Florida voters will decide in November whether to approve Amendment 3, a constitutional proposal that would substantially expand property tax exemptions for homesteaded homes. Supporters say it would help homeowners facing rising insurance and housing costs. Critics warn the measure could shift the tax burden to rental properties, increase rents and reduce funding for local services.
Key takeaways
Amendment 3 would reshape how Florida funds local government while offering its largest benefits to owners of primary residences.
- The homestead exemption would rise to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, excluding school district taxes.
- Rental properties would not receive the expanded homestead exemption.
- Local governments could raise taxes or fees on apartments and other non-homesteaded properties.
- Critics fear cuts to transportation, libraries, parks and social programs.
- The amendment needs at least 60% voter approval and would take effect Jan. 1, 2027, if passed.
Homeowners would receive the biggest benefit
Florida’s current homestead exemption is $50,000. Amendment 3 would increase it in stages, potentially sharply reducing the nonschool portion of property tax bills for homeowners. Some owners could see that portion fall close to zero.
Supporters, including Gov. Ron DeSantis and legislative Republicans, argue that homeowners need relief after years of higher insurance premiums and housing costs. They say local governments have expanded spending faster than inflation and population growth and should prioritize core services such as public safety, education and infrastructure.
The proposal followed an earlier push by DeSantis to eliminate property taxes on primary residences entirely. That broader plan did not advance.
Why renters could face higher costs
The expanded exemption would apply to homesteaded properties, not apartment buildings or most rental homes. If counties and cities lose substantial revenue, they could raise millage rates on commercial properties, apartment complexes, second homes and other taxable land.
Those higher costs could be passed to tenants through rent increases, although the effect would vary by market and landlord. The amendment would lower the annual assessment-growth cap for multifamily and other nonhomesteaded residential properties from 10% to 5%, a provision supporters say could protect renters from sudden tax increases. However, landlords would not be required to pass any savings to tenants.
The risk is particularly significant in a state where renters already face severe affordability pressures. A worker would need to earn nearly $38 an hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment at fair-market rent statewide, according to housing advocates. In South Florida, the figure approaches $47 an hour, compared with Florida’s $14 minimum wage.
Local services are also at stake
Opponents say the amendment could weaken the services that renters and low-income households rely on most. Reduced revenue could affect bus routes, libraries, parks, after-school programs, fire-rescue operations and health services.
Critics in Miami-Dade estimate the county could face a roughly $400 million shortfall. They warn that cuts to public transportation would make it harder for workers to reach their jobs, while reductions in libraries and youth programs could affect families who depend on those services for childcare and educational support.
Supporters counter that governments can reduce administrative spending, tighten budgets or charge additional fees for special services rather than cut essential programs.
Ballot language faces scrutiny
A Leon County judge ruled that the Legislature’s original ballot wording was misleading and required it to be rewritten. The legal dispute highlights the amendment’s central tension: it offers direct relief to homeowners while potentially requiring local governments to recover lost revenue elsewhere.
Voters will ultimately decide whether the promise of lower property taxes outweighs the possibility of higher rents, fees and reduced public services. Polling has shown strong initial support, but approval falls below the required threshold when voters are told about possible cuts to local government funding.