Tallahassee Is Dismantling Home Rule in Florida, One Law at a Time

Florida’s constitution gives cities and counties the power to govern themselves. It’s called home rule, and it rests on a simple idea: the people who live in a place should decide what gets built there and how it gets paid for.

The Florida Legislature is taking that power away. This isn’t an accident or the side effect of well-meaning policy. It is a systematic campaign, carried out bill by bill and session by session, to move decisions from county commissions and city councils to Tallahassee.

Three measures show how it works. The Live Local Act takes away local control over what is built on commercial and industrial land. SB 686 takes away local control over what is built on farmland at the edge of town. Amendment 3, on the Nov. 3 ballot, would take away the money local governments need to deal with the consequences.

Each comes wrapped in a popular goal: more housing, lower tax bills. Look at what they actually do, though, and the pattern is unmistakable. In every case, the people you elect locally lose a decision, and the Legislature gains it.

The Live Local Act: apartments on industrial land, no vote required

The Live Local Act, SB 102, was signed March 29, 2023. Lawmakers have amended its land-use provisions every year since: SB 328 in 2024, SB 1730 in 2025, and HB 1389 and SB 962 in 2026.

The core mandate now reads the same for cities and counties. A city “must authorize multifamily and mixed-use residential as allowable uses in any area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed use.” The rule also covers parts of flexibly zoned areas such as planned unit developments, land owned by a county, city or school district, and church property larger than 3 acres. It applies if at least 40% of a project’s units are rentals that stay affordable for at least 30 years.

“Affordable” covers more than low-income housing. The state definition reaches households earning less than 120% of the area median income, and it sets rent at no more than 30% of the income limit. Under the law, the other 60% of units can rent at market rates.

The law also limits what local governments can require:

• No rezoning or hearings. A local government cannot require “a zoning or land use change, special exception, conditional use approval, variance,” comprehensive plan amendment or several other approvals for the height, zoning and density the law grants.
• The highest density in town. Density cannot be held below the highest allowed anywhere in the jurisdiction where homes are permitted. The comparison uses either current rules or the rules as of July 1, 2023, whichever is higher.
• Tall buildings next door. Height cannot be held below the tallest commercial or residential building allowed within 1 mile, or three stories. There is a limited exception next to single-family neighborhoods. Since 2026, local governments also cannot use setbacks or stepbacks to cut that height.
• No elected officials. A qualifying project “must be administratively approved without further action by the governing body.” That excludes any quasi-judicial or advisory board as well. Staff sign off. Commissioners don’t vote.
• Little room to pause. Since 2025, local governments cannot enforce a building moratorium that delays these projects. The exception is one moratorium of up to 90 days every three years, and only after the local government publishes a housing needs assessment.
• Expensive lawsuits. Courts must move suits over the law ahead of other cases and must award the winner attorney fees of up to $250,000. The fee rule runs both ways, but it raises the cost of defending a local decision.

Lawmakers have narrowed parts of the law as they expanded others. The 2026 changes removed farms and some agricultural processing plants from the definition of industrial land. They also excluded areas of critical state concern, land under conservation easements, and some open-space zoning. The land-use mandate expires Oct. 1, 2033, but projects approved before then remain legal uses afterward.

The law also cuts property tax revenue. Its “missing middle” exemption takes 75% of the value of qualifying units serving households between 80% and 120% of median income off the tax rolls, and all of the value of units at or below 80%. Local governments can opt out of the 75% tier by a two-thirds vote, but only after showing affordable units outnumber renter households in their area. Starting with the 2027 tax roll, that showing must hold for three straight years. They cannot opt out of the full exemption.

SB 686: fast-track housing on farmland

Florida law has long had a special path for “agricultural enclaves,” farms that development has grown up around. Until this year, an owner asked the county to amend its comprehensive plan. The plan amendment was presumed not to be urban sprawl, but neighbors and the county could rebut that with clear and convincing evidence. The process included negotiation, public hearings and review by the state land-planning agency.

SB 686, sponsored by Sen. Stan McClain, R-Ocala, replaced that process. McClain chairs the Senate Community Affairs Committee, which handles local-government bills. His official Senate biography says he served on the Marion County Commission from 2004 to 2016, is a state-certified residential contractor and has worked as executive officer of the Marion County Building Industry Association. His son, Matt McClain, now sits on that commission. Gov. DeSantis appointed him in 2023, and voters elected him in 2024. The Senate passed it 34-2 and the House 90-20. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it April 20, and it took effect July 1 as Chapter 2026-34, Laws of Florida.

Under the new law, an owner applies to have the land certified as an enclave. The local government has 30 days to issue a compliance report and must hold a hearing within 30 days after that. If it does not approve or deny the application within 90 days, “the parcel or parcels must be certified as an agricultural enclave.” A denial needs detailed written findings and can be appealed to circuit court.

After certification, the owner can submit plans for single-family homes at the density and uses of neighboring land. The statute says those plans “must be treated as a conforming use, notwithstanding the local government’s comprehensive plan, future land use designation, or zoning.”

Approval of the plans can be administrative. The local government cannot require a review “longer than 180 days in duration or that includes further review of the plans in a quasi-judicial process or public hearing.” An enclave next to an urban service district must be treated as if it were inside it. Enclaves that qualify because they border an interstate can also be developed for commercial or industrial use.

The law also widened which land qualifies:

• Less surrounding development. Neighboring land designated for development now needs to be only 50% built out, down from 75%.
• New routes to qualify. Parcels of 700 acres or less can qualify if half the perimeter borders land designated for development and half borders an urban service area. Land in a rural study area planned for homes also qualifies.
• Pay instead of wait. An owner without water, sewer and road service in place can qualify by agreeing to pay a proportionate share.
• Size caps. Enclaves can be up to 1,280 acres, or 4,480 acres when surrounded by dense residential development, in counties of 1.75 million people or fewer.

Some areas remain protected: the Wekiva Study Area, the Everglades Protection Area, areas of critical state concern, land under conservation easements and military installations. The changes expire Jan. 1, 2028, when the old comprehensive-plan process returns unless the Legislature extends them. Certifications granted before then stay in place.

St. Johns County shows what the new law looks like in practice. One application there, from BR4700 LLC, covers about 4,462 acres north of Nocatee Parkway. The county’s record lists a “statutory maximum density” of six homes per acre.

On Aug. 4, commissioners voted 5-0 to have the county attorney consult outside counsel about challenging the law in court. On Aug. 19, they approved two Heritage Development certifications covering about 1,166 acres on 3-2 votes. On Sept. 15, they denied the BR4700 application 3-2 and voted 4-1 to reconsider the Heritage approvals at a Sept. 28 special meeting. Minutes from that meeting had not been posted as of Oct. 9, and no court challenge to the law appears in public records.

Amendment 3: cutting the budget local governments control

The first two laws limit what local governments can decide. Amendment 3 would limit the money they have to pay for those decisions.

The Legislature placed it on the ballot in a June special session. The House voted 75-26 for CS/HJR 1F and the Senate 30-9. The sponsor was Rep. Toby Overdorf, R-Palm City, who chairs the House Select Committee on Property Taxes.

Marion County is represented on that committee, too. Rep. Ryan Chamberlin, R-Belleview, lists his occupation in his official House biography as “Speaker, Advisor, Entrepreneur.” In September 2025, before the committee’s fall meetings, he promoted his own property tax plan, which he called “Freedom One-Two-Three.” Between Chamberlin in the House and McClain in the Senate, two of the lawmakers driving Tallahassee’s push to override local decisions represent the same county.

The ballot title, rewritten by the attorney general after a court challenge to the Legislature’s original wording, is “Increased Homestead Exemption; Lower Cap on Increases in Non-Homestead Property Assessments.” It would:

• Raise the homestead exemption. For all non-school property taxes, it would rise to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, then be indexed to inflation. School taxes keep the current $25,000 exemption. People who were not Florida residents on Dec. 31, 2026, would wait until their fifth year of homestead to get the full exemption.
• Tighten the cap on other property. Annual assessment increases on non-homestead property, including rentals, second homes and businesses, would be capped at 5% instead of 10%.
• Open a path to zero. The Legislature would have to create a uniform procedure for counties and cities to raise the exemption “up to all remaining assessed valuation.” That would end their homestead property taxes. Special districts could do the same with voter approval.
• Restrict spending. Counties and cities could spend property tax money only on public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources and flood control, debt service, retirement benefits, and operations and administration. Other spending would be allowed “unless prohibited by general law,” which gives the Legislature a new way to veto local spending.

Technically, the amendment leaves local governments the power to levy property taxes. In practice, it takes away a large share of the money that power raises. The state Revenue Estimating Conference projects non-school local revenue would fall by $4.93 billion in fiscal 2027-28, $8.71 billion the next year and $11.83 billion a year once fully phased in. Counties would lose an estimated $7.68 billion a year, cities $3.10 billion and independent special districts $1.05 billion. Those estimates do not include any later move to full elimination, which the conference calls unknown.

Neither the amendment nor its companion law, CS/SB 4F, sends state money to make up the difference. The Senate staff analysis of SB 4F lists its government-sector impact as “none.” That law, which took effect in June, separately limits how far local governments can raise tax rates without a supermajority vote, according to the same analysis.

Property tax is the largest revenue source for Florida’s counties and cities combined. In fiscal 2022-23, it made up 24.7% of all county revenue and 15.4% of all city revenue, a total that includes utility and other service charges. It was the top source in 51 counties and 191 cities.

Local governments have few other options. Article VII of the Florida Constitution says “all other forms of taxation shall be preempted to the state except as provided by general law.” Any other local tax exists only if the Legislature allows it. With less homestead revenue, local budgets would rely more on taxes on new construction, businesses and non-homestead property, and on whatever the Legislature chooses to send them.

The constitution also has a safeguard. Article VII, Section 18 bars the Legislature from reducing “the authority that municipalities or counties have to raise revenues in the aggregate” without a two-thirds vote of each chamber. That rule limits ordinary laws. It does not bind a constitutional amendment approved by voters.

The amendment needs 60% of the vote to pass. It appears on the Nov. 3 ballot with Amendment 1, on the state’s rainy-day fund, and Amendment 2, a smaller property tax exemption for farm equipment. Before you vote, use our guide to checking your voter registration.

The pattern

Put these laws side by side and the strategy is plain. The Live Local Act tells local governments what they must allow on commercial and industrial land. SB 686 tells them what they must allow on farmland at their edges. Amendment 3 would decide how much money they have left for the roads, sewers, parks and fire stations that all that growth requires. Whatever is left over, they will have to ask the Legislature for.

None of this is being done by the people who live with the results. It is being done by lawmakers in Tallahassee, including a bill sponsor who built his career in the home-building industry, who have decided they know better than your county commission what your community should look like.

Local officials still hold hearings, adopt comprehensive plans and set tax rates. But on more and more of the questions that matter, the answer has already been written in Tallahassee. That is not home rule. It is rule from Tallahassee, and it is happening by design.

You get one direct say in it this fall. Amendment 3 needs 60% of the vote on Nov. 3. Find your polling place and key dates on our Florida election calendar.