Recommendations On The Constitutional PropositionsSubmitted by Empower Texans on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 12:01pm.
We encourage all Texans to participate in the constitutional election of November 3. Early voting beings Monday, with 11 propositions for voters to consider. The propositions cover a range of issues, including curbing eminent domain abuse and controlling Texas' property tax appraisal system. Other propositions fix errors that have crept into the constitution, allow for new debt, or provide the legislature with the authority to spend money. While tempting to dismiss the exercise as futile, participation in the shaping our state's constitution is critical. On at least three of the amendments -- 2, 3 and 5 -- there is significant misinformation being spread around the Internet. Bottomline, these three amendments are much-needed, if technical, property tax protections and reforms for Texas' taxpayers. There are a great many resources you can utilize in learning more about the amendments being proposed, including organizations such as the Free Market Foundation and the Texas Assocation of Business. The Secretary of State's office also has in-depth information on each propositions, including the legal analysis. What follows are our recommendations. Propositions to Support Stopping Eminent Domain Abuse Proposition 11 - Vote Yes! Background: The U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo v New London decision allowed local governmental entities to take private property for the purpose of economic development, unless the states’ constitutions contain a provision to the contrary. This amendment would add restrictions on the use of eminent domain in Texas, and prohibit legislators from weakening the restrictions without voter approval. Further, it would add important protections against eminent domain abuse by specifically stating the legitimate purposes for eminent domain. Finally, governmental entities taking land through eminent domain would required to use it for a definable public purpose.
Proposition 2 - Vote Yes! Background: When appraisal districts determines the value of property for tax purposes, the district can right now base it on what the property would be worth if it were used for a more valuable purpose. Therefore, many homeowners have seen appraisals rise substantially, not because the value of the homes increased, but because the land was deemed more valuable as a different use. Texas already prohibits agricultural land and timber land from being appraised based on other possible uses, but no similar protection exists for homeowners. (Video link) Proposition 3 - Vote Yes! Background: The state already sets the standards county appraisal districts must follow, but has no power to enforce those standards. This amendment would ensure that properties in different counties are appraised according to a uniform standard. Additionally, the appraisal districts would be subject to penalty if they violate the standards. Proposition 5 - Vote Yes! Background: Appraisal review boards resolve disputes between taxpayers and appraisal districts. This amendment would allow counties to combine their review boards to save taxpayer money and ensure there are qualified and willing candidates to sit on the review boards. Proposition 7 - Vote Yes! Background: Texas’ Constitution prohibits someone from being compensated for holding more than one civil office. The constitution specifically exempts officers in the United States military and those serving in the National Guard. This amendment would simply clarify/add the officers and enlisted members of the Texas State Guard and other state military forces to the military exemption. Propositions to Oppose Inappropriate Spending Proposition 4 - Vote No Background: Article by Dr. Ronald Trowbridge. Proposition 8 - Vote No Background: Would allow the legislature to spend state taxpayer dollars on what is a federal issue. Proposition 1 - Vote No Background: Would allow local entities to incur debt and raise property taxes in attempts to keep federal installations that may no longer be necessary to the military’s mission or performance. Possible Infringement On Property Rights Proposition 9 - Vote No Background: By stating that the public has a protected “right” of ingress to, and egress from, beaches, it opens the door to possible abuses to the rights of bordering property owners.
Proposition 6 Note: Veterans participating in the existing loan program have always made good on their payments, and have thus never left the taxpayers on the hook. However, the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the bonds issued. Proposition 10 Bookmark/Search this post with: |
Join Empower Texans Today!Most Recent Postings
|
Delicious
Digg
Technorati
I disagree with voting YES
I disagree with voting YES on #5 which would allow two adjoining counties to combine their appraisal review boards. Wouldn’t single county review boards be better? At least as long as we keep it to a single county you have a chance of having someone sympathetic to your case and should have an idea about local property values instead of an outsider.
Another problem is that they could combine a rural county with a more populous county and the review board members wouldn’t be familiar with the values in the rural county. This is just a mess looking to happen. I say vote NO on #5.
Jim
Disgree on Prop 3 and Prop 11
I disagree with your suggestion to vote YES on Prop 3 and Prop 11.
Prop 3: Enforcing uniform appraisal standards state-wide
The current constitution gives authority over property appraisal to the county where the tax is imposed. This keeps control of taxing methods at the local level. The Comptroller’s office already exerts significant influence over local appraisal standards through required training and through state funding (or removal of funding) depending on how local methods compare to state‐wide methods.
Additionally the legislature has not created laws to enable enforcement yet, so Proposition 3 would grant authority without definition of how that authority would be used. Lastly, I believe there are good reasons to have different methods of property appraisal depending on locality (e.g. urban vs. rural).
Prop 11: Restricting the use of eminent domain
This is tough one. I am very much in favor of restricting the use of eminent domain. That being said, there is already legislation that prevents the taking of private property for the use of economic development (SB7, 79th Legislature, 2nd calling). This legislation was enacted in response to Kelo v. City of New London in 2005.
Additionally, Prop 11 has very broad language that can lead to unintended interpretations by the courts. This type of new language is better tested through normal legislation where it can be modified if necessary. Only once the new law has been tested should it be proposed as a Constitutional Amendment.
- Brent
Prop 11
We all know that there are laws governing imminent domain, but (and this is gonna knock your socks off) the Trans Texas Corridor or NAFTA Corridor or I 69 Corridor whatever you want to call it was set to take property owners land and not reimburse them. I know it's hard to believe. I didn't believe it until I got to talking to people whose property this was going to directly affect. This highway system was to be three football fields wide and it was to have been owned by private business' and they were going to take the land and not remburse for it. Somehow...legally they were going to take the land I don't know the particulars. I think it was stopped. But I know this is why this ammendment is on the ballot. So everyone should support it and vote yes.
prop.11
Prop.11 is broadly written. Public use is poorly defined. Urban blight is poorly defined as well. Prop.11 will not stop the taking of property for a roadway or the I-69 Corridor... as roadways are considered public use. While Prop 11 may stop the transfer of property taken to a private developer if the primary reason is for economic development or tax enhancement... HOWEVER... it would NOT stop that same transfer if the primary reason is for say.... 'health & safety' ... or... for the 'public good'... even if just an incidental use by the public. The San Antonio TOLL PARTY founder even recommends a 'NO' vote and realizes Prop.11 is a counterfeit eminent domain bill.
Brent - the state
Brent - the state constitution begs to differ. For a very long time, the state constitution has explicitly forbidden different methods of appraising property. The problem is that there hasn't been a fair way to enforce the constitution. You really, really don't want what you think you want. The property tax is not some local, magic tax. It is allowed for and provided by the state constitution, therefore it is regulated and reformed by the state constitution. Otherwise, following your logic, your county should be allowed to triple your property appraisal because the county judge doesn't like you. That would be "local control" right?
PROPOSITION 11
Something needs to be done to prevent unscrupulous use of imminent domain. In the last 12 yrs in Texas, in the DFW area we have seen imminent domain invoked for private purposes. We have seen families disrupted, property destroyed all so someone can make a lot of money. I am speaking about 4 projects. First, the Supercollider, that took farms that had been in families for generations. They destroyed property by taking parcels of land from the front and side of people homes. Then everything collapses. This was a pork project of Phil Gramm who gave $10 million dollars of the taxpayers money to bribe the builders of the supercollider to come to Texas. Many people lost their homes and property needlessly. Second, Texas Motorspeedway. Imminent domain was invoked to build this noisy entity. Third, Grapevinemills Mall. Imminent domain was again invoked for profit. Last the most damning reason to not allow imminent domain except for government purposes is the building of the new Cowboy Stadium in Arlington. Not only was imminent domain used to take peoples homes, but the owner of the Dallas Cowboys was aided and abetted in this fiasco by the city of Arlington who are taxing the citizens of Arlington with a sales tax for this monster of Jerry Jones. Jerry Jones who has millions of dollars $$$ and whose players earn millions inside that stadium and who are the people that stand to gain the most, should have paid for the stadium. Why didn’t Jerry Jones pay for this? After all it is HIS stadium. The new Cowboy Stadium, is a place where only the extremely rich can afford to attend games. Is this anyone’s idea of an excellent use of imminent domain? This is criminal use of imminent domain and is part of the fleecing of the American taxpayer for millionaires like Jerry Jones. This kind of enterprising by multi-millionaires at the expense of the citizens has to be stopped !
Cowboys & Imminent doamin
this kind of abuse is what gives the Marxists the justification for their redistribution.... I agree it has to stop.......I've seen it in Houston and well the Texans they suck..... and so do we for paying for it AGAIN...!
Disagree on 3, 6 & 10
Prop 3 - Vote "NO"
-
Prop 6 - Vote "NO"
-
Prop 10 - Vote "NO"
Thank you for the analysis
Thank you for the analysis and recommendations. I was hoping for something like this from you, and you came through with exactly what I was looking for.
But what about...?
Prop 3, wouldn't that cause property owners in rural counties to be taxed at the same rate and using the same valuations as in urbanized counties?
Prop 5, wouldn't that lead to residents of all but one of the counties so consolidated to have to call long distance or drive to another county to answer questions & settle disputes?
The other yeses seem OK, although Prop 11 seems redundant, and do we really need to amend the constitution to prevent lawmakers from changing the existing legislation? Furthermore, the cited vagueness flaws this amendment from the get-go.
Anytime someone doesn't understand an amendment, the safest way to vote is "no", on the general principle that we've gotten along without it so far :)
--BeachComer
Prop 11
Mr. Sullivan,
What do you think? This was forwarded to me.
1. Proposition 11 will be the 'tool' the Legislators need in order to legally hand out eminent domain powers to private non-governmental utility providers without any repercussion from the voters.
2. Prop.11 doesn't tighten up eminent domain abuse, it will allow for utility providers to gain access to eminent domain powers. Currently, city owned utility providers have eminent domain powers... but other non-governmental utility providers do not.
3. Prop. 11 will give the Legislature the statutory authority (with a 2/3rds vote of both houses) to grant eminent domain powers to these non-governmental utility providers. The 2/3rds vote of both houses is merely a bone... as most bills signed by the Governor pass by larger margins. If Legislators didn't intend to grant eminent domain powers to private utility companies... why did Legislators insert it into HJR14??? Because it is their intent to grant non-governmental utility providers the power of eminent domain.
4. Prop. #11 enabling legislation, HJR14 was changed several times. It was substituted in its entirety (C.S.HJR14) by Rep. Homer. Didn't know Mark Homer was involved. Another reason to run a strong conservative against him! Legislators removed wording that would've required JUST or fair compensation being paid for land taken. The State is exempted from paying money up front when land is taken. Legislators are referred to as lawmakers... but these Legislators currently do not have the statutory authority to hand out eminent domain powers to private utility companies.
5. PROP. #11 will give them that legal authority. Do we really want more entities having the power to grab land or easements???
6. PROPOSITION #11 will be the catalyst for more 'takings' of private property. Land can still be taken by a governmental entity and given to a private developer in cases to eliminate urban blight. And urban blight has several meanings... it could mean that 5 acres or so of your homestead that refused to sell to developers that now has expensive condos surrounding it. I dropped my Farm Bureau membership as their eminent domain attorneys recommended supporting it... of course these same attorneys will see an increase in business resulting from passage of Prop. 11 and more entities gaining access to eminent domain powers. The Farm Bureau has paid 100's of $$$ to put up large billboards all over the state to vote yes on Prop 11. We don't have access to that kind of cash, but we do have the internet!
WE need to say "NO" to PROP.#11 and demand real reform with eminent domain.
Voters need to reject Proposition 11 and not settle for more entities gaining access
to eminent domain powers.
This information is bogus.
This information is bogus. The opposition to Prop 11 appears to either be coming from those who benefit from the post-Kelo eminent domain structure, or those who chose to be severely misinformed.
One might want to find monsters behind every bush, but that doesn't mean they are there. Any constitutional amendment or law is subject to abuse (see actions taken against the Second Amendment to the US Constitution!), which is why citizens must be actively engaged participants at all times.
prop.11
The info isn't bogus... it's real! Look at the introduced version of HJR14, then the engrossed version (different), then the final enrolled version (different yet again). Adding words that allows these Austin politicians to grant non-governmental private companies the abuse power of eminent domain. Deleting words such as 'JUST' compensation being paid when land is taken. 'Public use' is poorly defined... as is urban blight. It doesn't outright stop the transfer of property 'taken' to a private developer... because of weak wording of these politicians. By the way, part of our frontage wasw taken by a quasi-governmental entity created by the State to protect the natural resources of this State. And I do not want my local coops or local cable provider to gain access to these abusive powers as well and take more of our land. Oh... iand if you think these politicians are above reproach... look how they intentionally worded Prop. 10 to mislead voters into voting the way 'they' wnat you to. (Prop.10 applies to the lengthening of terms of these ESD Boards to 4 years... instead of the current 2 year terms. Politicians slipped the word 'ELECTED' into the ballot wording... knowing full well that the longer terms applied to both elected and appointed ESD Boards. But the people do not know that. The Office of the Secretary of the State confirmed that Prop. 10 would apply to both elected and appointed ESD Boards. Most ESD Boards are appointed, except in the Harris County area, the Panhandle area, and far West Texas... all others are APPOINTED. I do not know how you feel about taxation and representation... but it scares me that unelected ESD Boards, who levy laxes, could be in their unelected office for 4 long years. I do not believe there are monsters behind every bush... but I do believe that most politicians 'speak with forked tongue'!
Wrong.
Great response Michael. It's simply misinformation, regurgitated.
Prop 11
I don't see that Proposition 11 does anything to safeguard my property. Read HJR 14. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is traveling the state with Farm Bureau supporting this prop.
81R1666 PMO-D
By: Corte H.J.R. No. 14
A JOINT RESOLUTION
proposing a constitutional amendment to limit the public taking of private property.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 17, Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 17. (a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate and just compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is necessary for the possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the property by the public at large or by the State or a political subdivision of the State; and, when taken, except for the use of the State, such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities[,] shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.
(b) The State or a political subdivision of the State that takes, damages, or destroys property must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the contemplated use of the property is public and necessary at the time an attempt is made to take, damage, or destroy the property. Whether the contemplated use is in fact public and necessary shall be a judicial question.
SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 3, 2009. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment to limit the power of the state and political subdivisions to take property in certain circumstances where the use is public and necessary, which shall be a judicial question."
Yes, It Does.
It does absolutely protect your property. The government cannot take property unless it is to be used by the government. This is protecting your property from local officials taking your land and giving to a someone who will build something with higher tax revenues. This goes to protecting Texans from the abuses allowed by the Supreme Court in the Kelo v New London decision.
Prop 11
What means:
"except for the use of the State, such compensation shall be first made"
It sounds like if "the State" is taking my land, they can pay me later (when?), whereas every other entity has to pay up front. I don't get it.
Prop. 11
You're right... Prop.# 11 doesn't protect private property rights. And the Engrossed(as sent to the Senate) and Enrolled (final) version of HJR14 are even worse. Worded very broadly and many critical words went poorly defined.
A definite "NO" to Proposition #11.
Curious positions for a conservative
Prop 3 removes property appraisals from local control and authorizes the creation of a new state govt bureaucracy to mandate appraisal rules. it's a centralization of power which is the antithesis of conservative American political philosophy. Prop 3 deserves a NO vote.
Prop 9 places in the constitution a public right that has been settled in Texas common law since Spanish colonial times. It will cost not a dime and leaves the determination of private property vs. public beach in the 3 branches of stae govt where it has always been. If you dismiss settled common law I would advise you to reread your Edmund Burke. Prop 9 deserves a YES vote.
No, It's Not.
Taxpayer protection always wins.
On Prop 3. Counties are creations of the state; they are not fiefdoms. There is no new bureaucracy. The state already requires that county appraisal districts use uniform standards and practices in appraising property. This gives more power to taxpayers -- the ultimate in local control.
On Prop 9. Sorry, you are simply wrong. Private property rights are the foundation of our economy and liberty. Read your Locke!
Prop 11: "enjoyment of the property by the state"
Prop 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
This seems to pretty much say that if the "public at large" would "enjoy" or "use" my house, they are welcome to it.
I'm voting "No".
Most of this slate of amendments looks like a State power grab from the counties and localities.
Best regards,
Gail S
Prop 9
Prop 9 should be voted yes. There are hundreds of miles of beach that is not accessible by the common man. Beaches are by definition and law state owned, but if the public is not granted access then the law is for naught. Open up access to our beaches.
Prop 9
The beaches along Texas coasts belong to me and all other Texans and access to them should be a birthright. If you want to purchase property along our beaches you best be willing to slowly loose said property that the Gulf of Mexico acquires through storms, global warming, etc. through erosion.
Prop 8
Texas veterans are Texas citizens. Texas Veterans Commission has opened a number of Texas Veterans Homes and Cemeteries, for the benefit of our citizens. These often are located on land donated by the federal VA. The required
utilities are often not available, and so hinder the project
Austin Power and Light, Houston or Lubbock doesn't build capital improvements to service a Veteran's nursing home for free.
In any case, the federal VA is working itself out of the business of providing nursing and assisted living care for veterans, and is way behind on the available cemetery space for deceased veterans.
Existing federal VA medical facilities are old and often located in neighborhoods long since gone to seed. To build new facilities requires access, infrastructure like roads and sewers, water and gas,that are local responsibilities. the federal VA hasn't got the money to build new power lines or utility systems to support a new facility. VA is prohibited by law from building outside its own fences. If the State doesn't contribute to the development, there will be no development. Period.
VA routinely shares space and facilities with Texas Medical Universities, for teaching, research, practical factors experience, etc, at no charge to the state.
We're making new veterans every day, a lot of them young women. VA has no facilities for young women veterans with children, very few clinics for younger females at all, in fact.
We send those kids out there, to do what needs doing . . . we wave the little "We Support the Troops" banners - made in China - and stick the yellow magnetic ribbons - also made in China - on our cars. Do we support the troops, or not?
I work for the federal VA system in Facilities Planning and Construction and I am a Texas veteran. I see these problems
on a daily basis.
Constitutional Amendments
It is obvious, from the pros and cons, that none of these amendments are fully understood and should be defeated. None of the issues are dire in nature and requiring immediate passage. Let’s send it back to the legislature for clarification before we put our necks under the guillotine. Vote No on all porpositions.
May the "Loon's" in the
May the "Loon's" in the Republic of Texas, State House take a look at what is happening in DC! "WE" do NOT need ANY more TAX'S, for Anything. Right now I have to Pay more than 110% above my property tax's for "SCHOOL" TAX'S that do NOT stay in the County that I live in. At some Point the SCHOOL, by TAXING me will TAKE MY HOME for a TAX lean. This, in any way is a STATE TAX!! Call it what you want, but it is! Give me BACK MY $$$ MONEY$$$! The Texas Senate and House, is Faster than a Speeding Bullit, becomeing Just like the MARXES in DC! You might think about stoping Now befor you get there! It will not be pretty!
Constitutional amendments
This election is chock full of 'gimmee's' for real estate developers, builders, and tax boards, and scarce anything of benefit to Texans. One these amendments pass, they'll be part of the Texas constitution and virtually impossible to 'repeal' or 'roll back'. If any of these amendments were truly what they are being represented to be, legislators would have found a way to create legislative bills that would have 'stood on their own merits', rather than trying to incilcate 'stealth' attacks on citizens as part of our constitution. Given our present financial climate, we the people have the luxury of being able to say no to these amendments, and dare any municipal entity to screw ith us. If you're not sure about what an amendment means, it's because supporters of the amendment probably didn't want much scrutiny until they got it on the ballot. In Texas, it axiomatic that changes to our constitution invariably financially benefit political insiders, and end up costing Texas taxpayers a whole lot of money. We got changes aplenty coming in State elections and in Federal elections in 2010, let's not give these self serving politicians in Austin and Washington anymore power over our lives until we see what's what.
If it isn't broken, don't
If it isn't broken, don't fix it!
Vote no on all propositions.
very helpful!
very helpful!
Proposition 9 (Open beach)
It appears that proposition 9 re-inforces the Open Beach Law
which I totally agree with. Three years ago the city of Corpus Christi wanted to block off over a mile of beach front for the development of a private resort. The voters demanded an election (through a petition) and the city's proposal was defeated. It's everyone's beach!
testing ....
testing ....
Understanding
Very good resource and very good post! Everyone is sure to like search engine on torrent files , with its help you will manage to download anything you want in no time!
Con l'avvento del Web 2.0 la
Con l'avvento del Web 2.0 la comunicazione via internet con i nostri amici e parenti è diventata estremamente semplice, la messagistica istantanea è divenuta la vera e propria nuova frontiera della comunicazion...
Borrowers visit a payday
Borrowers visit a payday lending store and secure a small cash loan, with payment due in full at the borrower's next paycheck (usually a two week term). In the United States, finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of 15 to 30 percent of the amount for the two-week period.
What was the outcome of the
What was the outcome of the constitutional election with regards the property tax appraisal system