By: Eleanor Warmack, CPRP, CAE
Chief Executive Officer, Florida Recreation and Park Association
In the midst of an overwhelming volume of information surrounding Florida’s Amendment 3, one phrase has appeared repeatedly: “public safety.”
It appears in polling questions, social media posts, paid advertising and political messaging. I have spent considerable time reading the reactions to those messages, and I have come to believe that we need to pause and ask a more fundamental question: What do we really mean when we talk about public safety?
First, let me be clear about where I come from. I was raised in a family of law enforcement officers and first responders, and I have tremendous respect for the men and women who serve our communities in those roles. I am also not naïve enough to believe that every interaction between citizens and law enforcement is perfect. People's experiences are different, and those experiences understandably shape their opinions.
I am not asking anyone to change their personal views, nor am I asking anyone to tell me whom they trust or which messages they believe. We are all entitled to our opinions, and our opinions are often shaped by our own lived experiences.
What I am asking is that we widen the lens through which we view public safety.
For many people, the words “public safety” immediately bring to mind law enforcement, fire rescue and emergency services. Those are unquestionably important components of public safety.
But public safety is also about what happens before and after the emergency.
It is about clean water and clean air.
It is about safe places for children to play, participate in athletics and spend time after school.
It is about senior programs, community centers, parks, recreation programs and the social connections that help create healthy communities.
It is about streets and drainage systems that allow people to get home safely during a tropical storm.
It is about an electrical grid that is resilient enough to restore power following a hurricane.
It is about communities prepared to shelter and feed people following a disaster.
It is about adequately supported public hospitals and access to health care.
It is about infrastructure that is maintained rather than allowed to deteriorate.
It is about the capacity of a community to respond when something goes wrong—and the resources to maintain the systems that help prevent problems in the first place.
All of these things contribute to the safety, health and quality of life of a community.
And that is why the conversation surrounding Amendment 3 deserves more than a series of sound bites.
If government revenue is reduced, the basic financial equation does not change: there are only two fundamental choices—increase revenue or reduce expenditures.
As a CEO, I make those decisions every year. Businesses do it. Families do it. And elected officials responsible for cities and counties have to do it as well.
That does not mean every dollar currently being spent by government is being spent perfectly. Reasonable people can—and should—debate priorities, efficiency and accountability. But we should also recognize something important: local governments are not simply funding “government.” They are funding the services and infrastructure their communities have asked them to provide, along with the basic cost of operating those systems.
And those decisions are made through public processes.
Cities and counties develop budgets, hold public meetings and invite residents to participate in decisions about how public resources will be spent. If we are not participating in that process, we should also recognize that we have surrendered some of our opportunity to influence those decisions.
Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of the current Amendment 3 debate is that it has reminded us of something we have all too often forgotten: Local government works best when citizens are engaged in local government.
We should know what our cities and counties are spending. We should ask questions. We should challenge spending we believe is unnecessary. We should tell our elected officials what matters to us. And we should recognize that we cannot simultaneously demand more services and lower taxes without having an honest conversation about what we are willing to give up.
There is another part of this conversation that deserves attention.
Amid the finger-pointing, partisan arguments, competing statistics and conflicting claims about whom we should trust, perhaps the people we should trust most are ourselves—to learn, to ask questions and to make informed decisions based on what we believe is best for our families and our communities.
And immediately after ourselves, we should be paying close attention to the people we can actually talk to: our local elected officials. They are the people who will ultimately have to make decisions about local priorities, services and budgets. That matters because there is no magic source of replacement revenue.
Having spent nearly four decades around government and politics, I have seen state trust funds and grant programs reduced, redirected or left without sufficient funding when the state budget faced competing demands. State government has its own financial obligations and priorities. Local governments have theirs. That is why I am uncomfortable with the idea that we can simply reduce one source of local revenue and assume another level of government will automatically fill the gap.
Maybe it can. Maybe it cannot.
But before making that assumption, we should understand where that replacement money would come from, how sustainable it would be and what other priorities might compete for it.
There is also an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in this debate: local elected officials generally do not determine the market value assigned to our homes. Property appraisers determine property values under Florida's property-tax system and in compliance with Florida Statutes. The relationship between property values, assessments, exemptions, millage rates and local government revenue is complicated—and deserves to be examined as part of any serious discussion about property-tax reform.
The desire for meaningful relief is real. All of us are feeling the pressure of rising costs—not just housing, but groceries, gasoline, insurance and virtually every other part of daily life.
But meaningful affordability cannot come from looking at one piece of the equation in isolation.
If we reduce revenue in one place, we need to understand what pressure that places somewhere else.
If we reduce the funding available for one service, we need to understand what happens to the other services competing for the same dollars.
And if we make a permanent change to Florida's Constitution, we need to understand the long-term consequences—not simply the immediate benefit.
Florida already has a constitutional mechanism specifically designed to take a comprehensive look at taxation, budgeting and government revenue needs: the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. The Florida Constitution provides for the commission to convene every 20 years and directs it to examine state and local revenue needs, expenditure processes, the tax structure, governmental productivity and efficiency, and the ability of state and local governments to adequately fund governmental operations and capital facilities. It also requires public hearings and a report of its findings.
That is a very different approach from trying to solve a complicated, long-term affordability problem with a single constitutional change.
Perhaps we should give the comprehensive process the Constitution already provides us an opportunity to work.
Perhaps we should take the time to study the entire system—property values, assessments, exemptions, millage rates, state and local responsibilities, unfunded mandates, service demands, alternative revenue sources and the long-term needs of Florida's communities.
Perhaps we should develop a plan that provides meaningful tax relief without simply transferring the financial burden from one level of government to another or forcing communities to choose among the services that make them safe and livable.
There is no easy answer to this. And that may be the most important thing to acknowledge.
We all want relief. We all want government to be efficient. We all want to know that our tax dollars are being used wisely. But responsible reform requires more than identifying a problem. It requires understanding the consequences of the solution.
So, amidst all the political noise, the finger-pointing and the competing claims about whom we should trust, I would encourage all of us to step back.
Don't rely solely on a sound bite.
Don't assume that one political party, one organization, one advertisement or one elected official has the entire answer.
Do your own homework. Ask questions. Talk to your local officials. Understand your local budget. Understand what services your community provides and what those services cost.
And most importantly, broaden the definition of public safety.
Because a safe community is not simply one where someone responds when an emergency happens. It is a community that has the resources to prepare for emergencies, maintain its infrastructure, protect its residents, provide places for people to gather and thrive, and sustain the quality of life that makes people want to call that community home.
Let's have the larger conversation.
Not simply about taxes.
Not simply about politics.
But about what kind of communities we want to build—and how we responsibly pay for them.
