Florida Amendment 3: Why Voters Should Oppose the Property Tax Amendment

Florida voters will decide this November whether to approve Amendment 3, a sweeping change to the way local property taxes work.

The proposal would increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes, reduce the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%, and create a pathway toward further eliminating property taxes on homesteaded properties.

For homeowners struggling with the rising cost of living, a property tax cut may sound appealing. But Amendment 3 does not eliminate the cost of running our communities. It changes how those costs are paid, potentially leaving counties and cities with three choices: cut services, raise other taxes and fees, or shift more of the burden onto renters and businesses.

That is why we recommend voting no on Amendment 3.

For Miami-Dade, where affordability is already pushing residents out and local governments face enormous infrastructure and service needs, the consequences could be particularly significant.

1. Homeowners may pay less in taxes, but communities could lose services

Property taxes fund many of the services residents rely on every day.

Schools are specifically excluded from Amendment 3, meaning the amendment does not reduce the school district property-tax base. But county, municipal and special-district property taxes would be affected.

Those revenues help support services including fire and rescue, parks, libraries, infrastructure, environmental protection, flood mitigation and programs for children and families.

State economists have estimated that Amendment 3 could reduce local property-tax revenue statewide by approximately $5 billion in its first year and nearly $11.8 billion annually after five years.

For Miami-Dade alone, a Florida Policy Institute analysis estimates that the county government could lose approximately $214 million in operating revenue in the first fiscal year and $388 million the following year, before including losses to municipalities and separate taxing districts.

Those are projections from an organization opposing the amendment, not official Miami-Dade County estimates. But they illustrate the scale of the choices local governments could face.

Miami-Dade is already confronting significant fiscal pressures. Its proposed budget identifies approximately $53 million in unmet operating needs and more than $22 billion in unfunded capital projects.

Reducing a major source of recurring revenue could make those choices even harder.

What could be affected in Miami-Dade?

Some of the most tangible examples include:

Fire and emergency services. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue relies in part on property taxes through its fire district. Public safety remains an allowable use of property-tax revenue under Amendment 3, but that does not guarantee existing funding levels if the overall tax base shrinks.

Parks and libraries. Miami-Dade's parks and libraries are core quality-of-life services supported by local revenue. The Library District alone expects roughly $129 million in ad valorem revenue in the current budget year.

Programs for children and families. The Children's Trust, which funds early learning, after-school programs, developmental services and other support for children and families, receives revenue from its own property-tax millage. Florida Policy Institute estimates Amendment 3 could reduce Trust revenue by tens of millions of dollars annually.

Flood protection, resilience and environmental projects. Miami-Dade faces unusually large costs associated with flooding, sea-level rise, stormwater systems, water infrastructure and protection of natural resources. These are among the uses permitted under the amendment, but they would still compete for a potentially smaller pool of local revenue.

Transportation and infrastructure. Transit, roads and major infrastructure projects are financed through multiple revenue sources, so Amendment 3 would not simply remove a specific dollar amount from transit. But less flexible local revenue could make it harder for the county to supplement those programs or address new infrastructure needs.

Affordable housing. Many affordable-housing programs depend on federal, state or dedicated trust-fund revenue. Still, Miami-Dade also uses local resources to respond to its housing crisis. A tighter local budget could reduce flexibility to expand or supplement those efforts.

Even services funded mainly through fees can become part of the equation. Garbage collection, for example, is largely paid through a separate assessment rather than the ordinary property tax affected by Amendment 3.

That highlights a broader problem: cutting property taxes does not eliminate the cost of providing local services. Those costs can reappear as higher fees, assessments, fares or other taxes.

2. Renters could pay more without receiving the tax break

The potential effect on renters is one of the strongest arguments against Amendment 3.

Homesteaded homeowners would receive the expanded exemption. Renters would not.

Rental properties generally fall into the non-homestead category. If counties and cities respond to lost homestead revenue by increasing millage rates on the remaining tax base, landlords could face higher property-tax bills.

A September analysis commissioned by the Florida Housing Coalition, Florida Apartment Association, Miami Homes for All and Florida Policy Project examined that scenario.

If local governments replaced all of the lost revenue through property-tax rates, the analysis estimated that the average Florida apartment could face approximately $406 more in annual property taxes by 2028, increasing to $554 by 2031.

In Miami-Dade County, the modeled increase was approximately $291 per apartment unit in 2028.

That does not mean every Miami-Dade renter would automatically pay $291 more in rent. The analysis models one possible response by local governments rather than predicting exactly what every county and city will do.

Governments could instead cut spending, increase fees, raise other taxes or use some combination of those options.

But when taxes and operating costs on rental properties increase, landlords can pass at least some of those costs on to tenants over time.

That creates an uncomfortable contradiction: a constitutional amendment promoted as property-tax relief could provide the largest direct benefit to homeowners while leaving renters exposed to higher rents, fees or reduced public services.

And renters are already among the Miami-Dade residents most vulnerable to being priced out.

3. Tallahassee should not make Miami-Dade's budget decisions

There is also a larger question of local control.

Florida is an extraordinarily diverse state. The needs of Miami-Dade County are not the same as the needs of a small rural county in North Florida.

Miami-Dade has nearly 2.8 million residents, a massive transportation system, two major economic gateways in PortMiami and Miami International Airport, enormous infrastructure requirements, and unique challenges involving hurricanes, flooding, sea-level rise and housing affordability.

Yet Amendment 3 would place a statewide constitutional framework around how local governments raise and use property-tax revenue.

Miami-Dade voters already elect a mayor and County Commission to make decisions about local taxes and services. Residents of Miami, Miami Beach, Homestead, Hialeah and other municipalities elect their own local governments to do the same.

Those elected officials can be held accountable when residents believe taxes are too high or money is being spent poorly.

A statewide constitutional amendment reduces that flexibility.

A community facing aging infrastructure, chronic traffic, rising seas and one of America's most severe housing-affordability problems should have the ability to decide how to pay for those priorities.

What works for one Florida county will not necessarily work for Miami-Dade.

Miami-Dade is already losing residents

There is another reason Miami-Dade should be particularly cautious about policies that could make the region harder to live in.

People are already leaving.

Between July 2023 and July 2024, Miami-Dade experienced a net domestic migration loss of more than 67,000 residents, the largest loss among Florida counties. International migration more than offset those departures that year, allowing the county's overall population to continue growing.

But that changed the following year.

Between July 2024 and July 2025, Miami-Dade's population fell by more than 10,000 residents, according to Census Bureau estimates, making it one of the largest numerical county population declines in the country. More than 72,000 residents were lost through net domestic migration, while a sharp decline in international migration was no longer enough to compensate.

For years, people arriving from abroad helped offset the number of residents leaving Miami-Dade for other parts of Florida and the country. From 2020 through 2025, Miami-Dade gained hundreds of thousands of residents through international migration even as it lost residents domestically.

That safety valve is now weakening.

Recent federal immigration policies, including the termination of Temporary Protected Status for large numbers of Venezuelan and Haitian immigrants, have created uncertainty for thousands of South Florida families. At the same time, Florida and local police departments have dramatically expanded cooperation with federal immigration authorities through 287(g) agreements.

That has economic consequences as well as human ones.

South Florida businesses have already reported concerns about losing workers and customers. One large Venezuelan-founded restaurant company reported a 20% decline in customer demand following changes to Venezuelan TPS, while the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce has surveyed its members about the effect changing immigration policies are having on their workforces and businesses.

When residents leave a community, they do not just take themselves with them.

They take their spending with them.

They buy fewer meals at neighborhood restaurants, make fewer purchases at local stores, hire fewer local service providers and contribute less to the economic activity that supports small businesses throughout Miami-Dade.

That makes the potential long-term consequences of Amendment 3 larger than a line on a property-tax bill.

If declining local revenue means reduced services, deteriorating infrastructure or higher costs shifted onto renters and residents through other mechanisms, Democrats argue that Amendment 3 could add yet another reason for working and middle-class families to conclude that Miami-Dade is simply becoming too difficult to afford.

The real question is who ultimately pays

Florida has a real affordability crisis.

Homeowners are struggling with property taxes, insurance and the overall cost of housing. Renters are struggling too.

But Amendment 3 addresses one part of that problem by removing revenue from local governments without removing the responsibilities those governments have.

Firefighters still have to respond to emergencies.

Roads and bridges still need to be maintained.

Parks and libraries still serve our communities.

Children still need after-school programs.

Flooding still needs to be addressed.

And Miami-Dade still needs to build the infrastructure and housing required for millions of people to live here.

Someone ultimately pays for those things.

The question Amendment 3 raises is whether shifting those costs away from homesteaded property owners and toward renters, businesses, fees, assessments or reduced services actually makes Florida more affordable.

We believe it does not.

For Miami-Dade, the stakes are especially high. We are already watching working families leave because they cannot afford to stay, while changes in national immigration policy threaten another source of residents, workers, entrepreneurs and customers that has long sustained our growth.

The goal should be to make Miami-Dade a place where more people can afford to build a life, raise a family and run a business.

Amendment 3 risks moving us in the opposite direction.

Sources

Do you like this post?