A Concerned Citizen’s Valid Questions Dismissed: Gaslighting at the January 5, 2026 Wakulla County Commission Meeting

On January 5, 2026, during a public hearing in Wakulla County, a citizen raised legitimate concerns about a proposed ordinance amending Section 2.305 of the county code. The ordinance would exempt certain economic‑development‑related dispositions of county‑owned real property from the standard surplus property procedures in Florida Statute §125.35 - procedures designed to protect taxpayers by requiring competitive bidding or auctions.

Her questions were direct and reasonable:

• Why is this ordinance being pushed now, with so little detail provided in the agenda?

• With Governor Ron DeSantis and the Legislature advancing major property tax relief proposals - including potential 2026 constitutional amendments to phase out or eliminate non‑school ad valorem taxes on homesteads - how can the county justify potentially giving away public assets at below‑market rates?

• What revenue might the county forfeit, either from lost sale proceeds or reduced future tax income?

These concerns are grounded in the current political and fiscal landscape. As of early 2026, the Governor has repeatedly called for sweeping homestead property tax cuts and is pushing for a single, bold ballot measure to eliminate or drastically reduce these taxes. Counties across Florida - especially rural ones like Wakulla - are preparing for the possibility of significant revenue shortfalls that could strain essential services such as roads, law enforcement, and infrastructure.

The County’s Response: A Misleading Reframing

Instead of addressing the substance of the citizen’s questions, the county attorney and commissioners reframed the issue entirely:

“This has NOTHING to do with property taxes. It doesn’t forgive or exempt anyone from ad valorem taxes… Actually, it’s the OPPOSITE - transferring to private hands means MORE taxes paid.”

This response sidesteps the actual issue. The citizen never claimed the ordinance directly forgives taxes. It’s true that county‑owned land is tax‑exempt under §196.199, Fla. Stat., and that transferring it to private ownership typically adds it to the tax roll.

But that was not the concern.

Side note: Shout out to Commissioner Thomas for at least attempting to reframe and understand the citizen. The mark was missed but at least an attempt was made.

The Real Fiscal Risks — Which Went Unaddressed

The citizen’s questions focused on three legitimate issues:

1. Forgone Upfront Revenue

Under §125.35, surplus county property must be sold through competitive processes designed to maximize taxpayer return.
The proposed exemption - tied to the county’s broader economic development powers under §125.045 - allows negotiated deals, including:

• below‑market leases

• nominal‑price conveyances

• or even free transfers

These are common incentive tools in Florida, but they can mean immediate cash losses for the county - losses that matter if property tax revenues shrink under statewide reforms.

2. Timing and Risk in a Tax‑Cut Environment

If non‑school property taxes are reduced or eliminated through 2026 ballot initiatives, the “more taxes long‑term” argument collapses.
Newly taxable private land may generate little or no revenue, especially compared to the value of the land the county gives up.

Meanwhile, new development often requires infrastructure upgrades, which cost money the county may no longer have.

3. Lack of Transparency

The agenda provided minimal information, making it difficult for the public to understand the ordinance’s full implications.
Economic development incentives often involve sweetened deals for private entities, subsidized by taxpayers - exactly the kind of thing that deserves scrutiny when local revenues are at risk.

Why This Was Gaslighting

By insisting “it’s the opposite” and focusing on a narrow, technical interpretation, officials made the citizen appear confused or misinformed - even though her questions were grounded in real fiscal concerns.

This is a classic gaslighting pattern:

• Redirect to a simplified narrative (“growth = more tax base”)

• Ignore the short‑term trade‑offs

• Dismiss legitimate skepticism

• Avoid addressing the broader context of statewide tax reform

Citizens deserve straight answers - especially when the county is considering tools that enable subsidized land deals at a time when Florida may dramatically reduce local tax revenue.

The Bottom Line

The citizen’s questions were valid.
The county’s response was evasive.
And Wakulla residents should continue asking hard questions, reviewing agendas, and holding officials accountable.