Tax Exemption for City Low-Rent Housing Property In Florida
In State ex rel. Harper v. McDavid, 145 Fla. 605, 200 So. 100 (Fla. 1941), a taxpayer challenged an exemption for property owned by a city housing authority and used for a low-rent housing and slum clearance project.
The Legislature had authorized municipalities to erect low-rent housing units and exempted them from ad valorem taxation by declaring that they served municipal purposes. See id. at 101.
This Court upheld the tax exemption against challenges under both article IX, section 1 and article XVI, section 16 of the 1885 Constitution. See id. at 101-02.
The Court noted that it had previously "conceded power in the legislature to define a municipal purpose as contemplated by the provisions of the Constitution alluded to." Id. at 102.
Responding to the claim that providing low-rent housing did not serve a valid municipal purpose, the Court stated:
It is contended that the business of the Housing Authority is in no sense municipal, that it is in direct competition with private enterprise and even though declared by the legislature to be strictly municipal and charitable, its properties should not be exempt from taxation and that any attempt to make them so should be held in violation of the Constitution.
What constituted a municipal purpose is a legislative question that should not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.
A municipal purpose is much broader in its scope than it was a generation ago.
Under our system of jurisprudence, constitutional validity may be determined by practical operation and effect.
Measured by this test, we cannot say that the legislature exceeded its power in pronouncing the properties of the Housing Authority held for a municipal purpose free from all forms of taxation.
They are held not for profit, must be restricted to a low income group, and contribute materially to the health, morals, safety, and general welfare of the people.
They aid materially in reducing the cost of fire prevention and police protection and the Housing Authority is authorized to make annual compensation to the City in lieu of taxes and other services furnished.
There is no suggestion that the officers charged with the administration of the present scheme have failed in their duty and being so, we must assume that the law has been faithfully observed.
The time was when a municipal purpose was restricted to police protection or such enterprises as were strictly governmental but that concept has been very much expanded and a municipal purpose may now comprehend all activities essential to the health, morals, protection, and welfare of the municipality. Id.