Florida Amendment 3: Who Wins—and Who Pays— in Osceola?
Dear Editor:
Amendment 3 is being sold as a property-tax cut for homeowners. For many Osceola County homeowners, especially long-term homestead owners, that is true. But it is only half the story.
By 2028, the amendment would raise Florida’s non-school homestead exemption to $250,000 while lowering the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%. The result is a large tax benefit for homesteaded property—and a smaller tax base for county and municipal governments.
State economists estimate Osceola County could lose about $134 million a year in property-tax revenue by FY 2028-29, with the annual reduction growing thereafter. That money has to come from somewhere: spending cuts, higher millage rates, new fees and assessments, or some combination.
For Celebration, my modeling suggests long-term homestead owners could save roughly $1,450 to $1,550 a year in 2028. Recent homestead buyers would also likely save substantially, though somewhat less.
The people more exposed are those outside the homestead system: second-home owners, landlords and renters. Under two plausible county-response scenarios, a non-homestead condo owner could pay roughly $225 to $435 more per year, while a non-homestead single-family owner could pay about $500 to $975 more.
Renters may feel part of that increase too. A recent statewide analysis by tax economist Jared Walczak found that, under a revenue-neutral millage response, Osceola apartment property taxes could rise about $394 per unit and single-family rental taxes about $1,319. Economic studies cited in that analysis suggest landlords often pass a substantial share of property-tax increases on to tenants over time.
That does not mean those numbers are predictions. Osceola may cut spending, raise rates, increase fees, or mix all three. My own scenarios assume a mixed response rather than full tax-rate replacement.
The larger point is simple: Amendment 3 does not merely cut taxes. It redistributes who is protected and who is exposed.
Long-term homestead owners are likely to be the most protected. Renters, landlords and second-home owners are more vulnerable to whatever fiscal response follows. And everyone remains exposed to possible service reductions.
Before voting, Osceola residents should look beyond the slogan “homeowners get a tax cut” and ask the harder question: Who ultimately makes up the difference?
Joseph Adamchic
Celebration
The cost of partisan politics
Dear Editor: I am disgusted with our government. But I also understand that I bear some responsibility for this. For years I have been a non-partisan voter. Where did I get my information from: Friends and family. Now it’s TV internet tons of paper to fill my recycle bin.
It was not until the last few years that I used the internet to see if the claims they make are true. And wow! Who knew that many of them are half-truths or just blatant lies. So please (We the People) Look up these claims or have your grandchildren do it for you.
I would love to say that our candidates would be ashamed of these lies, but they are not. I do not want anyone who lies about his or her opponent to represent me.
And how did we get all these wealthy people telling our President what we want. Let’s say you know some young person you believe would be great in our government. For them to get started, they must register or they cannot appear on the ballot. The fee for either Partisan ballot (in a state-level race) is $10,440, and you must be a member of said party for no less than 365 days. . For nonpartisan candidates it’s only $6,960.
Then, factor in advertising, staff salaries, event costs, travel expenses and legal costs. It can be defrayed with sponsors or contributions. Some will give you small donations. Others will give a large one IF you say you will give their interests consideration when in congress. There you have it, the IF.
Will they vote for You or for their Megadonors? They want to do the right thing, but they need continued support to stay there.
For the record, the wage for a U.S. House or Senate member is $174,000—for life—paid for by those who vote for them.
Only we can change these rules. So, vote for people who care all of us! Choose whoever you want, but please choose one with a conscience and dignity.
Nancy Diamond
Kissimmee
Affordable Care Act no longer affordable
Dear Editor:
“Tax cuts put money in your Pocket.” Or do they?
Last year, our Affordable Care Act Premium Healthcare for my husband, our two daughters and I was just under $600 per month. This January, the premium jumped to $1,500 per month. Friday, we were notified that our 2027 monthly payment would be over $3,300 per month.
“I think we are going to have to drop our policy and pay out of pocket,” my husband said.
We are healthy, retired and don’t qualify for Medicare. We planned carefully and did the research on what we needed to budget to cover our living expenses, plus a cushion for unforeseen expenses. The increased costs of gas, electricity, food and tariffs are things we grumble about but can cover. But no cushion is big enough to handle the cruel increase in the cost of our healthcare.
Healthcare coverage should not be dependent on full-time employment. Other countries don’t do this, and with AI projected to replace 15 million US jobs by 2027, we shouldn’t either.
We have paid our fair share of taxes over the years. There has never been a year where we manipulated our assets and income in such a way that we did not pay any taxes.
It is impossible to lower our taxes enough to make up for the $32,400 annual increase in our health insurance. Maybe if the wealthy were paying their fair share of taxes, we could have affordable health care for regular Americans.
Ellen Cruse
Cocoa Beach
