change the way marinas are valued. Instead of highest and best use, the valuation would be based on income produced by the marina. That would cost local governments some revenue but would provide a bigger benefit - the stability of marinas.

Studies produced by the Marine Industries Association show that marinas have an annual $18.5 billion statewide impact, including $2 billion in Palm Beach County and $862 million in the Treasure Coast. Boating, fishing and access to the water help to make Florida unique. Amendment 6 would protect jobs and the Florida lifestyle.

Marriage, tax amendment on ballot

Gainesville Sun, 10/6/2008 — Although the Florida Supreme Court has removed three of the most contentious constitutional amendments from next month’s election, Floridians will still get to decide a half-dozen ballot issues, ranging from a ban on same-sex marriages to a measure that would allow local communities to increase the sales tax to support community colleges.

Each amendment in the Nov. 4 general election will require support from at least 60 percent of the voters.

The measure that is drawing the most debate is Amendment 2, which would define marriage as “the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife,” while stating no other union “shall be valid or recognized.”

Florida law now bans same-sex marriages. But proponents of the amendment say it is necessary to prevent courts from overturning the law in the future. They cite instances where that has occurred in other states.

“One judge with one stroke of a pen can strike our marriage law down,” said John Stemberger, chairman of the Yes2Marriage group.

Stemberger said if the marriage law is overturned, it would undermine a critical social institution.

“If marriage can mean anything, marriage means nothing,” he said. “Whenever you change the exit rules or entrance rules to an institution as fundamental as marriage, there are significant and profound social, legal and moral consequences.”

But opponents of the amendment say Stemberger and others are pushing the amendment based on a scenario that is not likely to happen. “It’s already illegal in the state of Florida,” said Damien Filer, political director for Progress Florida, which opposes the amendment. “The idea that we need to vote on whether to put this in the constitution or not is laughable.”

Instead, Filer said if the amendment passes it could jeopardize health care, pension and other benefits for thousands of Floridians who have domestic partnerships.

The opponents are also painting the amendment as an “unnecessary government intrusion” into the personal lives of Floridians and warning that some of the amendment’s language is so vaguely worded it could put domestic partnerships into jeopardy.

They cite an independent analysis of the amendment by legislative staffers who wrote:

“If domestic partnership registries are deemed substantially equivalent to marriage, their termination could place registrants at risk of losing specific rights and benefits, such as those related to health insurance.”

Stemberger said the argument that domestic partners and seniors could lose rights such as health care or pension benefits was a “scare tactic” from the opponents.

He said if the benefits are allowed now under the existing law, which bans same-sex marriages, they would be allowed if the amendment passed. “The amendment basically mirrors the current statute,” Stemberger said. “It does nothing new. It just preserves something.”

The Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission still has four amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot, following the Supreme Court decision last month that eliminated three amendments related to property taxes and school vouchers.

Amendment 8 would allow Florida’s 28 community colleges to seek approval for a local sales tax to support the schools.

If passed in November, the measure would allow the colleges to ask local voters for approval for a local sales tax that would last up to five years. Voter approval would have to come from all the counties served by the colleges. Currently nine of the 28 schools serve only one county, while the rest serve multiple counties.

Florida TaxWatch, an independent government watchdog group, has endorsed the amendment saying it could “increase funding for a vital segment of Florida’s education system.” The group also noted the measure has several safeguards built into it, including the requirement for local approval and the five-year time limit.

But TaxWatch also acknowledged the potential downside to the measure, saying it could add a tax to what is already one of the highest sales tax rates in the nation and it could create funding inequalities among the colleges.

Conservation groups and the Florida Chamber of Commerce are among the organizations backing Amendment 4, which would provide a full property tax exemption for land permanently dedicated to conservation and a lower tax rate for other property currently used for conservation.

Although Florida has major programs dedicated to acquiring land for conservation, the proponents say the measure is an “additional tool” to provide another incentive for landowners to either permanently or temporarily dedicate their land for preservation rather than development.

TaxWatch, which supports the measure, said the amendment means “more Florida land will be kept in its natural state.”

But the group also warned that the “potential for abuse” remains, since the exemption would be similar to the property tax break now given to agricultural land that critics say is sometimes misused.

Amendment backers said safeguards can be built into the law that the Legislature will have to write spelling out the details of the exemption, following the passage of the amendment.

Another property tax break proposal on the ballot is Amendment 6, which would grant a tax break for marinas, commercial fishing operations and marine manufacturers. However, the amendment is not as broad as some proponents wanted and does not extend to waterfront businesses such as motels or restaurants.

As “working waterfront properties,” the marinas and boat builders would have their property valued on the basis of its current use, rather than its potential use for something like waterfront condominium construction. Proponents say the amendment will keep more of the small businesses in operation while providing public access to waterways through the marinas.

No groups are formally opposing the amendment.

Two other amendments drawing little criticism include Amendment 3, which would prevent home improvements related to hurricane protection or renewable energy from being used to increase the home’s value for tax purposes. It does not include non-residential property.

Amendment 1, which was put on the ballot by the Legislature, would remove existing language in the state constitution that prohibits the ownership of land by non-citizens. Proponents say the language is outdated and discriminatory.

Symbolic amendment eradicating discriminatory law likely to fail

Palm Beach Post, 10/6/2008 — Florida is the only state in the nation with an archaic law designed to give the legislature the ability to discriminate against Asian immigrants.

But voters could change that on Nov. 4 by approving a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by lawmakers to strike that law.

The Florida legislature added the "alien land law" into the state constitution in 1926, restricting the ownership of property by immigrants ineligible for citizenship.

At the time, federal law granted to naturalized citizenship only to whites and blacks of African descent.

The legislature has never passed any laws under the provision and couldn't anyway, according to experts, because it violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against a class of individuals based on race.

Taking the 23 words out of the state constitution after nearly a century won't have any effect at all, said the Senate sponsor of the measure, Steve Geller.

But it would have a symbolic meaning, similar to removing laws allowing slavery, Geller said.

"It's Jim Crow in the broad sense. It's a racial segregation law," said Jack Chin, a University of Arizona law professor who headed a group of law students who discovered the discriminatory laws still existed and began an effort to have them removed.

But proponents of Amendment 1, titled "Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens," fear that even voters who would want to take the racially motivated clause out of the constitution won't understand what the proposal means, or worse.

"The problem with passing it is the way it's worded; I'm afraid people will get confused and think it deals with illegal aliens or terrorists or whatever," said Geller, a Cooper City Democrat who is term-limited out of office.

Although the Senate unanimously approved the 2007 resolution, which required two-thirds approval by each chamber to get onto this year's ballot, 31 House republicans voted against it.

Geller thinks that's because they didn't understand it.

"Why would you give the opportunity to someone who is ineligible to become a citizen to enjoy the rights our citizens should enjoy?" Rep. Mitch Needleman, R-Melbourne, argued against the measure. "This is a major change in the constitution."

As of 2000, just four states had alien land laws on the books: New Mexico, Florida, Wyoming and Kansas.

Chin said lawmakers in Kansas and Wyoming have repealed theirs.

But Florida and New Mexico's laws were in the state constitutions, requiring voter approval to have them struck. The measure failed in New Mexico in 2004 but passed in 2006, leavingFlorida the final state with the law.

"It all adds up to the inherent difficulty in understanding what the issue is, coupled with the length of the ballot and the other hot issues. I wouldn't be surprised at all if on the one hand the majority of the people of Florida don't want to discriminate on the basis of race for land ownership but the proposition fails," said Chin.

Asian-American civil rights organizations have been practically mum on the amendment and even national experts on the topic of alien land laws are unaware that it's on the ballot, adding to worries that it may not pass.

"I believe a lot of individuals who wouldn't tolerate these types of laws would have no idea what they're voting for and may not cast a vote to strike it out," said Vincent Eng, deputy director of the Washington, D.C.-based Asian-American Justice Center who also teaches a law course at Columbia University on alien land laws.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, a federal law that granted reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been held in internment camps by the U.S. government during World War II.

That makes the passage of the amendment even more symbolic, said Eng, who was unaware that the measure was coming before Florida voters in November.

"Florida taking action on the 20th anniversary of the redress is sending the statement that the past abuses against the Japanese and Asian Americans in general really cannot be tolerated," he said.

Text of Amendment 1 "Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens"

Delete from state constitution the provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizensh

For More Information

In The News

Fort Lauderdale City Commission Adopts Resolution Supporting Amendment 6 City Joins Effort to Protect Waterfronts and Preserve Marine Industry

Statewide amendments on ballot made easy

‘Yes’ on Amendment 6 keeps waterfronts ‘working’ and accessible

Stay informed

Those amendments on the Nov. 5 ballot: What they mean

Fernandina News Leader Editorial ~~ Our view on amendments

Gasparella Gazette Recommends Vote YES on Amendment 6 Amendment recommendations; constitutional and charter

The case for Amendment 6 Passage would protect Florida’s waterfront businesses

Herald Tribune Recommends YES on No. 6

Amendments simplified

Letter: Yes on Amendment 6 needed to save businesses

Amendment 6 could give state’s working waterfront a tax break Land would be assessed by actual use over market value

Letter: 'Highest and best use' statute reducing access to waterways

Letter: Working waterfronts should not be taxed out of existence

Amendment giving waterfronts relief faces scarce opposition

Yes on 6: Waterfront property

Do you know what the proposed Amendments really mean?

Early voting here, so cast your ballot

Jody Foster: Vote yes on Amendment 6

Waterfront Business

Amendment 6 will standardize waterfront taxes

BreezeNewspapers.com Give Pros and Cons on Amendment 6

In Your Corner: MCTA looks at proposed amendments on Florida ballot

The Lakeland Ledger recommends a "Yes" Vote on Amendment 6

The Fort Myers News Press recommends "Vote Yes"

So, what else is on the ballot?

Amendment 6 to decide tax value of waterfront land

Florida marina industry asks voters for property tax lifeline

Regulatory Review Florida marine businesses seek tax relief

Amendment 6 seeks to save Fla. marine industry

Homebuilders on board for Amendments 3 and 6

Amendment 6 could give state’s working waterfront a tax break Land would be assessed by actual use over market value

Sarasota Herald Tribune Recommends Voting Yes for Amendment 6

The Miami Herald recommends a "Yes" Vote on Amendment 6

Florida Voters to Weigh in Nov. 4 on Six Proposed Constitutional Amendments

St. Pete Times Recommends "YES" Vote on Amendment 6

A Guide to Amendments

Dennis Ross: Save Our Waterfronts

YES On County Change; NO On State Amendment 2, Yes On Others

Pass tax-cutting changes to Florida Constitution

Marriage, tax amendment on ballot

Symbolic amendment eradicating discriminatory law likely to fail

Fort Lauderdale City Commission Adopts Resolution
Supporting Amendment 6
City Joins Effort to Protect Waterfronts and Preserve Marine Industry

Gasparella Gazette Recommends Vote YES on Amendment 6
Amendment recommendations; constitutional and charter

The case for Amendment 6
Passage would protect Florida’s waterfront businesses

Amendment 6 could give state’s working waterfront a tax break
Land would be assessed by actual use over market value

In Your Corner: MCTA looks at proposed amendments
on Florida ballot

Amendment 6 could give state’s working waterfront a tax break
Land would be assessed by actual use over market value