The government will never admit to misspending money. Thus, decreasing property taxes are essential to force governments to account for what is actually necessary.
Tampa Mayor Jane Casto warns Florida residents against voting to decrease their property taxes
She says vote no because the government needs that money
Florida’s proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot called the “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes” proposal
This will significantly lower property taxes by raising the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes
Independent analysis of parcel data indicated that by year two, more than half of Tampa homestead properties could pay $0 in city property taxes
Government doesn’t have a tax problem, they have a spending problem
JUST IN: WNBA Commissioner announces the league is meeting to review what a woman is, after multiple former NBA stars announced plans to join the league.
BREAKING: Flock safety cameras are now being spotted along popular walking and biking trails — areas with no vehicle roads, as part of a broader expansion of mass surveillance.
NEW: Ohio father lures a 20-year-old man to his house before shooting him after allegedly finding a video of the man r*ping his 11-year-old daughter.
31-year-old Malik Chandler posed as his daughter on TikTok to lure Diego Montoya Gonzalez, 20, to his home.
When Montoya Gonzalez arrived at the house, Chandler shot him twice.
Prosecutors say they found videos on Montoya Gonzalez's phone of CSAM, including a video involving an infant.
Chandler was charged with felony assault. His bond was set at $100,000.
Montoya Gonzalez was indicted on five counts of pandering s*xually oriented material and two counts of r*pe.
The judge gave him a $20,000 recognizance bond and a $50,000 cash/surety bond, according to 10 WBNS.
Something that bugs me about Jeff and his ilk (many attorneys). They are very opportunistic to fool the masses who don’t study law. A court writes an opinion and they use that opinion as a way to argue and bend the truth despite knowing that courts get things routinely wrong.
This is a dishonest framing of the situation. Your use of AI to do your writing (and thinking apparently) is also evident.
Increasing homestead exemptions is tax relief. Anyone saying anything different has an obvious agenda and should have their finances checked.
Today, the court drew a line.
The ballot box is not a place for political advertising.
This case was never about whether property taxes should be lower. It was about whether the government can MARKET a constitutional amendment instead of HONESTLY explaining it to voters.
The court said NO.
No matter how you feel about Amendment 3, every Floridian should agree on one principle. Ballot language should inform voters, not persuade them.
Facts, not slogans. Truth, not marketing.
The debate over property taxes will continue, as it should. But from this point forward, that debate should be based on an honest description of what’s actually in the amendment.
Today wasn’t just a win for the plaintiffs. It was a win for every Florida voter.
One of the problems with this claim is that virtually no Republican was making "the affordability crisis is fake" arguments during the Biden years. It's extremely transparent to everyone that the unwillingness to acknowledge these obvious economic challenges is at least partially politically motivated.
The second problem is that, no matter how thrifty your family might be, and no matter how cheap your homemade burritos, the significant rise in grocery prices over the past 6 years -- and the fact that the rise is continuing, not stopping, and certainly not reversing -- is just a mathematical reality. It can't be denied. It is a fact.
Grocery prices have gone up by 30 percent or more this decade. I'm happy for you if your family isn't significantly impacted by this problem. But it is real. And it is a problem. And conservatives better come up with an answer that isn't just "learn how to make cheap burritos" or we will get absolutely crushed. That's another reality.
As Justice Thomas has repeatedly observed, a “demonstrably erroneous” precedent does not merit perpetuation simply because it is old, and stare decisis is not a sacrament. Kennedy took an illegitimate test and applied it dishonestly.
Hopefully, the Court will take the issue up once more and listen to Thomas on this issue.
We actually did have this until Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s horrendous decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008).
Patrick Kennedy (not related to the Supreme Court Justice) was sentenced to death by a Louisiana Jury for raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter so brutally that she required emergency surgery.
A logical and just result. However, five justices in the Supreme Court, lead by Justice Kennedy, decided to turn American historical jurisprudence for the death penalty for child rapists on its head. They decided that the death penalty would be too much for the “modern times,” despite its historical use for the crime.
But the deepest flaw of Kennedy’s opinion was the interpretive method. The Eighth Amendment’s original public meaning prohibited cruel methods of punishment, and had nothing to say about proportionality between crime and penalty.
No one disputes that capital punishment for rape was lawful at the Founding and for nearly two centuries thereafter. The Constitution’s text has not changed.
What changed is that in Trop v. Dulles (1958) the Court awarded itself a license to update the Eighth Amendment according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”—a test with no anchor in ratified text, administered by unelected judges, and applied with a suspicious tendency to “evolve” in only one direction.
Justice Kennedy rationalized his opinion on a phantom consensus. He claimed that a “national consensus” existed against capital punishment for child rape because six states authorized it.
But the Court’s own math was gamed. It counted states that had abolished the death penalty entirely as evidence of consensus against this particular application of it. A sleight of hand, since a state that rejects capital punishment for serial murder tells us nothing about how it weighs child rape against murder.