Since then, Florida has made some progress but is still on a long path to achieve this goal. A new proposal, House Bill 945, aims to reinstate the costly COLA feature, which could once again expose the state and taxpayers to unpredictable expenses.

COLA Could Cost Florida Taxpayers Over $47 Billion Over 30 Years

• The cost of the proposed cost-of-living on the state budget can be estimated, but Florida’s actual costs would depend on the pension system’s market returns and demographic outcomes (retirements, life expectancy, etc).
• Policymakers should look beyond best-case scenarios when evaluating a COLA. Any economic recessions or market downturns in the coming decades could lock Florida’s taxpayers into paying for this proposal for longer than planned and at much higher costs.
• Pension Integrity Project modeling of the Florida Retirement System shows the additional cost of bringing back cost-of-living adjustments, as proposed in House Bill 945, could rise above $47 billion over 30 years.
• It is crucial for policymakers to examine this proposal’s potential costs and risks before hindering the state’s pension funding progress.

Florida Needs to Let Previous Pension Reforms Work

• Florida lawmakers, public employees, and taxpayers have all made sacrifices to try to ensure the long-term viability of FRS. Some of these public pension reforms, which have passed recently, take time, however, and must be maintained to reach the eventual full-funding goal.
• The Florida Retirement System is still nearly $46 billion in debt. It is decades away from being able to fulfill the pension promises made to teachers, police, firefighters, and other public workers. Now is not the time to add more promises with unpredictable and potentially costly price tags.

Major Costs, Risks Associated with Restoring FRS COLA

The post The Florida Retirement System’s proposed cost-of-living adjustment comes with major costs and risks appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida law defines price gouging as an “unconscionable” price hike during a declared state of emergency and for what it deems essential goods, including food, water, gasoline and transportation. 

Florida Attorney General Ashely Moody’s office says it investigates every price gouging claim, most of which come through a dedicated hotline “activated” in the run-up to each storm where consumers provide tips. Businesses can be slapped with a misdemeanor and fines of up to $1,000 per act and $25,000 daily.

The idea of charging high prices to desperate consumers evokes anger in many, but most economists warn against price controls even in the face of potentially large hikes after a disaster. While not unanimous, economists’ prevailing view is that government price controls create new problems while trying to solve what is really no problem at all. Shortages of essential items, such as gasoline, are made worse, not to mention longer, by reducing sellers’ incentives to rush the product to affected areas.

In an October National Public Radio report, NPR chief economics correspondent Scott Horsley noted, “Both Florida and North Carolina have laws on the books that prohibit price gouging during times of emergency. But, you know, it can be tricky to draw the line between illegal price gouging and just the normal forces of supply and demand.” 

Most economists would respond that they are one and the same. The supply and demand curves indelibly associated with economics explain this intuition quite elegantly, making the example of price gouging after a hurricane a mainstay of economics textbooks. Higher prices increase incentives to supply goods and end the shortage faster.

However, economists remain frustrated that their broad agreement often fails to impact politics or popular opinion. Florida and more than 30 other states have laws against price gouging. And, the recent hurricanes made the term a useful attack for any price increases politicians want to position themselves against.

We often spend so much time debating the idea of price gouging that we forget to ask what the fuss is about. States no doubt receive tips revealing some amount of consumer exploitation and other unsavory business practices. Considering how much we hear from politicians and media about the practice during emergencies and their recoveries, we hear little about the hundreds of misdemeanor investigations after storms have passed. The few specifics on consumer complaints we hear don’t look like the textbook case we debate.  

In the wake of Helene, media outlets reviewed limited samples of the complaints from Floridians, most from the areas hardest hit by storm-surge flooding. It turns out most of the gouging complaints related to fuel and occurred before the disaster rather than after. Maybe there were complaints of gas stations selling at high prices, but the state has reported none. Instead, complaints focused on gas stations being out of fuel — up to 75% of gas stations in these areas were sold out of gasoline before Milton hit.

Examples of actual allegations included a seller only leaving his premium pump on before storms and another of a 10-cent price increase. As a whole, consumer complaints appear more the product of chaos, frustration and, most importantly, many gas stations in storm areas being sold out of fuel.

In early October, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody reported a “rapid response team” investigating 160 consumer complaints. In late October, the office’s website remained emblazoned with a red banner reading, “STATE OF EMERGENCY IN EFFECT. REPORT POSSIBLE PRICE GOUGING.” 

There is no evidence that the resources put into hotlines and investigations during the most serious of emergencies ensnare anything more than angry consumers looking for sellers with any stock. In effect, the current system is taking in mostly reports of too little price gouging, leading to shortages, than too much of it. 

So, while politicians love to talk about price gouging to rile up voters, there is scant evidence of anything like price gouging, even in Florida after severe hurricanes. One of us was here in Sarasota through both Helene and Milton and did not witness any gouging — places that ran out of things charged normal prices once they got resupplied. 

The government waste and media overhype might be cause for amusement were they not occupying significant resources and far more than their share of public attention when everything and everyone is stretched to the limit. One struggles to find benefits from state anti-price gouging laws like Florida’s other than false badges of honor sought by those enforcing the law.

A version of this column first appeared in the Sarasota Observer.

The post Florida attorney general looks for, but doesn’t find, price gouging appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 1: Partisan Elections for Members of District School Boards

Florida Amendment 2: Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment

Florida Amendment 3: Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Florida Amendment 4: Right to Abortion Initiative

Florida Amendment 5: Annual Inflation Adjustment for Homestead Property Tax Exemption Value

Florida Amendment 6: Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns

The post Voters’ guide to Florida’s statewide ballot questions (2024) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 6 would repeal the state constitutional amendment providing public financing to candidates for the governorship and cabinet offices.  

Fiscal Impact 

Since 2010, Florida has collectively spent roughly $33 million on public campaign financing. The legislative analysis of Amendment 6 states:

“The repeal of public campaign financing will eliminate an expenditure that routinely occurs every four years from the General Revenue Fund typically ranging from $4 million to $13 million per election cycle. The first year of the anticipated cost avoidance would occur in the 2028-2029 fiscal year.”

Proponents’ Arguments  

Supporters argue these funds should be used to support more critical government programs like education, beach restoration, and other public projects. Offices like the governor and the cabinet should be able to finance their own campaigns through fundraising rather than using taxpayer money.   

Opponents’ Arguments 

Critics argue that if Florida removes its source of public funding, the wealthy and well-connected will be the only ones able to run for office. They assert that public financing provides a level playing field so that politically popular candidates without their own funds can compete on the same level as better bankrolled opposition.   

Discussion  

The idea of publicly financed campaigns has existed since the country’s founding for the same well-intentioned reasons it does today. However, even then, there was constitutionally principled opposition to using public money to support candidates because it would use taxpayer money to support political speech that citizens might not support. Especially since Florida is a closed primary state, taxpayers could be forced to support a campaign they disagree with financially, a clear violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and association. Using taxpayer dollars, which citizens must pay, forces them to contribute to political speech. Since Florida’s law is limited to the highest offices, there are fewer instances where this may occur, and the financial impact is not as significant, but the same constitutional risks still exist. It is also true that this money could be used for other potentially more productive purposes like paying down debt or supporting education.  

The post Florida Amendment 6 would repeal public financing for statewide campaigns  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Currently, school board elections in Florida are nonpartisan. Florida Amendment 1 would make them partisan beginning in November 2026. It allows for partisan primary elections in advance of the 2026 general election.  

Proponents’ Arguments 

Proponents argue that partisan elections would promote greater transparency, giving voters access to information to help them assess school board candidates. They claim that school board elections are already partisan in nature and that candidates should not be permitted to hide their political affiliations.  State Representative Spencer Roach (R-76) said:

“I simply think as policymakers, we have an obligation to provide voters with as much information as possible about candidates to include party affiliation, and let the voters make their decisions based on that information. So I don’t think you should ever be allowed to use the power of the law to hide your ideology or to hide your affiliations, whether it’s with a political party or otherwise. I think it’s really a legal fiction that these races are nonpartisan, the candidates are nonpartisan actors. And I think there are real differences in the party platform. So I think that every race, including judicial races, should be partisan.” 

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents argue that partisan elections would make school board elections more contentious, increasing political divisions in K-12 public education. They argue that the focus should be on what’s best for students rather than partisan politics. Opponents also say that independent voters could have less say over partisan elections because Florida is a closed primary state. Tina Certain, Alachua County School Board Chair said:

“It’s important to me that the race stays nonpartisan because everyone is impacted by school decisions. It doesn’t matter what your political affiliation is, and I think everyone should get to vote and have a voice on a candidate, not just based on your political registration during the time of the election.” 

Discussion 

Until 1998 Florida had partisan school board elections. But that year, the voters approved Florida Amendment 11, making school board elections nonpartisan. If passed, Florida would return to partisan school board elections and join Alabama, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania as the fifth state doing so. Five additional states—Georgia, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee—allow school districts to hold partisan or non-partisan elections. Amendment 1 would put Florida in the minority of states on the issue, but partisan school board elections are already required or optional across 1,432 school districts in the U.S. 

Research indicates that voter engagement in local school board elections is low, with the National School Boards Association estimating that turnout ranges from just 5% to 10%. In comparison, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that turnout for the 2022 midterms was over 52%. One reason is that school board elections are often held off-cycle, meaning they don’t coincide with federal election dates and often coincide with when many residents are away from the state for the summer. But another reason is that they’re low-information races—voters tend to know little about the candidates on the ballot. Partisan elections could help improve voter engagement by signaling candidates’ priorities on budgeting, student discipline, curricula, school choice, and other matters. 

School boards have indeed become more contentious in recent years, with recall efforts on the rise and conflicts over things like masking policies, gender identity, and school closures. For instance, between 2021 and 2023, school board candidates took a stance on race in education/critical race theory in 87% of school board races, including in at least 37 elections in Florida. Divisions have risen across states with non-partisan elections and don’t appear to be any worse in states with partisan elections.   

The post Florida Amendment 1 would implement partisan elections for district school boards appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida exempts a portion of the value of the primary residence of Florida residents from property taxes. Florida Amendment 5 would create an annual adjustment of that exemption according to the Consumer Price Index if the change is positive that year. The homestead exemption does not apply to property taxes that go to schools. 

Fiscal Impact 

Amendment 5 would reduce future property tax revenues for local governments in Florida by an estimated $22.8 million in 2025, which would grow to about $112 million by 2028.  

Proponents’ Arguments 

Proponents of Amendment 5 argue that Florida voters have long supported exempting some of the property tax for residents and raising it as inflation and home prices increase.  

Florida Rep. James Buchanan (R) sponsored putting the initiative on the ballot, arguing that it would “encourage home ownership, drive down the cost of home ownership, and ensure over time, as the cost of living goes up, that is reflected in their homestead exemption taxes.” He also argues that having the exemption go up as inflation goes up just makes sense to avoid undermining the benefit. 

Florida Rep. Alina Garcia (R), who cosponsored putting Amendment 5 on the ballot, said that it “[W]ill benefit Floridians, especially the ones that have issues with paying for their homes—the seniors and people who have lower incomes. It’ll benefit them because taxes are probably out of control because property value is out of control.” 

Opponents’ Arguments 

Opponents of Amendment 5 argue that Amendment 5 would reduce local government revenue at a time when more money, not less, is needed and that local governments will have to make up for that revenue by raising taxes on others, such as renters and businesses.  

Local governments “[H]ave one pot of money to pay their bills, and [Amendment 5] is diminishing their ability to collect dollars,” says Rep. Robin Bartleman (D), who is concerned about the effect on first responders.  

The Florida League of Cities argues that Amendment 5 will lead to higher taxes on non-homeowners:

“What this does today is it shifts the burden. It shifts the burden from homesteaders to other participants in the property tax system—to businesses, to renters, to second-home owners.” And also that “[a]nother way to put it is that one person’s tax cut is another person’s tax increase, and we think that homeowners already have a really good deal in the state of Florida.” 

Discussion 

Florida voters have regularly approved homestead tax exemptions to reduce the property tax burden on homeowning residents, even when it is clear that means other property owners will likely have to pay more property taxes as a result.  

Tax cuts are almost always a good thing. But, since Amendment 5 would only apply to homeowners and not to other property owners, including commercial properties and rental properties (and therefore renters), it’s not the most effective or fair way to cut taxes.

In Florida, in particular, reducing property taxes only on homeowners doubles down on state policies that tax visitors rather than state residents—even for services for which residents are the primary customers. A cut in all property taxes would be fairer. Additionally, a cut in all property taxes would not suffer the same economic distortions that arise from only cutting taxes for one narrow class of citizens. 

Arguments that Amendment 5 would reduce local government revenues are not true. Amendment 5 only adjusts the homestead exemption for inflation, so it reduces the future rate of increase in revenue for local governments but does not reduce their revenues. It’s the time-honored tradition of governments arguing that reducing the rate of growth in their revenue is a cut.  

The post Florida Amendment 5 would create an annual inflation adjustment for homestead property tax exemptions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 2 would guarantee that hunting, fishing, and wildlife taking, including traditional methods, remain preserved in the state constitution as public rights and preferred means of wildlife management. It would not prevent regulations on game seasons, bag limits, wildlife-taking methods, or the protection of certain species.  

Fiscal Impact 

There is no direct fiscal impact, but state economists estimate that Florida’s hunting and fishing economy generates roughly $316 million annually in state and local tax revenues.  

Proponents’ Arguments 

Supporters claim that hunting and fishing are integral to Florida’s cultural and historical heritage. Protecting these rights ensures that future generations can continue these traditions. Hunting and fishing are also effective tools for wildlife management, helping control populations and prevent overpopulation-related problems. These activities contribute significantly to the state’s economy through licensing fees, equipment sales, and tourism. These revenues can be used to maintain and preserve other critical natural resources in Florida.  

Opponents’ Arguments 

Critics argue that embedding these rights in the constitution may limit the state’s ability to regulate hunting and fishing effectively, potentially leading to environmental and conservation problems. Specifically, the inclusion of “traditional methods” and being the “preferred” means of managing populations may open the door to inhumane hunting methods and overhunting of endangered species in Florida, like bears. They argue that the existing legal framework already adequately protects these rights and that constitutional amendments should be reserved for fundamental issues. 

Discussion  

This amendment will make little change to Florida’s current policy and economic landscape in hunting and fishing. The law already allows hunting and fishing, including traditional methods. If Amendment 2 passes, the state will still be able to regulate hunting and fishing the same way it always has, with seasons, bag limits, and bans on certain species like bears. The inclusion of “traditional methods” includes only killing and taking methods currently legal and has no retroactive power to re-legalize things like gill nets. However, it may prevent any further regulation of killing or capturing methods in the future. Using hunting as the “preferred” method of population management may interfere with more effective methods of control like habitat modification or relocation, but ultimately won’t prevent them if they become necessary.  

While some states like Oregon previously considered ballot measures that proposed a complete ban on animal killing, no state has yet to enact such a policy, contrary to the claims of the supporters of Amendment 2. An outright ban would certainly harm Florida’s economy, but so far that has not been proposed. Ultimately, this amendment may not be necessary as it does little to change hunting regulations, and critics may be right that such a policy does not belong in the state constitution. Yet, it would provide an effective bulwark against future bans on hunting and fishing.  

The post Florida Amendment 2 would guarantee a right to hunt and fish appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 3 proposes a constitutional amendment that would protect the right of adults aged 21 and older to possess up to three ounces of marijuana, including up to five grams of marijuana concentrates, without civil or criminal penalty. It would also allow existing licensees under Florida’s medical marijuana program to sell marijuana for recreational use. It would not allow any new businesses to begin producing or selling marijuana within the adult-use market unless the Florida Legislature passes a law to make additional marijuana business licenses available. 

Fiscal Impact 

The Florida Financial Impact Estimating Conference has evaluated the potential fiscal impact on state and local governments of Amendment 3 and concludes:

“The amendment’s financial impact primarily comes from expected sales tax collections…Based on other states’ experiences, expected retail sales of non-medical marijuana would generate at least $195.6 million annually in state and local sales tax revenues once the retail market is fully operational, although the timing of this occurring is unclear…Other potential costs and savings cannot be predicted.” 

Proponents’ Arguments 

Smart & Safe Florida is the advocacy organization supporting the initiative. It argues that legal cannabis can be a key contributor to Florida’s economic development, providing thousands of jobs and contributing to the tax base. The organization argues there is no evidence that marijuana legalization has resulted in greater underage consumption in the states that have authorized a legal marketplace, whereas the illegality of cannabis “perpetuates a culture of criminality.” Finally, in a fully legal marketplace, “Florida users will have accountability, transparency, and regulations in place to ensure products are not laced with or contain potentially deadly chemicals.” 

Country music stars the Bellamy Brothers have also argued in favor of the initiative, claiming that it increases personal freedom. “As we travel the country,” they say, “we see the benefits of adult use, and as Florida residents, we love the ‘freedom state’ moniker and believe that Florida needs to join the millions of Americans whose adults are free to use cannabis without fear of being incarcerated.” 

Opponents’ Arguments 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has opposed Amendment 3, calling it “very, very extreme.” He warns, “This state will start to smell like marijuana in our cities and towns” because there would be “no time, place and manner restrictions.” The Florida Freedom Fund, which DeSantis established, has registered to oppose the initiative. 

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody also tried to get the state supreme court to disqualify the initiative from the ballot, acting at the direction of DeSantis. Moody raised three main arguments in opposition to the measure. First, she argued that the ballot summary is misleading because it gives voters the impression that possession of marijuana would become legal even though it would remain illegal under federal law. Second, she argued the initiative would permit unregulated sales of marijuana. Third, she argued the initiative could mislead voters into thinking Florida’s marijuana marketplace could become more competitive. The Florida Supreme Court rejected all three of her arguments.  

Another political action committee called Vote No on 3 argues that Amendment 3 will encourage crime and result in the unregulated sale of drugs in Florida communities. In a press release, the organization said,

“Amendment 3 will have disastrous downstream consequences that will turn our state into an East Coast version of California. It will threaten the health and safety of every community in Florida by allowing drug dealers to run rampant with zero consequences, creating a dangerous explosion in the black market, and forcing families to completely alter their lives to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.” 

Discussion 

Twenty-four states now allow a legal recreational marijuana marketplace for adults aged 21 and over, and 38 states allow a legal medical marijuana market. Although California voters were the first to approve a medical marijuana law in 1996, regulated marijuana marketplaces now exist in states that lean both Democrat and Republican. Each market operates somewhat differently, but some conclusions can be drawn from the group of states that offer an adult recreational marijuana market: 

• Teen Use: A study published by the American Medical Association in April 2024 surveys data from 47 states, including responses from nearly 900,000 research subjects, and concludes that recreational marijuana laws are not associated with any increase in adolescent use. In fact, the data indicates that recreational marijuana laws are associated with “significantly lowered use” among teens. Similarly, the state-administered Healthy Youth Survey of teenage students in Washington state found overall declines in both recent and lifetime use of marijuana by teens since that state’s adult-use marijuana market was approved by voters in 2012. Students also indicated that marijuana has become harder to procure since legalization took effect. These results are consistent with the regulatory goal of age-gating marijuana products, which is not a common practice among illicit sellers. 

• Crime: There has not been a significant difference in the rates of violent crime between states where marijuana is legal for adults and states where it is not. According to FBI crime reports, crime rates in most states with legal marijuana markets have closely tracked the national average, while crime rates in Maine and Nevada declined faster than the national trend, and crime rates in Alaska and Massachusetts increased relative to the national trend. 

• Economic Growth: States with recreational marijuana markets have not experienced a significant difference in economic growth compared to states without recreational marijuana. Economic growth improved slightly in some early legalization states, including Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Alaska, but this effect seems to have dissipated as more states launched recreational markets. 

• Tax Revenues: States with recreational marijuana markets collected nearly $3 billion in marijuana-related tax revenues in 2022, according to the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation also estimates that nationwide legalization could generate $8.5 billion annually for all states. However, there is a clear tradeoff between generating tax revenue and the other policy goals of legalization, such as displacing illicit sellers and their often violent supply chains. High tax rates create a price difference that places legal marijuana at a disadvantage relative to illicit marijuana. Surveys show that marijuana users strongly prefer legal marijuana products when the prices are competitive but will revert to illicit sellers if the price difference becomes substantial. 

• Mental Illness: A 2020 study published by Yale University and other research institutions finds that recreational marijuana laws are not correlated with any increase in mental health disorders. However, the same study finds that suicide rates among men fell 3.3% following a state’s legalization of marijuana for recreational use, even during a time when suicide rates were rising nationally. This is the only statistically significant mental health outcome associated with recreational marijuana laws in the states. 

The Florida Supreme Court rejected Attorney General Ashley Moody’s legal arguments against Amendment 3, allowing it to proceed to the ballot. Moody first argued that the initiative would mislead voters into believing marijuana would be legal under federal law. In fact, the initiative expressly informs voters that it “does not change, or immunize violations of federal law” and only changes state law.  

Second, Moody argued Amendment 3 would authorize unregulated sales. In reality, Amendment 3 only authorizes existing medical marijuana licensees to produce or sell marijuana. Any unlicensed manufacture or sale of marijuana would remain criminal. One potential wrinkle is that the existing statutory framework for medical marijuana would expire six months after any new constitutional amendment related to marijuana is adopted. This is not a defect of Amendment 3, per se, but it does require the Florida Legislature to re-authorize or replace the existing regulatory framework. In fact, this parameter was adopted by lawmakers as part of a 2017 law with the idea that the legislature would create a single, unified framework to govern both medical and recreational marijuana sales. 

Third, Moody argued Amendment 3 might mislead voters into thinking there would be additional competition in the marijuana marketplace. However, Amendment 3 is clear that only existing medical licensees would be permitted to manufacture or sell marijuana for recreational purposes unless the legislature passes a law allowing for new entrants. 

Despite claims by Gov. DeSantis that the “time, place and manner” of operations for marijuana licensees would not be regulated under Amendment 3, the Florida Legislature can implement these regulations at any time. The language of the amendment expressly says, “Nothing in this amendment prohibits the Legislature from enacting laws that are consistent with this amendment.” There is also no limitation within the amendment that constrains a city or county from implementing these types of regulations. Indeed, it’s generally inadvisable to include such specificity within a constitutional provision, and these details are usually left to elected officials or regulators so they can respond to regulatory needs as they emerge. 

The post Florida Amendment 3 would legalize recreational marijuana appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative, would add to the state’s constitution that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” 

Abortion in Florida is currently banned after six weeks of pregnancy, a law which took effect on May 1, 2024. 

A 60% supermajority is required to vote yes for the amendment to pass. 

Fiscal Impact 

The financial impact statement for Amendment 4 drafted by state officials, and at the time of this writing the subject of ongoing litigation, classifies the impact of the proposed measure as “indeterminate.” Sources of uncertainty include whether the state will pay for abortions with state funds in programs like Medicaid, which itself will likely be the source of more litigation “that will negatively impact the state budget.” The document concludes, more generally: 

An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate. 

In court, Floridians Protecting Freedom, one of the groups campaigning for passage of the amendment, alleges the financial impact statement is overly politicized, while Governor Ron DeSantis and his appointees have defended the document. 

Proponents’ Arguments 

Proponents emphasize that the amendment would allow individuals and their doctors to make decisions about their healthcare regarding pregnancy without interference from politicians. They also point out that many women with problem pregnancies are facing limited medical options and suffering due to the current restriction on ending a medically fraught pregnancy. They argue the amendment is needed to expand abortion rights for Floridians relative to the recent status quo and afford the extra layer of protection granted by the state constitution. Democratic elected officials tend to support the amendment, and as is customary in Florida, these include national as well as state figures. 

In late April, President Joe Biden warned: “Next week one of the nation’s most extreme anti-abortion laws is going to take effect here in Florida. It criminalizes reproductive healthcare before a woman even knows that they are pregnant.” The president urged Floridians to vote in favor of the amendment. 

Florida Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D-Broward) emphasized the role the state’s proposed amendment played in a national struggle, saying,

“The fight for freedom has never been more critical. Despite the fact that abortion is no longer a partisan issue for Americans, elected Republicans across the U.S. are working to take away access to women’s healthcare. We must not back down!” 

Opponents’ Arguments 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has criticized the proposed amendment as “radical,” and multiple Florida pro-life groups have extensively expanded upon this theme. Florida Voters Against Extremism, the group leading the “vote no” campaign, said of the one-sentence amendment: 

Amendment 4 pretends to ‘just bring things back to how they were with Roe vs. Wade‘– but it actually goes much further – allowing for abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy with no protections for the unborn baby. Unlike other Amendments, Amendment 4 provides ZERO definitions of key words like ‘government interference’, ‘viability’, ‘health care provider’, ‘patient’s health’ – so voters won’t even know what they’re voting on. This creates huge loopholes that will result in years of litigation and legal uncertainty. … Amendment 4 gives abortion clinics a rubber stamp to approve late-term, third trimester abortions. … Amendment 4 would make abortion the only medical procedure that minors could undergo without parental consent. 

Discussion 

Many ballot initiatives require the informed voter to familiarize themselves with details of fiscal policy and regulation that are not usually at the forefront of political debate, and on which voters may not have strong opinions when walking into the voting booth. Florida’s Right to Abortion Initiative is just the opposite. Most voters nationwide already have pro-choice or pro-life views–often firmly held–and Floridians will vote on the measure according to those views. 

The outcome of the vote will have significant consequences for current Florida law. If 60% or more Floridians vote “yes,” abortion in Florida would be legal until viability, generally taken to be about 24 weeks. Florida’s current law bans abortion except to save the life of the mother after six weeks. (The amendment would not impact previous language in the state constitution that allows the legislature to pass a law requiring parents of most minors to be informed before abortions.) 

Much of the attention of elected and other government officials has been on the court battle over the financial impact statement. Meanwhile, many pro-life groups in the state have adopted messaging claiming that the amendment is more radical than the regime similar to Roe it intends to restore.  

The claims about legal loopholes made by amendment opponents are vague and in part untrue since the language of the initiative does limit abortions to before viability. They are not wrong, however, that approving this amendment will lead to a lot of future litigation since a large and high-publicity state like Florida will be a magnet for litigation for pro-choice and pro-life groups in any event. 

The post Florida Amendment 4 would amend state constitution to protect abortion rights appeared first on Reason Foundation.

In 2023, Florida’s legislature took an important first step, passing a bill incentivizing private developers to create more affordable housing in order to help manage the state’s population growth. Among its funding increases and tax credits, Florida Senate Bill 102, the Live Local Act (LLA), exempts developers building affordable housing from municipal zoning ordinances and density restrictions while granting them tax breaks. The bill also reduces local planning commissioners’ authority to regulate eligible affordable developments.   

Local governments’ responses to the law have been mixed. While some Florida counties have seen these changes as favorable, many have complained that the state legislature is overstepping its authority. Many municipalities have pushed back and countered the Live Local Act with new development restrictions. 

For example, the city of Doral introduced a six-month moratorium to block affordable housing developments. This opposition to SB 102 changes has extended to other suburban areas like Pasco County, which is threatening to sue developers for ignoring local zoning ordinances and construction regulations. 

This year, the state legislature was lobbied by municipal governments hoping to dilute some of the reforms.  On Feb. 7, the Florida legislature unanimously passed Senate Bill 328, hoping it would reduce some local government’s concerns about being preempted by the state on zoning laws.  

Provisions in SB 328 promote investments in affordable housing with fiscal and procedural incentives. The bill features four major incentives for real estate developers: a property tax credit, a sales tax reimbursement on the cost of materials, an exemption from local zoning restrictions, and reductions in construction red tape.

The bill says developers are entitled to tax benefits if they build 40% of their units as rentable and affordable (a minimum of 10 affordable rental units). These provisions use reduced building expenses to incentivize building developments in a traditionally less profitable housing market. Since the original Live Local Act passed, dozens of developers have submitted applications to create eligible affordable housing projects. As Reason.com’s Christian Britscghi described it, “The law is mostly a grab bag of mortgage subsidies and developer tax credits. Tucked inside is a provision allowing developers to build housing in commercial and industrial areas, provided they include a set percentage of affordable housing.”

While far from ideal, the LLA protects developers from more onerous mandatory municipal inclusionary zoning policies. In various Florida countries, developers are mandated to set aside a certain percentage of their units for affordable housing. Instead of forcing the development of affordable housing units, the Live Local Act encourages developers through incentives to set aside units for affordable housing. Although many may understandably argue this oversteps local authority, it reestablishes a choice for developers not found under municipal inclusionary zoning protocols. 

While there is a concern that property owners could use affordable units for public transient lodging, precluding home buyers from purchasing them, the amendments in the newly updated bill try to minimize that possibility by using third-party appraisers to determine which properties are eligible. 

While the Florida bill addressed the biggest problem for developers, reducing the minimum number of units for tax eligibility, it failed to address the major grievances of municipal governments. The state still preempts local authority for height, density, rent control, and zoning. So, many of the quarrels local governments had that this amendment intended to address were not resolved. 

Most of the outcry from Florida’s local governments stems from the nullification of their zoning authority. “The Live Local Act does more to pare back local zoning restrictions than basically any recent reform passed in the nation,” Britscghi writes.

One of the concerns local governments have is that they won’t be able to control their skylines, which they fear could become overwhelmed with development projects. High-income, tourism-heavy areas such as Ocean Drive in South Beach claim that the city needs a certain aesthetic look. However, there is no peer-reviewed research that supports this claim. 

While zoning ordinances are controlled by the local government, they are not inherent authorities. Instead, the state government allocates these powers to municipal governments. The state maintains the right to consolidate authority if the municipality is not properly addressing the issue. Given the strain on housing, the state recognizes housing as a bigger priority over property values and aesthetics.  

Aside from the major issues local governments have, much of the conflict caused by the Live Local Act comes primarily from NIMBYs (not in my backyard). Although many NIMBYs worry about the changes potentially reducing property values, those concerns are likely misguided. Some reports find that the development of affordable housing in vibrant and healthy neighborhoods has no effect on the surrounding property values.  

The distribution of affordable housing only correlates to lower property values when affordable housing is in high concentration. Given that housing developments eligible for tax exemption are only required to have 40% of their units affordable (and assuming developers intend on profit-maximizing), 60% of the housing units in development would be market rate. So, the negative effect of concentrated affordable housing would likely have little to no effect on these property values.

Given the benefit of increased incentives to real estate developers, there is now a stronger motivation to increase the affordable housing supply. Although the backlash from Florida’s municipal governments may stunt the development of these housing projects in the short term, the state government should uphold its preemption and continue incentivizing affordable housing development. 

The post Florida zoning reforms are a flawed but promising step appeared first on Reason Foundation.

A new Reason Foundation study found that between 2002 and 2020, Florida’s inflation-adjusted education funding went from $10,707 per student to $11,526 per student, ranking only 43rd across all 50 states in both spending growth and overall per-student spending. Florida has partially kept public education costs under control by ranking near the bottom in spending on support services, a Census Bureau reporting category that includes school administrators, counselors, and central office staff. This type of support services spending per student increased by 25% nationally but grew by less than 5% in Florida.

Public school advocates would have you believe this is a surefire recipe for failure. But Florida’s standardized test scores not only improved over time but were among the best in the nation.

Reason Foundation’s study looked at every state’s math and reading scores for fourth and eighth graders on the National Assessment of Educational Progress exams between 2003 and 2019, the testing dates that most closely matched the spending data. Florida posted impressive test score gains, ranking in the top 10 states for growth in all four tests examined, and in 2019, its fourth graders ranked sixth nationally in reading and fourth in math.

Florida’s low-income fourth graders fared even better, placing first in the nation in both reading and math.

The strong test scores and improvements suggest Florida is putting its education dollars to good use, and with numerous reforms in the past two decades, it’s hard to boil that down to one single cause. But research suggests that one key factor is something that public schools in most states don’t have nearly enough of: competition.

Around 1.7 million of Florida’s students —or nearly half of all K-12 students statewide— participate in some form of school choice, such as education savings accounts, tax credit scholarships, charter schools, and open enrollment. Unlike in most states, public schools in Florida don’t have a monopoly over students and their funding. If public schools don’t live up to expectations, parents can leave at any time with many options from which to choose. Not only is this good for students, but research shows that it also pushes public schools to improve by putting the right incentives in place for them to do so.

In a recent report for Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Patrick Wolf notes that 10 of the 11 studies examining the competitive effects of Florida’s private school choice programs find that “school choice in Florida consistently improves the achievement of students in affected public schools,” with only one study showing no significant effects.

An extensive 2023 study of the Florida tax credit scholarship program by David Figlio, Cassandra Hart, and Krzysztof Karbownik published in the American Economic Journal found that the more competition public schools faced for students, the better they performed over a 15-year period (the time frame nearly identical to the NAEP scores in Reason Foundation’s study). Competition led to improvements in test scores and other positive, measurable outcomes, such as declines in absenteeism and suspensions.

Wolf leaves no doubt about the benefits of competition, concluding, “The positive competitive effects of the launch or expansion of private school choice programs on system-wide educational outcomes is the most consistent finding in the entire field of school choice research.”

One takeaway for policymakers is simple: boosting student outcomes can be done without breaking the bank. Instead, states should implement school choice policies that break the public school monopoly by giving parents choices and schools incentives to improve. Competition is a win-win for students and public schools.

A version of this commentary first appeared in the Washington Examiner.

The post With federal pandemic aid expiring, Florida shows states how to cost-effectively boost student achievement appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This cost-saving measure was a major part of the state’s strategy to manage exploding public pension costs and try to get FRS back on track toward full funding. Since then, Florida has made some progress but is still on a long path to achieving this goal.

Now, a new proposal, Florida House Bill 151, seeks to reinstate the costly COLA feature, which could again expose the state and taxpayers to unpredictable costs. It is crucial that policymakers explore this proposal’s potential costs and risks before setting the state’s pension funding progress back.

The Proposed COLA Cost Could Exceed $32 Billion

• The cost of a COLA on state budgets can be estimated, but Florida’s actual costs would depend on market returns and demographic outcomes.
• Policymakers who look beyond best-case scenarios when evaluating a COLA should see that potential economic recessions and market variances could lock Florida’s taxpayers into paying for this benefit for longer than planned and at higher costs.
• Pension Integrity Project modeling of FRS indicates that even with cost-saving measures in HB 151, the additional cost of bringing back COLAs could rise above $32 billion over 30 years.

Florida Needs to Stay the Course

• State lawmakers, public employees, and taxpayers have all made sacrifices to ensure the long-term viability of FRS. These reforms, some passed recently, take time, however, and must be maintained to reach the eventual full-funding goal.
• FRS is still short of funding already promised pension benefits by $42 billion. It is decades away from being able to fulfill the promises made to teachers, police, firefighters, and other public workers.
• Now is not the time to add more promises with unpredictable and potentially costly price tags.

Major costs and risks associated with restoring the Florida Retirement System’s cost-of-living adjustment

The post Major costs and risks associated with restoring the Florida Retirement System’s cost-of-living adjustment appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Phosphorus is a critical component of modern, industrial-grade fertilizers. Phosphogypsum remains after phosphate rocks are dissolved and treated to make phosphoric acid for use in fertilizer. The process produces nearly five tons of phosphogypsum for every ton of phosphoric acid. Florida accounts for 80% of the current phosphorus capacity in the country, per the EPA. As a result, Florida has an abundance of phosphogypsum. 

This is an environmental concern because phosphate ores and phosphogypsum may contain significant quantities of radioactive metals. If improperly managed, these metals and their decay products can leach into aquifers and contaminate local water supplies. 

Today’s disposal method for these byproducts leaves much to be desired. Currently, the wastewater remaining from the chemical process is collected in special dump sites termed gypsum stacks or “gypstacks.” These stacks aren’t a foolproof storage method. When the stacks fail, they pose environmental and health threats.

In 2009, a sinkhole opened under a dump site in White Springs, Florida. In 2021, phosphogypsum leached through the lining of the stack requiring excess wastewater to be dumped in Tampa Bay. The only means of storing phosphogypsum has a history of failing (or nearly failing), and alternative uses for phosphogypsum are heavily restricted. 

However, it is possible to lower the risks associated with phosphogypsum to enable safe use in specific applications. A study originally published in the journal Heliyon examined how phosphogypsum can be used in roadways. While a few approaches can be taken to both strengthen phosphogypsum as a building component and lower the level of dangerous elements in it, ultimately, the chemical composition of phosphogypsum can vary based on geography. As such, there is no guaranteed one-size-fits-all approach for purification and pretreatment, and methods should be tailored to the specific chemical composition of any sample of phosphogypsum.

That said, these pretreatment methods could enable safe and efficient phosphogypsum use for various projects, such as roadways. If phosphogypsum is allowed in road construction, that would present a feasible way to reduce the size of the gypstacks in the state and the contamination risks associated with them. Because phosphogypsum is a waste product, it is relatively low cost, but it does have potential use as a supplementary material in the concrete slurry used to build roads.

A 1989 study from the University of Miami compared three roads constructed in Florida before the EPA’s ban on phosphogypsum in road construction. It found that Parrish Road, located in Polk County, constructed with phosphogypsum, had a cost per mile of $59,170 (in today’s dollars). This was much lower than the costs of Windy Hill Road and Tanner Road, also in Polk County, which cost $325,819 per mile and $247,713 per mile, respectively. The study also measured the environmental impact of the road and its construction. It determined that construction of the roadways posed “no measurable impact on the ambient groundwater.” Gamma radiation, which is extremely hazardous to life at high levels, was found to be within the normal range of the naturally occurring background radiation dose on the roadways. In addition, the study found “no significant changes” to radon exposure due to phosphogypsum use in the roadway.

A more recent 2019 study by the Fertilizer Institute, a national organization representing fertilizer producers, wholesalers and retailers, which has a vested interest in a repeal of the phosphogypsum construction ban, found equally promising results. The Fertilizer Institute’s study found that those involved in the construction and future users of a phosphogypsum-built roadway would not be exposed to any radiation levels above the EPA’s safety range. 

The Heliyon study likewise found that “applying [phosphogypsum] to road materials can significantly increase the reuse and consumption of [phosphogypsum] and reduce [phosphogypsum] stockpiles.” The authors noted that using phosphogypsum would require purification to avoid letting the more radioactive elements and heavy metal impurities lower its strength as a building material and keep it safe for construction workers and road users. The study also stressed phosphogypsum’s durability as a building material. Still, it ends by calling for more research into techniques to scale up purification processes to make use of phosphogypsum both safe and economically viable.

As it stands, Florida’s law may have little impact due to the EPA’s prohibition on the use of phosphogypsum. Further, Florida has failed to request a waiver for any specific demonstration projects. The EPA insists that Florida’s law cannot deviate from federal requirements and that the state would still need to apply for approval.

Setting aside Florida’s legislation and EPA’s current regulations, additional studies are needed to examine phosphogypsum’s role in road construction. Current research suggests using phosphogypsum in roadway construction benefits the environment and taxpayers. However, further research can help clarify the safety and environmental impacts of its use. Pursuant to Florida’s new law, the state should establish some test scenarios for demonstration and submit them for EPA approval.

The post Florida needs more research on phosphogypsum’s use in road construction appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Education savings accounts (ESAs) are publicly funded accounts that families can use to pay the costs of their child’s K-12 education, including private school tuition, tutoring, learning supplies and many other services.

Joining the ranks of Arizona, West Virginia, Utah, Iowa and Arkansas in adopting universal school choice, Florida is now giving all families the choice to withdraw from public schools and opt for an ESA of about $8,700 per child if it fits their needs.

While Floridians already are accustomed to a robust landscape of education choices, this bold new ESA program can help usher in a new era of customized education in Florida. But state Democrats and education associations continue to voice their opposition to the school choice expansion. Their main objections are to the high potential cost of the program — with one estimate as high as $4 billion — and to the possibility that the ESAs will siphon money away from public schools. 

Both concerns are misguided.

The precise cost of the new ESA program is hard to predict because fiscal analysts don’t know how popular the program will be with families. But astronomic estimates, such as the $4 billion figure published by the Florida Policy Institute (FPI), are far too high. Students using private school choice scholarships and who switch out of public schools already account for half of FPI’s $4 billion estimate — but both these populations are already funded by taxpayer dollars. In other words, funding ESAs for these students wouldn’t require new money.

FPI’s $4 billion figure also features some questionable premises, such as the assumption that 12% of newly eligible public school students will apply for the ESA when it becomes available in July. 

Data from 27 school choice programs in Florida and 18 other states reveal that the rates at which eligible families opt to use ESAs are usually lower. In an analysis published in Education Next, Marty Luekin and Michael Castro of EdChoice found that “for most programs, take-up rates remain below 2% for the better part of a decade.”

To be sure, Florida’s new ESA program will impose costs on taxpayers because of its availability to home-school families and those already enrolled in private schools who weren’t previously eligible for school choice scholarships. This population isn’t currently receiving public dollars, and many parents will likely jump at the opportunity to have their education costs covered by an education savings account. 

But up until now, these families have been paying twice for their child’s education. They pay property and sales taxes to support a public education system that doesn’t fit their child’s needs and then reach into their own pockets again to pay private school tuition. For these parents, an ESA allows them to pay once for the education that’s best for their child.

The state’s school choice opponents also warn that the education savings account program will strip funds away from public schools. But under Florida’s enrollment-based funding formula, public education dollars already leave school districts when students move or transfer. ESAs just allow families the option to take those dollars with them even if they leave public schools. At the same time, any school that has a student and their associated funding leave also has one less student and their associated costs to teach. Over time, that balances out.

Moreover, recent decisions of school choice-friendly governors belie the claim that school choice programs defund public education. Concurrently with his support of school choice expansion, Gov. DeSantis has devoted $2.8 billion to teacher salary increases since he took office and is still pushing for $200 million more. 

Similarly, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders recently signed a universal education savings account bill into law while also raising the state’s minimum teacher salary by $14,000. Far from stripping money away from public schools, ESAs have meant a windfall for the traditional system.

Florida’s new universal education savings account will help empower the families that need it, whether that’s because their child has a disability requiring specialized services or because they want their child to get more one-on-one attention with a math tutor. There’s scant evidence to suggest Florida’s ESAs will lead to a mass exodus from public schools in ways that strain public school district budgets or takes money out of teachers’ paychecks.

A version of this column first appeared on YourObserver.com.

The post Florida’s education savings accounts won’t defund public schools appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Fines and fees are commonplace throughout the justice system. In many cases, fines are considered desirable because they are an intermediate form of punishment. In other words, slapping someone with a fine is less severe than incarceration but is tough punishment for many low-level offenses.

A person may be charged a fine for any criminal or civil infraction. In addition to any fines, they might also be charged a host of fees meant to cover court costs. The state court system in Florida is funded through general revenues, but a large share of funding for the state’s clerks of courts is provided by filing fees, service charges, and court costs that are collected from individuals when they interact with the court system.

Because fines and fees are not generally scaled based on income, they tend to disproportionately harm low-income people who are unable to pay. Failure to pay outstanding fines and fees can result in driver’s license suspensions and even incarceration. A recent report by the Fines and Fees Justice Institute found that nearly two million Floridians have their driver’s licenses suspended because of unpaid fines and fees. Considering that approximately 80% of Floridians drive themselves to work and many jobs require a driver’s license, suspending driver’s licenses for non-driving offenses reduces the likelihood those individuals will be able to pay their fines and fees. It is counterproductive to make it even more difficult for individuals to pay off their debts and create additional administrative costs for governments.

The fact that many people are financially unable to pay may provide some explanation for why governments are notoriously bad at collecting outstanding court debts. A report from the Brennan Center for Justice found that only 36% of the fines and fees assessed in Florida between 2012 and 2018 were actually collected, resulting in over $1.13 billion in cumulative unpaid fines and fees.

Even setting aside problems with collection, fines and fees are not a particularly stable source of revenue. In Florida, statewide fines and fees revenue has declined significantly over recent years—a fiscal issue that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Florida’s courthouses were shuttered during the early months of the pandemic, leading to a substantial backlog of cases and disrupted revenue flows. Over that same period, lockdowns and stay-at-home orders kept many drivers off the road, reducing the number of traffic violations­­––a major source of fines and fees revenue in the state.

In the fiscal year ending in Sept. 2020, clerks of courts collected $377 million in fines and fees compared to $432 million in the year prior. Revenues in both years represent a dramatic decline from the $539 million collected in 2009. Declining revenues are already causing trouble for organizations and programs that depend on fines and fees revenue. Epilepsy Florida, for example, pulls in $5 from every seatbelt infraction in the state. In 2020, that translated to $240,000 compared to the whopping $1.1 million the group received in 2014, according to reporting by FL Keys News.

Fortunately, fines and fees revenue make up a very small portion of Florida’s budget, and there are many options for reform. Generally speaking, no program or agency should be specifically funded by fines and fees revenue. Instead, court revenue should be sent into the general fund to avoid poor incentive structures within the justice system.

Fees, which only exist to raise revenue, should arguably be eliminated. Meanwhile, fines, which serve as punishment, could be scaled to account for an individual’s ability to pay.

Florida could also eliminate fines and fees in juvenile cases and abandon the counterproductive practice of suspending driver’s licenses for failure to pay.

These basic reforms would help realign incentives for law enforcement and reduce the disparate impact of fines and fees on low-income communities. Florida lawmakers would be wise to address the fiscal challenges presented by declining fines and fees revenue and put an end to taxation by citation.

The post Florida must stop relying on taxation by citation appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The case was dismissed last month by United States District Court Judge Allen Winsor, who did rule that Fried held standing to bring the suit as she holds oversight over both Florida’s concealed carry licenses and medical marijuana programs.

Fried was joined by two plaintiffs who are registered medical marijuana patients and were barred from purchasing a firearm and a third co-plaintiff who is a gun owner with a qualifying medical condition who would like to participate in Florida’s medical marijuana program. The standing of all plaintiffs was affirmed by Judge Winsor because they suffer direct harm from the Justice Department’s enforcement actions. 

The Justice Department, through its Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Division, bars participants in state medical marijuana programs from owning or purchasing a firearm. One method for enforcing this prohibition is the inclusion of a question on ATF background checks about whether the prospective gun buyer uses illegal drugs. Although marijuana is legal for medical use under some state laws and legal for adult use in some states, it remains illegal at the federal level. By contrast, the use of federally legal pharmaceuticals with intoxicating characteristics, such as oxycontin, is not necessarily a reason for ATF to deny a gun purchase.

In court briefings, DOJ argued that there is a public interest in prohibiting marijuana users from possessing guns and that its regulations are consistent with historical restrictions on the Second Amendment. The department pointed out that the federal government has previously barred Catholics, Native Americans, panhandlers, and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms, so it has adequate historical precedent to bar medical marijuana patients. The Biden administration received backlash for relying on these comparisons and eventually backed off its claims that marijuana use makes individuals more inclined toward crime. Yet, the administration has continued to argue—in spite of the evidence—that medical marijuana patients might be more disposed to engage in domestic violence. 

Central to Fried’s claim is that congressional riders to federal appropriations bills specifically restrict the Justice Department from using any financial resources to impair state-regulated medical marijuana programs. Judge Winsor seemingly dismissed this claim prematurely, arguing that the department can bar gun possession because marijuana possession is a federal crime: 

Regardless of whether Plaintiffs are prosecuted (or whether Congress allocates funds for their prosecution), possession of marijuana remains a federal crime. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment at best precludes prosecution now; it does not forever bless the plaintiffs’ actions. 

Winsor’s opinion does not consider that the Justice Department presumably spent financial resources to include its question about marijuana use on ATF background-check forms and pays staff to review these forms. While DOJ might argue that these enforcement actions are related to the regulation of gun ownership and not medical marijuana programs, it clearly has the effect of discriminating against medical marijuana patients using funds appropriated by Congress. On this basis, the ATF’s screening of prospective gun buyers on the basis of whether they use marijuana for medical purposes would appear as a clear violation of congressional appropriations directives. 

Also, there is no evidence that medical marijuana patients are any more disposed to engage in violent crime than other groups. On the contrary, the available evidence indicates that medical marijuana is associated with slightly lower crime rates. Fried expressed her disappointment in August that the Justice Department “would perpetuate such harmful and offensive prejudicial stereotypes that cannabis users are dangerous or mentally ill.” 

As Fried continues the appeal process, cannabis consumers in Florida and elsewhere should remain highly interested in the outcome. After all, any ruling against the Justice Department could result in positive outcomes for medical marijuana patients across the nation. 

The post Nikki Fried is right to sue for medical marijuana patients’ gun rights  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Despite this rare bipartisan agreement in an increasingly polarized political climate, Congress has failed to pass such a data privacy law. Earlier this year, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-RI) introduced the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), which has serious flaws but is the closest Congress has ever come to enacting a federal data privacy policy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refused to bring the bill to the floor because it did “not guarantee the same essential consumer protections” as California’s California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the state’s 2018 harmful data privacy law. The ADPPA would not solve the developing state patchwork issue because it only acts as a floor for minimum required regulations where states could add additional regulations. California’s law is an example where the state regulations are heavier than the federal standard would be if ADPPA is passed. The federal standard for data privacy should instead act as a ceiling and should not be as extensive as the CCPA.

In the Senate, the ADPPA faced an equally hostile reception, with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), chair of the powerful commerce committee, refusing to hold a hearing because of her concerns surrounding “enforcement holes.” The ADPPA would require annual algorithmic assessments, which would create recurring compliance costs for firms and would also require considerable federal resources to enforce. These enforcement difficulties suggest that an entity like the government may not be in the best position to regulate something as dynamic and technical as algorithmic decision-making.

This begs the question of whether a data privacy law is needed at all. If it is, it would ideally be a bill that would address all these issues and create a reasonable data privacy standard for the country that solves the patchwork problem. But without that standard, more states may feel compelled to address privacy concerns and should be aware of pitfalls to avoid.

Since the implementation of California’s Consumer Privacy Act in 2020, four states—Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia—have enacted their own privacy laws. Complying with a regulatory system in which data laws vary from state to state is the least efficient method for the economy. Most businesses have an online presence and more and more operate in all 50 states. The costs of regulatory compliance in this type of environment stifle competition—only businesses with sufficient capital can comply, and many smaller upstarts can’t.

For several years, it looked like Florida would join the growing number of states passing data privacy laws. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis supported a data privacy bill in 2021, but the state legislature was split over a private right of action, which would have granted Floridians the right to sue and receive financial compensation for violations. With Florida’s 2023 legislative session approaching, it’s time to consider what a data privacy bill in Florida should look like, especially if Florida lawmakers want to avoid the mistakes of CCPA and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation.

The most serious mistake would be including a private right of action in legislation. On the surface, allowing individuals to bring lawsuits against violators may seem like it would help hold firms accountable, but the unanticipated reality is much different. Even laws that govern more serious and personal information, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), do not include a private right of action. In other laws, like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a private right of action exists but has been significantly curtailed to reduce the number of “serial” cases abusing the ADA. If Florida passes a data privacy law with a private right of action, it would inevitably feed a cottage industry of frivolous lawsuits that trap businesses in litigation cycles, suppressing innovation and raising costs.

Burdensome data privacy regulations also stagnate innovation. For example, a Cato Institute study of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which regulates how credit bureaus manage consumer data, argues that because of data privacy requirements, the industry has become so tightly regulated and costly that innovation has stagnated and new entrants cannot enter the market. It is likely that only large and resource-rich firms will have the continued ability to comply with complex laws like data privacy.

Evidence from the European Union (EU) may support this claim. Two months after the EU implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 30% of US news sites blocked EU access due to an inability to comply. An HEC Paris study of 6,286 EU websites found a general 10 percent reduction in internet traffic, resulting in millions of lost dollars. The study also found that GDPR’s rules hurt smaller websites (10-21% drop) more than larger ones (2-9% drop), suggesting that similar to credit score regulation, data privacy regulation may help entrench current large websites while deterring entrants.

Policymakers may also consider that many consumers’ ‘rights’ commonly included in data privacy bills could eventually become regulations that negatively impact consumers. For example, the right to opt-out of the sale and sharing of data sounds simple but becomes a prescription for how websites earn revenue and handle data. Websites share consumer data with advertisers and data processing companies to generate revenue. Florida lawmakers should note that allowing users to opt-out of this transaction, the primary form of revenue for many websites, would alter the fundamental business model at the internet’s core. Some websites may shut down if forced to accept users but cannot monetize their data through advertising because users have opted out. In other cases, they may have to charge these users for previously free websites to keep servers running. Policymakers should consider these downstream impacts on consumers as they decide what data rights consumers may have.

In addition, there is certain to be confusion around what constitutes the sharing of data. For example, if a website provides a temporary interface for advertisers to determine which data segment they want to market, that could reasonably be considered sharing. However, there is no industry-accepted definition of sharing data. Therefore, when considering data privacy legislation, Florida policymakers must provide clear guidelines for what constitutes data sharing.

Data privacy can happen without such burdensome regulations. Other rights, such as the right to correction and deletion, as long as they are given appropriate curing periods, such as 90 days, can be of minimal impact. Privacy notices with continued opt-in, which prevent users from having to accept cookies every time they visit a site, can smooth the experience while providing consumers with a transparent and understandable privacy contract available at any time. Distinguishing between personally identifiable data and de-identified data can also prevent needless regulations on non-personal data.

As people increasingly move their lives into the digital world, demands will inevitably grow for greater data protection rules and more restrictions on what private companies can do with this information. However, crafting data privacy rules that balance individuals’ demands and the needs of businesses is a perilous task that either risks providing too few protections or overregulating the digital space, ultimately harming Floridians. While perilous, if the Florida state legislature pushes forward on a data privacy law, it can start to strike this balance by excluding a private right of action, limiting the right to opt-out, and providing clear guidelines for data sharing with an open and transparent privacy agreement.

Florida can do better than California and Europe’s data privacy laws, but only if lawmakers recognize the promise and perils.

The post Florida should learn from the mistakes of California and European privacy laws appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Over the last few years, Wakulla County has added between 300 and 500 new homes annually. Higher home prices in Tallahassee have made Wakulla a relatively affordable and attractive place to settle for commuters. The rise of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic has also drawn many residents from other states.

Impact fees are regulatory fees imposed by local governments to pay for the cost of infrastructure investments necessary to accommodate new development. Impact fees are typically charged for infrastructure and services, including roads, water, and wastewater. According to data from Florida’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research, 38  of the state’s 67 counties reported collecting some form of impact fee revenue in 2020. In fact, Wakulla County is the only county in the state that has grown more than 10% over the last decade that does not impose impact fees.

When properly designed and implemented, impact fees act as user fees. They raise money directly from those who benefit from the infrastructure and services funded by the fees. Because of this, impact fees can effectively offset the need to raise additional revenue from other fees and taxes, such as property taxes.

Unfortunately, impact fees are often poorly designed or used as a source of funding for services more appropriately funded through other channels. Many municipalities impose flat fees that are not adjusted to the size or impact of individual housing units. In cases where the impact of development is not uniform, flat fees are highly regressive, meaning that they disproportionately burden low-income families.

Practical limitations can also inhibit rural jurisdictions like Wakulla County from implementing highly complex fee structures. But the objective should be to develop fee schedules that come close to reflecting the relative impact of development without being overly complicated. Scaling impact fees to the square footage of homes or the number of bedrooms is a possible approach to making them less regressive.

To the extent that impact fees reduce the burden of infrastructure costs required by new development, they may serve as a bulwark against more exclusionary land-use policies. In fact, economic research on the subject suggests that impact fees can result in increased housing construction.

Earlier this year, Wakulla County commissioners issued a request for proposals (RFP) seeking bids to conduct an impact fee study to guide the design and structure of impact fees in the county. Yet, commissioners voted 4-1 against moving forward with the RFP after receiving three bids ranging from $69,350 to $99,850.

Commissioners, however, might want to revisit this decision. Impact fees are efficient, user-based revenue sources when they accurately reflect the marginal cost of development to local governments.

The growing pains experienced by Wakulla County are not unique. Rather than rejecting the benefits of growth or forcing existing residents to bear the brunt of new infrastructure costs, Wakulla County should consider implementing well-designed impact fees that accurately reflect the marginal cost of new development.

A version of this commentary first appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat.

The post Properly designed impact fees could help Wakulla County accommodate population growth appeared first on Reason Foundation.