Ron DeSantis, having succumbed to the demands of the public to “eliminate” property taxes, has done irreparable harm to his reputation, which, while evident on its face, will be set in stone in a few years. He has decided that he can spend the same money twice and get better results.
Cutting taxes on essentials that are necessary for all will cut services and more, making DeSantis no more than a liberal at best.
I am all for lower taxes, but in the fiat currency market in which we all participate, lowering anything while spending more is a non-starter at best. All this moving the chess pieces on the board does nothing for anyone and will, in the end, cost the public more, either at the point of sale or in other taxes that are sure to come.
If Ron thinks he has done something for the “put upon,” he has opened the gates for more and not less. Being gone at the end of 2026, Ron, if he is to be seen as marketable in the political world, needs his latest gambit to bear fruit immediately.
What can be expected is a real estate market that will attempt to satisfy both the seller and the buyer. With all this “free” money floating around, the average citizen will buy more and pay more sales tax into the pot, making up a portion of the loss.
The counties will vote to increase fees at all levels, thereby creating a new class of political criminals. The idea of “you need a permit” will fill the air with vituperative invective, all beginning with the letter “F.”
There will be other schemes and, by all this, allow the grassroots “wannabe” politicians to find a toe-hold on the ladder of political success. Some counties will be better off than others, but all will need to cover the shortfall.
Those counties that see an added tax base to one that is disappearing will reap “the better part of tax valor” and prosper, while others, mired in excess verbiage, will not.
Those counties putting server farms on the land are hedging their bets. While AI is suffering from an attack on its answers, those who know good answers from bad are using the power of AI to make money—a lot of it.
I will not go into what it takes for good server farm technology to be a tax saver, as the technology is too complex for those who have decided, “I know what I’m talking about.”
Many counties will use the referendum to make up the shortfall. This gambit adds a sales tax of 1–2%, all legal and renewable for up to, in special cases, 30 years.
There it is: the governor putting it all on the shoulders of county commissioners to pull a rabbit out of a hat.
While the anti-server-farm group is wailing over water, land, and heat dissipation as things not wanted, the idea of making money—more than the previous taxes brought in—plus permanent jobs at a high compensation rate is too much to deny.
Once the public sees the possibilities that the new paradigm brings, the idea of being against server farms will go away.
There is much more to this, aside from how it all plays out in its present form. Like all things, the politicians will attempt to tweak what they believe is politically untenable and will do their utmost to do what they always seem to do: screw things up.
I will be in front of one commissioner and one former Florida House member, a former House Speaker Pro Tempore, for their take on this idea of being “all things to all people.”
I am hoping that services will not be cut, as we can see that all that we need will not satisfy all that we want.
The new law will need to be tested over time and, like all laws, there will be winners and losers. Those who lose will cry the loudest, and it will allow all the politicians to see where they need to be.
The politicians made the law, and they can change the law. We voters, forced to accept what we cannot change, do not force the changes we can and, worse, do not know the difference.
Voter indifference, mental deficiency in the political department, and the desire for immediate satisfaction are the worst qualities in any voter.
It gets late early out there. — Yogi Berra
by Dr. Richard Pitz, Blog Contributor
You make several valid points, particularly about the tendency of government to shift costs rather than truly reduce them. History shows that when revenue is reduced without corresponding spending cuts, local governments often look elsewhere to recover the difference—fees, assessments, permits, sales taxes, and special districts all become attractive options. They never decrease their spending or raises.
Where I disagree with some critics is the assumption that property tax reform automatically means service cuts. Before asking taxpayers for more money, governments should first demonstrate how existing revenue has been spent and what efficiencies can be found. Many Florida homeowners have seen property values and tax collections rise dramatically over the last several years. It is reasonable for voters to ask where that additional revenue went.
The real question is not whether taxes should be lower. Most people support that idea. The question is whether government at every level is willing to live within a budget the same way families must. If spending continues to grow, taxpayers will eventually pay one way or another.
As for server farms and economic development, counties that attract high-value investment may indeed offset some revenue losses. Others may struggle. That is why local leadership will matter more than ever if major tax reform moves forward.
Ultimately, voters should demand two things: transparency about spending and accountability for results. Tax cuts alone are not a solution, and neither are tax increases. Good stewardship of public money is what matters most. Vote wisely