You have a point. The article clearly states who'd get the tax cut, the Florida residents with homesteaded homes and the loss of revenue would fall on local governments. I don't see any where mention where the replacement for the $11 or so billion a year in revenues the local government could lose will come from, whether federal or state. Leaves one to wonder the worse.
This article seems to focus on Canadians as a politically convenient example of those residents who might pay more but the design of the mechanism as described applies to non-homestead properties in general, no just Canadian-owned ones.
Election cycles are the worse. I see the same back and forth fights dealing with budget cuts and cutting services. Sigh! Mainstream Press, no matter the country behave the same during election cycles :(
This article seems to focus on Canadians as a politically convenient example of those residents who might pay more but the design of the mechanism as described applies to non-homestead properties in general, no just Canadian-owned ones.
Election cycles are the worse. I see the same back and forth fights dealing with budget cuts and cutting services. Sigh! Mainstream Press, no matter the country behave the same during election cycles :(