Florida Amendment 3: Are We Saving Money Today at the Expense of Our Communities Tomorrow?

6 hours ago

8 min read

PERSONAL OPINION — The views below are mine. They do not represent Florida Realtors, Florida Realty of Miami, Manzano Mortgage Co., or any political party.

A few days ago, I heard an NPR-affiliated discussion about Florida’s Amendment 3 and Florida Realtors’ support for it. It stopped me because I am a Realtor, and I also work in mortgages. I understand the appeal immediately: Florida homeowners are exhausted by the cost of owning a home, and any proposal that says “your property-tax bill could go down” is naturally going to get attention.

Florida Realtors has formally endorsed Amendment 3. I respect the organization and I understand the argument behind its support: affordability does not end at the closing table, and homeowners need to be able to afford to stay in the homes they worked to buy.

But belonging to an industry does not mean I have to automatically agree with every policy position our industry takes. The more I look at Amendment 3, the more I keep coming back to a different question: are we trying to make homeownership more affordable in a way that could weaken the very communities those homes are part of?

Editorial image for Chris Manzano’s personal opinion on Florida Amendment 3, showing South Florida housing, community amenities, and affordability themes. — Editorial illustration for this opinion article. It is not campaign material and does not depict a specific government action or outcome.

The appeal of Amendment 3 is real

The official ballot proposal would increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments afterward. It would also lower the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property—including rentals, second homes and commercial property—from 10% to 5%. School property taxes are not reduced by the expanded homestead exemption.

The structure is more complicated than a slogan. People who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026 would generally receive the existing homestead exemption first, with the larger exemption beginning in the fifth year of homestead eligibility, to the extent that provision is permitted under the U.S. Constitution.

For many existing homeowners, the savings could be meaningful. Florida TaxWatch, using the state Revenue Estimating Conference assumptions and statewide average non-school millage, estimates roughly $1,035 of average savings in 2027 and about $2,085 in 2028 for a sufficiently valued homestead. I do not dismiss that. A thousand or two thousand dollars matters to families, retirees and people trying to keep up with insurance, utilities, repairs and everything else.

Local government is where we actually experience government

My biggest concern is what happens on the other side of that tax bill.

Local government is the bread and butter of the services and culture we experience where we live. We do not experience “government” as an abstract line in Tallahassee. We experience it when the park is maintained, when the library is open, when the street drains after a storm, when emergency services respond, when a neighborhood looks cared for, when a cultural program gives a kid somewhere to go, and when public spaces make a community feel like a community.

Miami-Dade’s adopted 2026–27 budget itself shows how broad that local role is. The county highlights public safety, transportation, parks, libraries, community organizations, arts and cultural programs, infrastructure, neighborhood services and other everyday functions. Those are not theoretical benefits. They are part of the reason people want to live here.

State revenue estimates cited by Florida TaxWatch project that, if current millage rates stayed unchanged, Amendment 3 would reduce local property-tax collections by about $4.93 billion in fiscal year 2027–28, about $8.71 billion in 2028–29, and roughly $45.8 billion over five years.

That does not mean every dollar becomes a service cut. Local governments can cut spending, change priorities, raise some rates or fees, use reserves, or find other revenue. I am not predicting that every library, park or program gets slashed.

But billions of dollars do not disappear without choices. My concern is that local governments could be squeezed hard enough that the first things sacrificed are often the things that make daily life better but are easiest to call “discretionary”: parks, recreation, cultural programs, beautification, neighborhood improvements and community services.

A cheaper tax bill does not automatically mean a more affordable housing market

There is another issue that, as a Realtor and mortgage professional, I cannot ignore: lower recurring property taxes can become part of what buyers are willing to pay for the house itself.

A 2026 Florida-focused study by Patrick Smith and Florida International University researcher Mark Thibodeau found evidence that expected property-tax savings are capitalized into transaction prices. In plain English, if the ongoing cost of owning a house falls, some of that benefit can show up in a higher purchase price.

That is not a guarantee that Amendment 3 will cause home prices to rise by a specific amount. Housing prices depend on supply, demand, interest rates, incomes, insurance, location and many other factors. But it is a real economic possibility, and it matters in a place where getting through the front door of homeownership is already difficult.

Redfin’s 2026 rent-versus-buy analysis estimated that a Miami household needed about $134,000 in annual income to afford the typical home under its assumptions, compared with about $106,000 to afford the typical rental. The methodologies can be debated, but the direction of the problem is familiar to anyone working with buyers here: buying is already a very high hurdle.

What about renters and people still trying to become homeowners?

The larger homestead exemption directly benefits qualifying owner-occupants. Renters do not receive it. Rental property would benefit from the lower 5% non-homestead assessment-growth cap, but that is not the same as giving the tenant a homestead exemption or guaranteeing lower rent.

A recent analysis released through the Florida Housing Coalition explored what could happen if local governments responded to lost homestead revenue by raising property-tax rates on the remaining base. That scenario is not guaranteed, but it illustrates the potential for tax burdens to shift toward rental housing and other non-homestead property.

That is why I worry about creating a Florida where the people who already own property receive larger protections while the person working here, renting here and trying to buy here still faces the hardest part of the affordability problem: the entry price.

If we want to attack affordability, why not attack insurance more directly?

This is where I think Florida should be having a much bigger conversation.

For many homeowners I talk to, the insurance bill feels more painful and less predictable than the property-tax bill. Florida’s own statutes recognize that affordable property insurance is a matter of public welfare and economic health. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation exists as a state-created government entity and insurer of last resort for people who cannot find qualifying coverage in the voluntary market.

Citizens is not currently a universal statewide insurer. In fact, state policy has been moving policies back toward private carriers as the market improves. Citizens reported about 254,736 policies as of October 2, 2026, down sharply from earlier peaks.

So I am not pretending the answer is as easy as saying, “Make Citizens insure everybody tomorrow.” A universal or statewide public-option property insurance program would raise serious questions about catastrophe risk, reserves, assessments, underwriting, reinsurance, pricing and taxpayer exposure.

But I would rather see Florida seriously study that kind of structural insurance solution—or stronger limits, public options, competition rules, transparency and affordability standards—than pretend property taxes are the only major carrying cost making Florida homeownership difficult.

If homeowners are being crushed by insurance premiums, then let us confront insurance directly. We should not weaken the financial base of the local governments delivering the services that make our communities valuable while leaving the insurance problem sitting in the middle of the kitchen table.

I would rather debate a targeted “live here, work here, homestead here” model

I also think there is a more targeted affordability idea worth debating.

Instead of dramatically reducing the local tax base for such a broad group of existing homestead owners, what if Florida designed a new benefit focused on the people who actually live here, work here and homestead their primary residence here?

My rough idea would be some form of targeted homestead relief—or even a very large exemption—for primary-residence owners who establish Florida residency and make their economic life here. The purpose would be to reward the people who form the daily backbone of a community: workers, families and long-term residents putting down roots.

I am not presenting that as a finished bill. A serious proposal would have to address retirees, disabled residents, caregivers, self-employed people, remote workers, military families, people between jobs and constitutional equal-protection issues. It would need careful design so it did not punish people who contribute to Florida in ways that do not fit a traditional payroll definition.

But I like the direction because it asks a different affordability question: how do we help the people who are trying to build a life here become and remain homeowners without hollowing out the local revenue base that supports the community around them?

Before cutting the revenue, show us the spending

None of this means local government gets a free pass.

Before any city or county tells residents it cannot possibly live with less, I want to see the books. Show me administrative overhead. Show me contracts. Show me projects that run over budget. Show me duplication. Show me measurable outcomes. Show me where technology can reduce costs. Show me which programs are working and which ones survive because nobody wants to ask hard questions.

That is where I agree with the frustration behind Amendment 3. Taxpayers deserve accountability. Property-tax collections have risen significantly as Florida property values have increased, and local governments should have to explain what residents are getting for that money.

But accountability and austerity are not the same thing. We can demand efficient government without pretending local government itself has no value.

The Florida we want to leave behind

For me, this is bigger than a line on a tax bill.

I believe in making homeownership more affordable. I also believe that the true value of a home extends beyond its walls and property lines. It includes the neighborhood, the parks, the infrastructure, the libraries, the public safety, the culture, the recreation, the cleanliness of public spaces and the sense that the community around you works.

Before we celebrate paying less in taxes, shouldn’t we first understand what we might be giving up in return?

And before we permanently restructure local government revenue, shouldn’t we also ask whether insurance reform, targeted homeowner relief, housing supply, government efficiency and more focused affordability programs could solve the problem without weakening the communities we are trying to make affordable?

I am not telling anyone how to vote. I am telling my neighbors what concerns me and what I think deserves more scrutiny.

Read your local budget. Ask your commissioner or council member where the money goes. Ask Amendment 3 supporters what they believe can be delivered for less. Ask opponents where government can become more efficient. Ask Tallahassee what it plans to do about the insurance bill. Follow the money in every direction.

Responsible tax reform should make our communities stronger—not simply make government smaller.

About the author

Chris Manzano is a South Florida Realtor and mortgage professional serving homeowners, buyers, sellers, renters and borrowers throughout Miami-Dade and South Florida. This article is personal commentary and is not an endorsement of a political party, candidate or organization.