 |
 |
|
||||
|
||||||
|
|
Featured Listener Comments Section: Contents List |
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Listener: Pratt on Texas
Category: General
Date: 25 Oct 2011
Time: 11:50:44 -0700
Remote Name: 75.111.164.108
|
Information on the
2011
Texas Constitutional Amendment election.
Early voting began Monday, October 25th
and runs through Friday, November 4th. Election day is Tuesday, November
8th.
Texas Constitutional Amendment Election, November 8,
2011
Proposition Number 1 -
Pratt says: "Vote YES"
"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for
an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value
of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or
totally disabled veteran."
SJR 14 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to
provide the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran
with an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market
value of the surviving spouse’s residence homestead as long as the
surviving spouse has not remarried, the property was the residence
homestead of the surviving spouse when the qualifying veteran died, and
the property remains the residence homestead of the surviving spouse.
Pratt comments:
Number one allows a surviving spouse of a
totally disabled veteran to continue to receive a property tax exemption
after the death of the vet. It let's them keep the exemption if they move,
to be nearer family for example, after the death of the spouse. I see no
reason not to support this amendment and will vote yes.
Resources:
Proposition Number 2 - Pratt
says: "Vote NO"
“The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional
general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount
not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”
SJR 4 would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Water
Development Board to issue additional general obligation bonds on a
continuing basis for one or more accounts of the Texas Water Development
Fund II, with the restriction that the total amount of bonds outstanding
at any time does not exceed $6 billion.
Pratt comments:
I'm all for the Texas Water Development Board being able
to help finance major water infrastructure projects but, I'll vote no on
number two because the Legislature screwed this up and made it
dangerous. Friend Michael Quinn Sullivan put it this way, in part, "Make
no mistake, issuing bonds is a viable way to fund the infrastructure
needed to improve Texas’ access to water... But the legislature did a
very curious thing: they made this $6 billion issuance of bonds
“evergreen” – meaning that the TWDB will be allowed to keep issuing the
debt into perpetuity. Usually, bonds are issued as a one-time debt
obligation. Once the bond is issued, the issuing authority is over. Any
new issuance of debt requires making the case to the taxpayers. But not
under this proposition." (Read more at:
http://www.empowertexans.com/features/building-permanent-debt/
)
Let's say that the TWDB finances a few
boondoggles and the headlines are full of what a mess it all is, the way
this is setup the board's ability to keep financing bad projects, with
debt issued in your name, would be codified in into the Constitution
leaving little that could be done. This amendment needs to go back to
the Legislature and then come back to voters with either a time limit
or. a requirement that the bond issuance program be given some type of
go-ahead vote each Legislative session to continue.
Resources:
Proposition Number 3 - Pratt
says: "Vote NO"
"The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general
obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to
students.”
SJR 50 would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board or its successors to issue and sell general
obligation bonds on a continuing basis for the purpose of financing
educational loans for students, subject to certain constitutional
restrictions, including a restriction as to the maximum principal amount
of bonds outstanding at any one time.
Pratt comments:
How about instead of feeding the appetites of the tuition and fee
raising universities with more money through loans to students, we
simply make those schools lower tuition and fees to Texas students? That
would prevent more public and personal debt and return the
state-sponsored schools back to their mission of affordability in higher
education. I strongly recommend you read the first item below, in the
resources list, from Empower Texans.
Also, the folks who administer the loans, the Higher Education Coordinating Board, like to mention that the program costs taxpayers nothing. That may be the case but will it be in the future? There is a real problem which would make it cost taxpayers such as: Texas among top states for student loan defaults. Additionally, there is a social movement nationwide toward people no longer paying their debts - listen to the Occupy movement morons.
Resources:
Proposition Number 4 - Pratt
says: "Vote NO"
"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a
county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment
of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for
repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by
the county on property in the area. The amendment does not provide
authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates."
HJR 63 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to
permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or
redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area within
the county, and to pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues imposed on
property in the area by the county for repayment of such bonds or notes.
The amendment does not provide independent authority for increasing ad
valorem tax rates.
Pratt comments:
Proposition 4 is dangerous! It lets counties
issue bond debt to take over and “redevelop” areas county leaders think
are blighted or underdeveloped. This is nothing but enabling local
governments to take on more debt and enables the abuse private property
rights. I strongly recommend you read the two following opinion pieces
from Empower Texans, just below in the resources section.
Resources:
Proposition Number 5 -
Pratt says: "Vote YES"
"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities
or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or
counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking
fund."
SJR 26 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to
allow cities and counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other
cities and counties without having to assess an ad valorem tax and set
aside a specified amount of funds for the payment of costs under the
interlocal contract.
Pratt comments:
Amendment 5 is good, it allows cities or counties to enter into
interlocal contracts without imposing a tax. Currently a tax has to be
involved for them to band together to save money on joint projects.
We're already seeing some Metroplex suburbs explore sharing city jails,
and police communication systems and law enforcement offices.
Resources:
Proposition Number 6 - Pratt
says: "Vote NO"
"The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent
school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from
permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school
fund to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for
an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the
purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school
fund."
HJR 109 would amend the constitution to increase the amount of
principal that is available for withdrawal from the permanent school fund
each year and would also clarify certain references to that fund in the
constitution. Increased access to the principal of the state public
education trust fund would be based upon HJR 109 granting the authority to
consider alternative market calculations when determining the amount of
principal that is available for distribution to the available school fund.
HJR 109 would also provide authority to distribute to the available school
fund annual revenue from school fund land or other properties up to $300
million per year.
Pratt comments:
Voters should take a sober reading of amendment six and think about
whether it is a good idea to begin less re-investment in the fund just
to get a little spending pleasure short term. As legislative opponents
have pointed out, the fund is meant to provide interest revenue from
investment of the fund’s permanent assets, and it would be unwise to
spend funds that otherwise should be invested. Read a more detailed
version here:
http://www.empowertexans.com/around-texas/is-amendment-vi-worth-the-risk/
Resources:
Proposition Number 7 - Pratt
says: "Vote NO"
"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit
conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds
supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of
parks and recreational facilities."
SJR 28 would amend the constitution by adding El Paso County to the
list of counties authorized to create conservation and reclamation
districts to develop parks and recreational facilities financed by taxes.
Pratt comments:
Proposition seven allows for the creation of reclamation districts in El
Paso County to be supported by property taxes. Out of a general dislike
of creating new entities to tax people into the poor-house, I’ll vote
“no”. Remember, it won't just be an El Paso issue as once one county
does it, and gets its greedy hands on more taxpayer money, others will
run to the Legislature to copy the deal.
Resources:
Proposition Number 8 - Pratt
says: "Vote NO"
"The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem
tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on
the basis of its productive capacity."
SJR 16 would amend the constitution by requiring the legislature to
provide for taxation of open space land devoted to water stewardship
purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.
Pratt comments:
Proposition eight changes how land is appraised for property taxes for
certain types of open-space land devoted to what is termed
water-stewardship purposes. This proposition bothers me for several
reasons. First, on the surface it sounds like environmentalist
anti-private property stuff - or a way to implement such in the long
term. Granted this is a very weak argument for which I have little
evidence to support. Second, as some in legislative hearings stated, the
proposal and its enabling legislation could provide a path for the
undermining of the agricultural-use property valuation. Others are
neutral on this item but, as I promised to have no neutral positions, I
say vote no on eight.
Resources:
Proposition Number 9 - Pratt says: "Vote YES"
"The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon
to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication
community supervision."
SJR 9 would amend the constitution to authorize the governor, on the
written recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, to
grant a pardon, reprieve, or commutation of punishment to a person who
successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community
supervision.
Pratt comments:
Currently the governor can only pardon someone who was convicted
of committing a crime; this excludes someone who successfully completes
deferred adjudication community supervision. Amendment Nine changes the
constitution so that the governor can issue a pardon to someone who
received deferred adjudication and completed the deferment successfully.
I’ll vote for number nine but, be aware that it will likely have little
effect because all applications for pardons must still go through the
Board of Pardons and Paroles which has a reputation of sending very few
recommendations through to the governor.
Resources:
Proposition Number 10 - Pratt
says: "Vote NO"
"The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term
that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or
district officeholders if they become candidates for another office."
SJR 37 would amend the constitution by extending the length of the
unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain local
elected officeholders if they announce candidacy or become candidates for
another office from one year to one year and 30 days.
Pratt comments:
New Federal rules for military ballots caused Texas to have to move up
the period for filing to run for office. The resign-to-run rule in Texas
requires certain office holders to resign their position if they
announce a run for any office, other than the one they occupy, if there
is more than one year left on their term. Number ten moves the date back
to match the new filing schedule.
Many may be surprised at my opposition to
proposed amendment number ten. I’ve two reasons: First, we should have
moved our Primary Elections later, as such used to be, in order to meet
new Federal timeline challenges. Instead we moved the filing deadline
back to more than a year before the terms are up on offices, which is
ridiculous in my opinion. Second, it would be good to have an election
cycle where those on the public payroll can’t campaign on our dime for
higher office. And, if it didn’t pass it might open up many more local
courthouse offices to newcomers this time around .
Resources:
I hope this is all useful to you in helping make Texas
better.
Pratt
© 2011 Pratt on Texas
|
|
|
|||
|
90 second audio:
