North Dakota rejects plan to eliminate property taxes amid national trend towards caps

North Dakota voters have decisively rejected a proposal to eliminate property taxes, a measure that critics argued would severely impact funding for essential services. Measure 4, which aimed to make North Dakota the first state without property taxes, was among several property tax-related ballot questions nationwide during the general election.

While most measures passed, including new restrictions in Georgia and Florida, North Dakota's proposal faced strong opposition from over 80 groups. These included the North Dakota Fire Chiefs Association and the School Board Association. State officials estimated that eliminating property taxes would cost $3.15 billion over two years. Critics warned of potential cuts to services or the introduction of new statewide income or sales taxes.

Danielle Hale, Chief Economist at Realtor.com®, commented on the proposal: “The North Dakota proposal to eliminate property taxes does not specify what the alternative will be.” She noted that while reforming property tax could be beneficial, complete elimination might lead to more significant issues.

Ultimately, Measure 4 was defeated with 63.5% voting against it.

In contrast, Florida and Georgia voters approved measures to limit annual property tax increases but with differing approaches. Florida's Amendment 5 allows an annual inflation adjustment for homestead property tax exemptions without market distortion. Georgia's Amendment 1 caps annual increases at inflation rates only for existing homeowners, potentially affecting housing market dynamics by discouraging sales or moves.

The Tax Foundation opposed Georgia's measure, suggesting it could hinder new residents' access to housing and alter purchasing patterns unfavorably.

Oklahoma voters also rejected a proposal for special tax districts under State Question 833. The measure sought to allow municipalities to create public infrastructure districts with bond-issuing authority for improvements if approved by district voters. Opponents feared it could lead to misuse by developers at homeowners' expense.

State Rep. Andy Fugate criticized the measure: "Without guardrails, this State Question is an easy grift that profits a handful at the expense of the rest of us."