What do you think about the constitutional amendment up for a vote on Jan. 29?

This question was recently posed to the Times-Union editorial e-mail group:

We would like your comments on the constitutional amendment up for a
vote on Jan. 29. If passed, the constitutional amendment on property taxes will double
the personal homestead exemption and save the average homestead property
owner about $225 a year. Supporters say government is fat and needs
to be forced to cut spending. Opponents say this approach for cutting taxes is all wrong and that the
potential damage to local government services isn't worth the annual
savings. What is your view and why? Your comments may be used as letters to the editor in either the main
paper or our community sections. If you don't want to be quoted, please say
so.

The comments that follow are all from Westside residents who responded. If you have thoughts on this topic, feel free to create a username and post a comment.

I  enthusiastically support Amendment 1.  We have strayed far from the basic primary functions of local government, which include operation of a criminal justice system, including police and courts; fire protection; health and sanitation; and streets and infrastructure.  Virtually all else is fluff.  It's nice to have a symphony orchestra, jazz festival, libraries, parks, programs for children and senior citizens, etc., but these are areas that should be supported primarily by user fees  Government has simply taken on too many responsibilities and taxpayers, particularly those of us who are retired on fixed incomes, are feeling the crunch.
Government schools consume a huge amount of tax dollars.   I have been paying taxes to support these schools for almost 40 years, although my children never attended them.  What's wrong with relieving non-users of the government school system of part of this burden and shifting it to the parents who have children enrolled in the public schools?
We need to get back to basics as far as spending local tax dollars is concerned.  Maybe the adoption of Amendment 1 will encourage our government leaders to shift course to that direction.
Edward D. Hagan

The only thing I can say about taxes in general is that they seem to continue to grow but not without reason.   We as home owners must be willing to share, via taxation on our goods and property, to enable our government to build and maintain infrastructure and to provide necessary services.  If we pass a constitutional amendment doubling homestead exemption I think it would be a grave mistake.  In Jacksonville alone we would experience a severe reduction in dollars for services at a time when we desperately need more.   We are advised that this amendment will save the average property owner about $225 a year.  This is pennies a day which doesn’t sound like much; but, do the math and see what it means to those government agencies that we rely on so much to provide the services necessary for our protection and standards of living.  With that said, I personally suggest a NO vote to this constitutional amendment on January 29.
Bud Goble

My response is that in its present form the proposed constitutional
change is bad for everyone.  On the surface it appears to be just what
every home owner wants, reduction of taxes, it isn't.  If it receives
60% of the votes cast, it will pass.  If this happens there will be a
hoard of new costs to everyone to replace the money lost due to an
increase to Homestead exemption, maybe even a state wide tax on income.
We all would loose, if that happens.
Keith Myers

I am not in favor of the proposed amendment.  I feel that the new fees that Jacksonville enacted will more than offset any possible savings I might have had.  And, the new fees will be with us forever.  Governments never cancel any fees or taxes, which is what a fee really is.  They just find more ways to spend the money.  Government is too fat, and needs to cut spending.  A good example of this is Denise Lee defending people who steal money from the tax payers.
Larry Parks

I have sent in my absentee ballet and I did vote for the doubling of the personal homestead exemption.  Reason for doing so was that the additional fees have been put on the table and will most likely be approved.  If not for that I would have voted no!  I will say that I do believe there are areas that can be cut and made more efficient.  Fact is most of my reasoning is based on what I read in the paper and hopefully what is printed there is accurate.  The city government does not listen to their citizens, proof of that is the Court House Fiasco we authorize 190 million and they are now trying for 400 million or even higher or the River Front and the ship yard area and probably many others that I have forgotten at this moment.  Most of the politicians are responsive while running for office but after they make it you never hear from them again until it is time to be re elected.  I would love to see a politician solicit opinions from their public and then follow through!  Thanks though for the time to blow steam!
Just a quick view of taxes coming in from a variety of sources should be able to support a clean, conservative government.
Lee G Bray

I am against the amendment as low tax cities such as jacksonville will be disproportionally injured by the drop in state money and will have to raise local taxes to compensate. N.E. FL should not pay for the sins of the greater Miami and southwest Florida areas. Let the southerners seek relief locally, not make the whole state pay for their largess.
Bill Knight

Doubling the homestead exemption in reality is a bad idea.
Believe it or not, there are probably thousands of homes in Florida whose value is less than or just slightly more than fifty thousand dollars. They in effect, would pay little or no personal property taxes and yet receive exactly the same services as a person who lives in a million dollar home.
Answer : Reduce the taxable rate on property and eliminate the homestead exemption altogether. Rates will go down and yet the state will actually recieve more in tax revinue. Run the numbers.
Jim Mangels

I, like most people, want to see my taxes reduced.  The supporters of
this particular amendment, are, indeed correct when they say that
government is fat and needs to be forced to cut spending. However, I
really don't believe that this is the way to go about it. It sounds like
a good deal, but is it really?   If homestead exemption is doubled in
order to "save" the average homeowner approximately $225 a year and yet
the local government adds additional taxes to each homeowner to make up
for the deficit lost - have we really "saved" ourselves any money. And
indeed, local services will be impacted by the reduction in money to our
local government, whether it be in police services, trash services, or
education. How could it not be?  The cost of living and doing business
is going up for all of us. We should think carefully before we vote
ourselves into more taxation.  Of course, we could vote against the
amendment and find that our local officials tax us for more anyway. I
think most citizens; including my self, don't fully trust the
politicians we have in office at the present time.  Most are the "fat
cats" we so carefully try to avoid.  Unfortunately, the 'cathouse' is
full.
Vicki Crawford

I'm for the amendment, no matter how little it saves.  The government needs to cut its spending.  A small amount now, a small amount tomorrow, a small amount the next day and it all adds up to incremental mugging.  They're trying to sell it as an insignificant saving.  OK.  It is.  That's not the point.  If you take $5 you don't need, it's wrong.  If we can't afford something, we don't buy it.  Let the government do the same.
Joyce Bates

I think the way it is presented on the ballot, I have my absentee
ballot, is all wrong.  There is so much legalese in the language that
most of the people will never understand what is being presented.  I
don't think the possible $225 dollar saving is worth the risk of loosing
emergency services.  This is another way for those who have big and
expensive houses in other states to bring their exemption with them.
What about all of us that have lived her most of our lives.  It's
another way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  I
don't think it's worth it.
Gary B. Hartley

I think the constitutional amendment has it's pros and cons.  On the upside it is meant to help the thousands of people who need financial help.  At the same time it will aid many who can well afford their property taxes.
The fees and taxes that are supposed to be enacted will be paid by everyone whether they can afford them or not.  There is not going to be that much of a break for the people who really need financial help.  The sad part is that the fees and taxes will be enacted whether the people want them or not and whether or not the constitutional amendment is passed. Nobody has said that if this amendment is not passed that the extra fees and taxes would not be enacted.  Novody is really going to win no matter which way this goes, except the already fat government.
Betty L. Roberts