Since I needed to research the amendments on the ballot this year like other Floridians, I figured I’d save you some time and share what several Florida newspapers (Orlando Sentinel, St. Petersburg Times, and Florida Today) have to say and what they recommend. There are six amendments this year, I know we have 1-8, but amendments 5, 7 and 9 were removed from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court. According to Florida Today:

Three others [amendments] — a multibillion-dollar “tax swap” and two measures that would have OK’d taxpayer money for private school vouchers — were rightly removed from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court as unconstitutionally misleading or otherwise not allowable. It’s our view the state Constitution should be amended only sparingly, and only when the reform is unquestionably beneficial and can’t be effected otherwise, such as through state law.

I included the actual amendment language that appears on the ballot, provided what the papers have to say, their recommendation, then my own recommendation. The non-partisan, VoteSmartFlorida.org has the full amendment language for reference. Also, I highly recommend reading the St. Petersburg Times for additional background information on each amendment. The Times provides invaluable details into each amendment that every Florida voter should be familiar with.

Amendment 1: Declaration of Rights
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.

Orlando Sentinel recommends: Vote Yes.

What it would do: Don’t confuse this with last January’s tax-cutting measure. This Amendment 1 would strike from the constitution an archaic provision dating back to the early 1900s that allows the Legislature to ban foreigners from owning property. Such laws got their start in California and were aimed at stopping Japanese from buying land. Fortunately, Florida’s Legislature never enacted such laws. Good idea or bad idea? Great idea. This is a no-brainer. The Florida Constitution is no place for bigotry.

Florida Today recommends: Vote Yes.

This amendment would end the Jim Crow-era law that gives the state the power to prohibit “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning property. The measure was spawned from early-1900s racism in California when some feared Chinese immigrants would buy a lot of land. Florida is the last state to keep this ugly piece of the past in its Constitution. Removing it would be symbolic because no ethnic group is barred from citizenship because of their race.

St. Petersburg Times recommends: Vote Yes.

The Constitution is still sullied by one vestige of its Jim Crow past. Amendment 1, proposed by the Legislature, would delete a provision that grants lawmakers the power to bar foreign nationals ineligible for citizenship from owning land in the state. The provision’s original intent when it was approved in 1926 was to keep Asians from buying land. At that time, there was a growing concern that immigrants from Japan and China would work more cheaply than Americans on farms primarily in the West and would use their money to buy up property. The Asian laborers who had come during the westward expansion of the railroad generated resentment when jobs dried up. The result was a series of exclusionary federal and state laws and court rulings. Around the country, state alien land laws over the years have been overturned or repealed. Florida is the only state left with such a provision, and it should be removed.

GrlPatriot recommends: Vote Yes. Like the Orlando Sentinel said, “The Florida Constitution is no place for bigotry.”

Amendment 2: Florida Marriage Protection Amendment
This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Orlando Sentinel recommends: Vote No.

What it would do: Memorialize marriage as a “legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife . . .” But it also declares that “no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Good idea or bad idea? Bad idea. This amendment does more than just target homosexual unions. It puts all manner of domestic partnerships at a possible disadvantage. For example, after a similar measure passed in Michigan in 2004, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that public institutions could no longer offer health and other benefits to domestic partners of the same sex. Many institutions found a way around the ruling, but why put people in Florida at risk? Besides, state law already restricts marriage to a man and a woman, and Florida doesn’t recognize gay unions performed in other states. This measure seems more like a cynical attempt to bring out the conservative base in a presidential election year.

Florida Today recommends: Vote No.

This amendment has gained considerable attention because it would define marriage as between a man and a woman. It states:

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Such a ban isn’t necessary because same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida under the Defense of Marriage Act, making the amendment an attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution. That’s horrible enough. But because of the measure’s broad language it would deny legal status for any sort of civil union or domestic partnership between gays. That would mean benefits and rights same-sex couples already receive through some employers or institutions — such as health care coverage, and pension or hospital visitation rights — could be revoked or denied. It also would erode protections for all nontraditional couples, including elderly Floridians who live together but aren’t married. For instance, seniors who live together outside of marriage to preserve pension benefits, such as from Social Security, could face a devastating choice: Marry, and lose those benefits, or remain unwed and lose eligibility for health care coverage and other protections such as medical decision-making rights.

St. Petersburg Times recommends: Vote No.
The Times recommendation is too lengthy to post here, but you can view their recommendation on their site.

GrlPatriot recommends: Vote No. Let’s repeat together what the Orlando Sentinel said about Amendment 1, which also applies to Amendment 2,  “The Florida Constitution is no place for bigotry.”

Amendment 3: Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Residential Real Property
Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property’s value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect.

Orlando Sentinel recommends: Vote Yes.

What it would do: Ensure that people who take steps to harden their homes against hurricanes or install renewable-energy devices don’t get hammered by higher property assessments, which translate into higher taxes. This would apply, for example, to people who install storm shutters or who put in solar-energy panels to help power their homes.

Good idea or bad idea? Good idea. Florida should encourage homeowners to protect their homes from hurricanes, as it should encourage them to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. It makes no sense for people to take such steps, only to get punished by the tax man. This newspaper often has sided against well-intentioned amendments to the constitution if they can be accomplished through the Legislature. But lawyers say this measure has to go through the constitution.

Florida Today recommends: Vote Yes.

This amendment makes sure residents who hurricane-harden their homes or install renewable-energy devices such as solar water heating systems aren’t socked with higher property tax assessments because of the improvements. Tax savings for homeowners would be small, but they could see their property insurance rates fall. All Florida citizens will be on the hook through state catastrophe fund assessments should a future storm wreak billions in havoc. Incentives that encourage more residents to strengthen homes against potential storm damage lessen everyone’s liability, and this kind of property tax exemption has to go through the Constitution.

St. Petersburg Times recommends: Vote Yes.

One of the keys to lowering property insurance premiums is hardening homes and businesses to better withstand hurricanes. The state has taken a number of steps in recent years to encourage Floridians to install storm shutters, stronger garage doors and other improvements, including requiring discounts on insurance premiums and creating a state program that offered free home inspections and state grants to some homeowners. Amendment 3 would allow the Legislature to exempt hurricane-related improvements such as storm shutters from being considered in determining the assessed value of residential property. Now, installing permanent shutters, particularly large electronic ones on condominiums and more expensive homes, can result in higher assessed property values and higher taxes. Amendment 3, placed on the ballot by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, would enable lawmakers to prevent that from happening and apply to homesteads, second homes and rentals. The amendment also allows state lawmakers to exempt renewable energy devices such as solar panels from being considered when property is assessed for tax purposes. The state estimates the cost in lost property tax revenue would be just $3.4-million in the first year. Florida’s tax system should encourage hurricane protection and renewable energy, not create disincentives through property tax increases.

GrlPatriot recommends: Vote Yes. This will help easy the burden on property owners when making necessary and energy saving improvements.

Amendment 4: Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation
Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010.

Orlando Sentinel recommends: Vote Yes.

What it would do: Provide a tax break for property owners who agree to permanently preserve environmentally sensitive land. It has the enthusiastic backing of a wide range of environmental groups.

Good idea or bad idea? Good idea. It’s gotten more and more expensive for the state and other agencies to outright purchase property for conservation. That’s why so-called conservation easements and other preservation deals have become more popular. This gives landowners a powerful incentive. This amendment should not, however, give legislators an excuse to gut state land-buying programs.

Florida Today recommends: Vote No.

This amendment would grant tax exemptions or reductions for property owners who agree not to develop agricultural or other lands. Environmental groups support the breaks, but the Legislature could craft the plan as an easy giveaway for developers. Or use them as an excuse to decimate state land conservation programs such as Florida Forever.

St. Petersburg Times recommends: Vote Yes.

With public and state money for buying undeveloped land drying up, this amendment proposed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission offers two other ways to protect more property from development. First, it requires the Legislature to exempt from all property taxes private property whose owners have agreed to permanently preserve it. That is typically accomplished through a conservation easement or similar protection. This is a less expensive way to keep large pieces of land undeveloped than buying it outright and having the public manage the property. It provides an incentive for private owners to hold on to their property and preserve it. Second, the amendment requires the Legislature to create a new classification of land for conservation that would qualify for a property tax reduction. This is more troublesome, because it could allow large land owners such as the St. Joe Co. to get property tax breaks on land they are holding for future development. That could pinch small counties and shift the tax burden from developers to homeowners and businesses. Yet the new classification has some merit. It could ease pressure to develop land by assessing it based on its current state rather than its highest and best use. Private dollars, not public money, would be used to manage the property. This is the philosophy behind similar property tax breaks for agricultural land. But there have been abuses, and lawmakers will have to place some restrictions on a conservation classification to ensure this is a long-term public benefit, not a short-term tax dodge for megadevelopers waiting for the economy to improve.

GrlPatriot recommends: Vote Yes. I thought about this one long and hard. I support land conservation and reducing property taxes for land owners who want to conserve their lands; however, the possible huge give-a-away for land developers troubles me. In the end, I decided to support this amendment because Environmental groups (like the ones endorsing the Amendment) will watch the Legistlature like a hawk to make sure measures are in place to prevent loop holes for developers (I hope).

Amendment 6: Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use
Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law.

Orlando Sentinel recommends: Vote No.

What it would do: Another tax break. This one would make sure that marinas, commercial fish houses, boat-building operations and other “working waterfront” businesses get taxed based on their current use, not for the property’s potential use. The goal is to protect these businesses from soaring tax rates based on waterfront real estate’s potential for condominiums and resorts.

Good idea or bad idea? A good idea, but one that has the potential for abuse. The state’s tax exemption for agriculture has long been manipulated by fat cats who put out a few cows or plant some trees to reduce their holding costs. We see this well-intentioned amendment possibly becoming a tax dodge for waterfront developers. The Legislature needs to find another way to help legitimate waterfront businesses.

Florida Today recommends: Vote No.

This amendment would change how tax values of working waterfront properties such as boatyards and marinas are assessed to current use from “highest and best use.” That could help mom-and-pop businesses resist selling and preserve more public access to the waterfronts, a good idea. But the plan could provide a loophole for wealthy developers to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the same way agricultural exemptions get exploited. The protection for small waterfront businesses would be better enacted through statute.

St. Petersburg Times recommends: Vote Yes.

Fast-rising property values along Florida’s waterfronts have made it tough on marinas, boatyards and commercial fishing operations. With those properties appraised for tax purposes for their highest and best development use, it made more economic sense to avoid the high taxes and sell out to developers. Amendment 6, proposed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, would allow those sorts of properties to be assessed based on their current use instead of their highest and best use. That should help keep some marine-related businesses viable and help preserve public access to marinas and boat ramps. This targets property tax relief to some of the property owners who need it most.

GrlPatriot recommends: Vote No. I want to help small waterfront businesses, but agree with the Sentinel and Florida Today on this one.

Amendment 8: Local Option Community Funding
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require that the Legislature authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax to supplement community college funding; requiring voter approval to levy the tax; providing that approved taxes will sunset after 5 years and may be reauthorized by the voters.

Orlando Sentinel recommends: Vote No.

What it would do: Pave the way for counties to let voters decide whether they want to impose a sales tax to support community colleges. The sales tax would expire after five years, though voters could authorize it for another five.

Good idea or bad idea? Bad idea. Community colleges play a vital role in Florida’s communities, and they’re a virtual rainbow of people and interests. But we think it’s the state’s — not local authorities’ — job to support them. Plus, what happens after a college launches a program based on sales-tax funding, only to see that money vanish after five years? Voters may not be in the mood to renew the tax. This measure has no business in the state constitution anyway.

Florida Today recommends: Vote No.

This amendment would allow counties to impose a sales tax to help fund community colleges, with local voter approval. There’s no question community colleges deserve strong support, but we doubt such a referendum would pass. We also fear the Legislature would use the amendment as a reason to shift more costs from the state — whose job it is to fund higher education — to cash-strapped localities. And since the sales tax funding would expire after five years, colleges couldn’t rely on stable revenue to pay for programs.

St. Petersburg Times recommends: Vote Yes.

Community colleges are a critical part of the state’s education system and often do not get the credit they deserve for their role in developing a quality work force. More than half of Florida’s high school graduates begin their postsecondary education at a community college. But the community colleges also are straining to meet the needs of their students because of the state’s declining revenue.

Amendment 8, proposed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, would allow voters in a county to approve a local-option sales tax to raise money for their local community college. Only nine of the 28 community colleges serve just one county (such as St. Petersburg College and Hillsborough Community College), so in most cases voter approval in multiple counties would be required (such as for Pasco-Hernando Community College). There are several interests eyeing local sales taxes, including those supporting regional transit and indigent health care. But this amendment would only give voters the chance to consider a local sales tax for community colleges. Those institutions ought to have the same opportunity to seek additional revenue as the other interests.

GrlPatriot recommends: Vote No. There is no doubt that community colleges are invaluable to local communities; however, it’s the state’s responsibility to provide stable funding for higher education.