There’s an interesting argument circulating in Martin County to explain the passage of the tax abatement referendum.
“I think that no one understood what they were voting on,” said County Commissioner Sarah Heard. “It was extremely confusing, and there’s still a legal challenge to that.”
Voters didn’t understand the referendum?
And this is the reason, according to Heard, why it was approved?
I grant the possibility. But I also find this argument to be highly disingenuous coming from Heard and others who opposed the referendum. After all, these are the same folks championing Amendment 4, the proposed constitutional amendment that would give voters the right to reject or accept comprehensive plan amendments approved by local governments.
If voters didn’t — or couldn’t — understand the tax abatement referendum, what hope is there they will be able to understand equally esoteric ballot measures on comprehensive plan amendments?
Do you see the inconsistency?
The tax abatement referendum, which authorizes county commissioners to grant property tax exemptions to eligible new businesses — and existing businesses that expand — presented a challenge to voters. The title itself — “Economic Development Incentive Ad Valorem Tax Exemption” — was intimidating.
Say what?!
The voter who encountered the tax abatement referendum for the first time on Election Day probably scratched his head and wished he’d brought a pocket dictionary into the voting booth.
This kind of government-speak makes perfect sense to the county’s legal minds, who craft ballot measures to satisfy statutory requirements. Unfortunately, it can leave voters in the dark.
The tax abatement referendum also was confusing because it hinted at some concepts that couldn’t be explained in 75 words or less — the word-limit restriction for Amendment 4.
For example, the referendum used the phrase “eligible businesses.” Who are these eligible businesses?
Or “new improvements.” What type of “new improvement” to an existing business would qualify for a property tax exemption?
And, for that matter, what is an “abatement?”
Yes, some of the language in the tax abatement referendum was arcane. But — and this is important — it was no more arcane than other documents, proposals or agendas produced by county government.
Who do the champions of Amendment 4 think will be writing ballot measures on comprehensive plan amendments if Amendment 4 passes in November? The same people who prefer the words “ad valorem” (tax) to “property” (tax).
These are identical concepts — with one huge difference: Everyone knows the meaning of “property.”
If Martin County voters were confused by the tax abatement referendum, we can expect much more of the same if Amendment 4 becomes the law of the land in the Sunshine State.
We also can expect a corresponding increase in the number of legal challenges to ballot measures voters supposedly “didn’t understand.”
I have the utmost respect for voters. But I think it’s preposterous to expect them to fully grasp the concepts condensed in a ballot measure of 75 words or less, and then cast informed votes on Election Day.
