Taxes and Ron DeSantis: Florida’s property-tax gamble moves closer to the 2026 ballot
Florida’s tax debate is accelerating, with Governor Ron DeSantis pressing lawmakers to give voters a 2026 constitutional amendment aimed at eliminating—or drastically cutting—local property taxes. In the past 24 hours, he’s reiterated support for a phased approach and acknowledged the legal hurdle: any constitutional change would need at least 60% approval statewide. The political stakes are enormous. For homeowners, the promise is relief from rising bills; for counties and cities, the question is how to fund police, fire, parks, and infrastructure if their largest revenue stream is curtailed.
DeSantis’ taxes push: what’s on the table now
The governor’s team has been sketching a framework that would send a single, “bold” property-tax question to voters in 2026 rather than a scattershot list of amendments. Discussions in recent days have centered on two mechanics: phasing and firewalling. Phasing refers to a multi-year glide path that reduces bills over time, giving the state and localities room to rework budgets. Firewalling refers to language that would prevent localities from backfilling lost property-tax revenue by cutting core public-safety spending below current baselines.
The approach leaves lawmakers to solve the hardest part: replacing billions of dollars in stable, locally controlled revenue. Analysts who have briefed legislators recently estimate that eliminating only non-school property taxes on homesteads would still blow a multi-billion-dollar hole—figures of roughly $11 billion statewide have circulated in committee rooms. That number will anchor every negotiation from now through the spring session.
How Florida could replace property taxes
Several options are under active discussion. None are painless:
-
State backfill from general revenue. The Legislature could appropriate recurring state dollars to counties and cities. Pro: maintains services. Con: ties local budgets to Tallahassee’s priorities and the economic cycle.
-
Targeted statewide surcharges. Narrow hikes (for example on tourism-related transactions or luxury purchases) could spread costs. Pro: politically easier than broad tax hikes. Con: volatile and regionally uneven.
-
Expanded sales-tax base. Broadening what’s taxed rather than raising the rate is a perennial idea. Pro: preserves Florida’s “no income tax” brand. Con: regressive effects and business-lobby resistance.
-
User fees and special districts. Localities could rely more on assessments tied to specific services. Pro: aligns payers with benefits. Con: patchwork outcomes and affordability concerns.
What today’s movement means for homeowners and renters
-
Homeowners: If a phased cut advances, expect relief to show up first on homesteads, with secondary homes and commercial property addressed later or differently. The timeline and eligibility rules will matter more than headlines.
-
Renters: Eliminating landlord property taxes doesn’t guarantee lower rent. In tight markets, savings can be absorbed as margin unless leases or local ordinances channel benefits to tenants.
-
New buyers: Lower carrying costs could nudge demand higher, which helps sellers but can push prices up if supply stays tight.
Local budgets and services: the fine print
Recent drafts and talking points emphasize protecting law enforcement from cuts. That carve-out signals two realities: public safety is politically sensitive, and leaders know a property-tax rollback without guardrails could trigger service cuts voters would feel immediately. The flip side is that if police and fire are protected, deeper reductions may fall on libraries, parks, planning, road maintenance, and public health—unless the state reliably replaces the lost revenue.
Politics of the property-tax amendment
-
60% threshold: Florida’s supermajority requirement forces bipartisan and geographically broad support. Messaging will lean on cost-of-living relief and protection for seniors on fixed incomes.
-
Intramural GOP debate: Even within the majority party, there’s friction over whether to prioritize sales-tax relief, property-tax elimination, or a hybrid. Fiscal conservatives warn against shifting local costs to the state ledger.
-
Timing: The governor wants one clean, high-impact question on the 2026 ballot. Legislative leaders must draft language that is simple enough to win voters and specific enough to withstand legal scrutiny.
Key proposals and what they would do (as discussed this week)
| Proposal concept | Who benefits first | How it might be paid for | Risk flags |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase down non-school homestead property taxes | Owner-occupiers | State backfill + base broadening | Budget volatility; pressure on non-protected services |
| Firewalls for public safety funding | All residents (indirectly) | Requires guaranteed state transfers | Deeper cuts elsewhere if backfill lags |
| “Single amendment” strategy in 2026 | Campaign clarity | N/A | Legal challenges over wording; 60% hurdle |
| Targeted credits/rebates during phase-in | Lower-income homeowners | One-time appropriations | Administrative complexity; cliff effects |
What to watch next
-
Bill text: Draft language will reveal scope—homesteads only or wider? Non-school taxes only, or broader?
-
Fiscal note: The official price tag will shape whether lawmakers pair the amendment with a replacement-revenue package this spring.
-
Local coalition response: County and city leaders are mobilizing to model service impacts and propose guardrails.
-
Voter testing: Polling on simple, benefits-forward language versus more detailed versions will influence the final wording.
“taxes” and “Ron DeSantis” now converge on a single bet—that Floridians will trade a familiar local tax for a new state-managed funding formula without sacrificing essential services. Whether that bet becomes law will depend on the next few months of drafting, fiscal math, and a 2026 campaign built to clear 60%.
