As January 29th and the impending vote on Amendment 1 draws near, I find myself spending more time trying to understand the arguments of both sides. I’ve heard the angle that the portability of the benefits could be deemed unconstitutional according the clause concerning interstate commerce.
The point is that people moving to Florida would have an unfair advantage as they would be taxed at a higher rate than people who have lived in Florida for some time. Many believe that should the thing get 60% of the vote and pass, there will surely be legal challenges to the portability aspect of Amendment 1.
Save Our Homes, combined with the portability, would basically put the screws to anyone buying a home in Florida for the first time. Is that fair? Is it fair to to tax someone less because they have lived in the state for a longer period of time? Right now the screws are put to anyone who chooses to move (even if you move to a property with the same market value), as well as those buying for the first time. Is it fair to single out the first timers only?
A University of Georgia legal professor analyzed the situation and basically said that without a break for first time buyers or newly arrived homeowners, it may be tough to defend a legal challenge. But obviously, Governor Crist thinks it will hold up as he travels the state in the Vote Yes bus.
I really love the UGA professor’s quote “As Justice Thomas once said, everything that’s unfair is not unconstitutionalâ€.
Here’s a good article and discussion on Amendment 1.
RSS