According to a state-wide auction data tracker, there were more than 19,000 properties on the tax-deed auction list in 2025.
Therefore, yes, if the reason a Florida homeowner loses a property is that they cannot afford the property taxes, then reducing or eliminating those taxes would directly reduce that particular type of foreclosure risk.
Florida’s process makes the connection fairly direct:
- Property taxes become delinquent after April 1 if unpaid.
- The unpaid taxes become a first lien on the property.
- Florida then sells a tax certificate to recover the delinquent taxes.
Generally, after two years have elapsed from April 1 of the year the certificate was issued, the certificate holder can apply for a tax deed, which can ultimately result in the property being sold.
So consider a simple example:
A homeowner owns a $300,000 house outright.
They have no mortgage.
Their annual property tax is $5,000.
They cannot afford the $5,000 tax bill.
If the tax remains unpaid, the homeowner can ultimately lose the house even though they own it free and clear. If the property-tax obligation were eliminated, that particular path to losing the home would disappear.
So, yes. By definition, eliminating that tax obligation would eliminate that particular cause of the foreclosure.
Most consider taxation of property you already own to be unconstitutional.
Florida specifically authorizes property taxes
Article VII, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides that counties, school districts, and municipalities may levy ad valorem taxes on real estate and tangible personal property.
Florida law also expressly defines an ad valorem tax as a tax based on the assessed value of property, and says that “property tax” and “ad valorem tax” can be used interchangeably.
So a Florida county taxing your house based on its taxable value isn’t inherently unconstitutional.
But there are constitutional limits and this is where it gets more interesting.
The Florida Constitution requires, among other things:
- Taxes must be imposed pursuant to law.
- Ad valorem taxation generally must use a uniform rate within the taxing unit.
- Property must generally receive a just valuation.
- Certain types of property must receive exemptions or can receive exemptions authorized by the Constitution.
- Local governments are subject to constitutional limitations on their taxing authority and millage rates.
And the U.S. Constitution imposes additional limits. For example, taxation cannot cross constitutional protections such as due process or become an unconstitutional confiscation. Courts have recognized that states have broad taxing authority, but that authority isn’t unlimited.
Florida’s Constitution actually says:
“No state ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon real estate…”
But that does not mean Florida has no property taxes.
It means the state government itself doesn’t impose a statewide ad valorem tax on real estate. Instead, Florida’s Constitution authorizes local governments—counties, municipalities, school districts, and certain special districts—to levy property taxes.
So, for example, your property-tax bill can contain taxes for your county, municipality, school district, and other taxing authorities even though Florida itself doesn’t impose a statewide real-estate property tax.
Could Florida constitutionally eliminate property taxes?
Yes. The fact that the Constitution authorizes property taxation doesn’t mean Florida is required to collect it at its current level.
Florida could potentially reduce or eliminate particular property taxes through legislation and/or constitutional amendments, depending on exactly what was being changed. The bigger question would be how local governments and schools would replace the revenue.
And this connects directly to your foreclosure question:
If Florida eliminated the property-tax liability on a person’s homestead, and that person was otherwise able to keep the property, the government could no longer take the property through the property-tax collection process for failure to pay that eliminated tax.
Could local police and sheriff’s departments continue operating if Florida eliminated property taxes?
The factual answer is yes, they could.
That means the statement “eliminating property taxes could eliminate local law enforcement” would be too strong.
Why?
Florida’s property taxes are collected by local taxing authorities—including counties and municipalities—and those governments use their overall revenues to fund local services. Property taxes are not a special “police tax” that goes directly into a police department’s account.
Local governments also have other revenue sources. Florida law permits various local option taxes, including sales surtaxes, fuel taxes, and other revenues.
Municipal budgets likewise combine taxation and other sources to pay for government operations.
So, conceptually, a county could replace some lost property-tax revenue with things such as:
- Sales-tax revenue
- User fees
- Franchise fees
- Utility taxes
- State revenue sharing
- Other taxes authorized by Florida law
- Reduced government expenditures
- A combination of the above
- Tourist tax of some sort
The 2026 Legislature considered HJR 213, which would have proposed eliminating certain property taxes while simultaneously placing constitutional protections around funding for law enforcement, firefighters and first responders. The legislative analysis estimated that the proposed property-tax changes could reduce local non-school property-tax revenue by approximately $5.2 billion annually if approved.
That tells you something important:
The debate isn’t really “property taxes or no police.”
It’s more accurately:
“If property-tax revenue is eliminated or substantially reduced, where does the replacement money come from, and how much of government overspending needs to change?”
And Florida law already recognizes the importance of maintaining law-enforcement funding. For example, current law provides a mechanism for challenging certain municipal law-enforcement budget reductions greater than 5% and requires consideration of whether a reduction would impair public safety.
So is “we’ll lose our police” a scare tactic?
It can be used rhetorically as a scare tactic.
If someone says:
“If you eliminate property taxes, we’ll have no money for police.”
That’s not true because governments have other revenue sources.
If they say:
“Eliminating property taxes would remove billions of dollars of revenue that currently helps pay for local government, including law enforcement.”
That’s a factual fiscal concern.
The really useful question is therefore how much property-tax revenue your particular Florida county spends on law enforcement and what replacement revenue would be available.
Majority of Florida sheriff’s are being paid a salary in excess of $150,000 per year. Then add in the salary for police chiefs, fire chiefs, and those who have been allowed to “double dip.”
In a Florida Sheriff’s Office and broader public sector, “double dipping” refers to the practice where a retired employee officially collects a government-funded pension while simultaneously returning to work—often in the same job or department—to collect a brand-new active salary.
The sheriff’s who are being the loudest and trying to convince the public they would not benefit from a tax cut, make the most.
-
-
-
- Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods — $215,000
- Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd — $252,972
- Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood — $205,000S
- Seminole County Sheriff Dennis Lemma — $185,000
-
-
Can public safety survive if Amendment 3 is passed?
The practical answer is:
Yes, sheriff’s offices would need to re-budget and identify savings—but whether sheriff salaries themselves should be cut is a separate question.
A few important facts:
Amendment 3 would increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, while also reducing the assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%.
The Florida Legislature’s fiscal estimate projected a $4.95 billion reduction in local non-school property-tax revenue in FY 2027-28, rising to $8.78 billion in FY 2028-29, with a recurring impact estimated at $11.86 billion in later years.
Sheriff’s offices are heavily personnel-driven. For example, Seminole County’s sheriff says about 85% of his budget is personnel, while Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods has said approximately 80% of his budget goes toward personnel.
Florida law requires sheriff budgets to separately account for personnel, operating expenses and capital expenditures, and allows the county commission to modify the sheriff’s proposed budget during the budget process.
So what could a sheriff actually do?
A rational budget exercise would generally look at things in roughly this order:
- Freeze unnecessary hiring and vacancies
- Eliminate genuinely nonessential positions
- Reduce overtime and administrative costs where operationally feasible
- Renegotiate contracts and recurring expenses
- Delay noncritical vehicle/equipment purchases
- Consolidate duplicative functions
- Review specialized programs and services
- Use attrition rather than layoffs where possible
- Only then consider reductions that affect core staffing and services
That’s actually similar to the approach Seminole County’s sheriff has publicly described:
Hiring freezes, eliminating unnecessary vacancies, attrition, consolidation, reducing operating expenses, and delaying vehicle/equipment/technology replacement before cutting additional positions.
If the argument is “every government department should tighten its belt when taxpayers are receiving a tax reduction,” then sheriff’s offices can certainly be subjected to the same budgeting scrutiny as other departments.
But the more consequential question is whether a sheriff’s office can find savings in its overall personnel structure, overtime, contracts, administrative functions and discretionary programs before reducing deputies providing patrol, investigations, corrections and other mandatory services.
The bottom line:
Amendment 3 doesn’t inherently mean “fire deputies.” It creates a revenue-reduction problem that counties and sheriff’s offices would have to solve through budgeting. Whether that means cutting the sheriff’s salary, administrative positions, overtime, programs, vacant positions, or eventually sworn personnel depends heavily on each county’s actual numbers.
COMMENTS OPEN BELOW
10
0
2