In 2023, the Live Local Act, or SB 102, was passed. The bill preempted the ability of local governments to provide rent freezes during times of crisis and disaster. It also allocated hundreds of millions of dollars in recurring funds to the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) and Hometown Heroes programs. The State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program also received funds, but they were non-recurring. Additionally, $100 million was provided in tax credits, as well as property tax exemptions that provide housing for the “missing middle.” The “missing middle” tax exemption would award tax credits for the development of multifamily housing that is affordable to those households making 80 – 120 percent Area Median Income (AMI) or a larger tax exemption for those Floridians making less than 80 percent AMI. The idea behind the “missing middle” is to create and bolster a middle class (hence the 80-120 percent AMI target income).
Live Local has been met with mixed response. While the bill was in the Legislature, an overwhelming majority of the initial response was positive, focusing on the stipulation that the bill enacted the largest contribution to affordable housing in history. Negative responses came from some of the communities that had — during the period following the COVID-19 pandemic — successfully passed rent freezes that had blocked landlords from enabling unjustified and unscrupulous price gouges while residents were still reeling from the crisis. Other criticism has been corroborated by the fact that Live Local prioritizes funds for SAIL over the other Sadowski funds, which were targeted to those who have deeper affordability. Through its tax cuts and density incentives, Live Local does little to incentivize access to deeper affordability, and it also excludes smaller properties — which constitute a large portion of the housing stock in highly cost-burdened parts of Florida, including Miami-Dade County.
Following the passage of the bill, there has been reluctance from local governments that are attempting to evaluate how to promote the execution of new developments, while also considering the maintenance and livelihood of the existing local communities. Additionally, the preemption of local governments’ authority to halt or slow development through procedural means undermines their capacity for protecting legacy residents in former redlined communities. In these communities, the inexpensive land — which is often located more inland and at a higher elevation — attracts developers who are not concerned with the consequences of potentially displacing these residents again.