Amendment 3Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Larger homestead tax break
Explain it like I'm 5
Many homeowners would get a bigger discount on property taxes that do not pay for schools. Tax increases on many rentals and businesses would slow, but cities and counties could have less money and fewer choices about what to fund.
Yes vote
Increasing the non-school homestead exemption, lowering the non-homestead assessment-growth cap from 10% to 5%, and restricting how municipalities and counties may spend property-tax revenue.
No vote
Keeping the current homestead exemption, 10% non-homestead cap, and local spending rules.
The question to ask yourself
Are the homeowner tax savings worth the risk of less local revenue and tighter limits on local decisions?
The case for
- Qualifying homeowners would receive lower non-school property taxes.
- A 5% assessment cap could make tax growth on many rental and commercial properties more predictable.
- Spending limits could push local governments to prioritize core services.
Backed by: Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida Realtors
The case against
- Lower local revenue could lead to service cuts, higher fees, or shifted costs.
- Homeowners receive the clearest direct benefit, while renters and people who cannot buy homes may benefit less.
- The measure limits local flexibility and delays the full exemption for many new Florida residents.
Opposed by: Florida Sheriffs Association, Florida Professional Firefighters, Florida Association of Counties, Florida League of Cities, Florida Policy Institute
- Money
- The Florida Revenue Estimating Conference projected local non-school property-tax losses of about $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2027-28, rising toward about $11.8 billion annually when fully phased in; there is no state backfill.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say the amendment eliminates property taxes, because the larger exemption does not apply to school taxes and most homeowners would still owe property taxes.