TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Gov. Ron DeSantis says he will help persuade Floridians to approve Amendment 3, lending his political backing to a property-tax proposal facing growing opposition from local leaders who warn the savings could come with service cuts and higher fees.
Speaking Monday, DeSantis said he plans to get involved in the campaign, even though the amendment falls short of the broader tax relief he originally sought. He has not settled on how he will participate and said he would not lead a political committee's statewide fundraising effort.
WATCH BELOW: DeSantis says he'll help sell Amendment 3 as local opposition grows
"So I'll be involved somehow," DeSantis said. "I don't know if it's going to be like barnstorming and holding campaign events. I have other ways where I can kind of get this out and do it, and I think we're going to do it because I think it's important."
Under the amendment's ballot language, the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes would increase to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments afterward. School district taxes would not receive that expanded exemption.
The proposal would also lower the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties, including businesses and rental properties, from 10% to 5%, and restrict how counties and municipalities use property-tax revenue.
DeSantis argues homeowners need financial breathing room and local governments can adjust after years of growing property-tax collections. He rejected warnings that the amendment would leave communities unable to provide basic services.
"You vote for it, you'll pay less. End of story," he said.
The governor also said he would support state funding to help rural counties with limited tax bases absorb revenue losses. Any state assistance would depend on lawmakers approving the funding.
Local opponents argue that reducing property-tax collections would not reduce the cost of providing police protection, emergency response, transportation and other services.
Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava launched a South Florida campaign Wednesday to defeat Amendment 3, joined by local leaders, labor organizations and business and civic groups.
"It would leave us paying more while getting less," Levine Cava said.
She warned that communities could face service cuts, higher fees or some combination of both. Renters and businesses could shoulder additional costs without receiving the expanded homestead exemption.
"It's being presented as a simple tax cut, but it doesn't eliminate the cost of providing the services that our communities depend upon," she said. "It just changes who pays for them."
Levine Cava said Miami-Dade could lose about 10% of its general fund revenue in the first year and 20% in the second, forcing difficult decisions about staffing and services.
Supporters, however, have potentially encouraging polling numbers.
A Sachs Media survey conducted Aug. 18 randomly assigned 800 Florida voters to groups reviewing either the original ballot language or a court-ordered revision. Support was 65% among those who read the revised wording, compared with 60% among those who saw the original.
The difference was not statistically significant, meaning the survey does not establish that the rewrite increased support.
The revision followed a legal challenge arguing the original wording promoted the amendment rather than neutrally explaining it.
Former Republican state Sen. Jeff Brandes sees another possible consequence if the amendment passes: a warmer reception for data centers in rural communities seeking replacement revenue.
In a new Florida Politics op-ed, Brandes argues that losses in property-tax revenue could push rural counties to reconsider their resistance to those projects. An unwanted neighbor could become a wanted taxpayer.
Separately, the Florida Policy Institute estimates that public hospital districts and health systems would lose approximately $323 million over three years under Amendment 3.
The institute warns that reduced funding could affect staffing, access to care and programs serving uninsured and underinsured patients. Its analysis notes that the amendment does not provide a plan to replace lost hospital revenue.
Amendment 3 requires approval from at least 60% of voters casting ballots on the measure in November. If approved, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
