![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Senator-Jeff-Brandes-scaled.jpg\")
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJeff Brandes, president of the Florida Policy Project and a former Florida State Senator, joins MidPoint. Photo by Daria Mironova\/WMNF.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJeff Brandes, president of the Florida Policy Project and a former Florida State Senator, joins MidPoint. Photo by Daria Mironova\/WMNF.<\/p>\n
A proposed property tax referendum could reshape how Florida\u2019s local governments are funded, raising concerns among policy experts about its impact on homeowners, renters, and public services.<\/p>\n
On June 10, Jeff Brandes, President of the Florida Policy Project and a former Florida State Senator, and Anders Croy, Executive Director of the Florida Watch and DeSantis Watch accountability projects, joined MidPoint to discuss the potential consequences for local municipalities, government services, and housing policy.<\/p>\n
Concerns over local funding<\/p>\n
Croy described the proposal as potentially \u201cthe largest tax shift in Florida history,\u201d arguing that reducing or eliminating property tax revenues would leave counties and municipalities struggling to sustain essential services. Public hospitals, emergency response, disaster recovery, schools, and public health programs depend heavily on local property tax revenue. Without that funding source, local governments would be forced to seek assistance from the state legislature or replace lost revenue through new fees and taxes.<\/p>\n
Brandes echoed concerns about the impact on local government autonomy. He pointed out that shifting responsibility for funding local services to Tallahassee would weaken home rule and increase state control over local decision-making.<\/p>\n
The guests also pointed out that small counties and cities, and Florida\u2019s \u201cbedroom communities,\u201d where the majority of residents live in homestead properties, would be most vulnerable to tax revenue losses and would find it difficult to provide basic services. That may lead to municipal bankruptcies and possible consolidation of counties, also potentially disrupting Florida\u2019s political geography.<\/p>\n
Impact on renters<\/p>\n
Although the proposal primarily targets homeowners\u2019 homesteaded property taxes, both MidPoint guests argued that renters could also face high indirect costs.<\/p>\n
Croy noted that renters would receive none of the proposed tax benefits and would likely be forced to absorb higher housing costs if landlords pass through additional expenses. At the same time, all renters would remain subject to any increases in sales tax or local fees adopted to replace lost property tax revenue.<\/p>\n
Brandes agreed, saying renters could effectively be \u201chit twice\u201d through both higher rents and additional taxes, fees or assessments.<\/p>\n
Emergency services and disaster response<\/p>\n
The discussion also highlighted concerns about emergency preparedness. With Florida entering another hurricane season, Croy questioned whether communities would have sufficient resources to respond quickly after major storms if local funding sources are reduced. He argued that dependence on state assistance could slow disaster recovery operations and make communities more vulnerable during emergencies.<\/p>\n
Potential effects on housing development<\/p>\n
Brandes raised another concern: the proposal\u2019s possible impact on housing policy. He suggested that if homestead properties generate less revenue for local governments in the future, then cities and counties may become less inclined to approve new single-family housing developments. Instead, local officials may favor apartments and other non-homesteaded properties that continue to produce more tax revenue.\u00a0<\/p>\n
What about existing financing of public works and projects?<\/p>\n
Brandes noted that some municipalities have financed major infrastructure projects by bonding them with future tax revenues. When those revenues are no longer forthcoming, what then?\u00a0 He suggested it was \u201clegislative malpractice\u201d for the legislature to have put this on the ballot without assembling and reviewing the necessary data and thoroughly researching such matters.\u00a0 Brandes also believes that some members of the legislature are now feeling \u201cbuyer\u2019s remorse\u201d over their vote in favor of advancing this referendum.<\/p>\n
Property taxes vs property insurance<\/p>\n
The discussion also touched on Florida\u2019s ongoing property insurance crisis, questioning whether the referendum to lower property taxes was an attempt to deflect voters from their high property tax bills.<\/p>\n
Brandes said that homeowners\u2019 insurance conditions have improved since recent reforms, and he predicted that rates could continue to decline if the state avoids major hurricanes.<\/p>\n
Croy cited data showing that Florida homeowners still pay several times the national average for property insurance. He noted that premiums have risen dramatically over the past several years. Croy added that lawmakers should prioritize affordable insurance before pursuing major property tax changes.<\/p>\n
The MidPoint discussion stressed a central question facing Florida voters: whether passing this ballot question to reduce property taxes would provide meaningful financial relief or simply shift costs elsewhere, placing new financial pressures on local governments, public services, and residents across the state. Brandes summed up the consequences if Florida voters pass this referendum, suggesting Florida would then become known as the \u201cfee state of Florida, instead of the free state of Florida.\u201d<\/p>\n