How I’m voting on the constitutional amendments
#1
Authorizes local governments to buy open space near military bases as buffer zones. Just a minute. I thought the whole state was going nuts over giving government the power of eminent domain. This “open space” is private property. Why is it wrong to take property for private development (Prop 11) but OK to take property to prevent private development? It’s still taking private property. No.
#2
Authorizes the Legislature to require that residential property be appraised at its value as a homestead, not as its highest and best use. This is the worst proposal on the ballot. The most importance advance in state government in my lifetime was the Peveto bill requiring equal and uniform appraisal of property. You cannot have a rational school finance system without it. No, no, a thousand times no.
#3
The issue here is whether all appraisal districts should follow the same rules and procedures. This means taking away local control and allowing the Legislature to make the rules — effectively, a choice between the devil (imperious appraisal boards) and the deep blue sea. It’s hard to argue against requiring that all taxpayers get to play under the same rules. Yes.
#4
This is the Tier 1 amedment that establishes the National Research University Fund to help move more universities to flagship status. This is a huge step forward in funding higher ed. The problem is that the only university that even comes close at the present time (other than UT and A&M) is UT-Dallas, and it is a niche institution that specializes in science and engineering. No other university is even close. But it’s a start. Yes.
#5
The amendment would allow two or more counties to consolidate their appraisal processes. It’s hard to believe this can’t be accomplished by statute. This is as good a place as any to say that those who would throw out the Texas constitution because it requires a vote of the people on trifling amendments such as these are wrong-headed, IMO. There is a lot of wisdom in the constitution, especially in what it does NOT call for, like annual sessions and a professional Legislature and a cabinet form of government. Let’s not open the Pandora’s Box of adopting a “modern” constitution. No recommendation.
#6
This authorizes the Veteran’s Land Board to recycle payments from a program to provide home loans to vets. Again, this is the kind of amendment that draws criticism from those who think that it is silly to have the people authorize the issuance of debt. I disagree. The Legislature authorized $9B worth of debt in 2007. That is a lot of debt. I think the voters ought to have a say when the Legislature tries to make an end run around the pay-as-you-go system. Yes.
#7
The constitution prohibits individuals from holding two civil offices at the same time, with certain exceptions. This would add an exception for members of the Texas State Guard. I see no reason why people whose service to the state may put them in harm’s way should not have the opportunity to hold a paying position in state government. Yes.
#8
The amendment would allow the state to contribute to the establishment of veterans’ hospitals. Readers may remember that this proposal was offered by Kino Flores to assure the completion of a new VA hospital in the Valley and led to a major flap on the floor. This is not pork. There are a lot of veterans in the Valley and they currently have to go to San Antonio to be served. Yes.
#9
The amendment recognizes an easement for the public to have access to the state’s beaches. The Open Beaches Act establishes a rebuttable presumption of this public right, and the Texas Supreme Court has upheld it. The reason for this amendment is the Wayne Christian situation. If the beach is eroded by storms, and homes are destroyed, and landowners try to rebuild on a beach that has retreated inland, the public easement could be wiped out. Before you feel too sorry for Wayne Christian, you should know that every purchaser of coastal property is informed that the beaches are subject to erosion and to the provisions of the Open Beaches Act. The worst case scenario is that the area between the vegetation line and the low tide line could be covered with homes. Yes.
#10
The amendment would allow board members of emergency service districts to serve fo ur-year terms. The triviality of this amendment tests my loyalty to the text of the constitution. No, for wasting my time.
#11
This is the eminent domain amendment. I have no problem with the requirement that a taking must be for the use and benefit of the public, not to enable private development. But I do have a problem with the requirement that after 2010, the Legislature can authorize the use of eminent domain only by a 2/3 vote. Supermajorities are a bad idea. We have representative government. Don’t tie the hands of the Legislature in future years.
Cougar Booster says:
Looks to me like Univ of Houston is actually closest to tier-one status:
How close are the emerging schools to tier-one
status?
A standard measure of research status is the amount of
expenditures for research and development in science and
engineering fields, particularly federal grants. In 2006, the
most recent year for which data is available, Texas A&M
had $493 million in research grants (of which $206
million was from federal sources) and UT-Austin had $431
million ($273 million federal). To receive distributions
from the National Research University Fund an emerging
institution would have to spend at least $45 million in
“restricted research funds.”
Among the emerging institutions are:
• University of Houston – University Park had $76
million in research expenditures ($39 million
federal);
• Texas Tech, $59 million ($22 million federal);
• UT – Dallas, $44 million ($20 million federal);
• UT – El Paso, $32 million ($19 million federal);
• UT – San Antonio, $30 million ($20 million
federal);
• UT – Arlington, $29 million ($19 million
federal); and
• University of North Texas, $15 million ($8
million federal).
Another criterion for distribution from the National
Research University Fund standard measure is the award
of at least 200 Ph.D. degrees annually. UT – Austin
presented 779 doctoral degrees in 2007 and Texas A&M
gave out 598. Among the emerging schools, University of
Houston presented 239; University of North Texas 196;
Texas Tech 192; UT – Dallas 133; UT – Arlington 124;
UT – San Antonio 46; UT – El Paso 39.
The Fund will also consider the quality of an institution’s
faculty, including membership in national academies. UTAustin
has 59 academy members and Texas A&M has 16.
Among the emerging schools, the University of Houston
has eight members, UT-Dallas has two, and Texas Tech
has one.
http://www.cppp.org/files/2/415_TierOne.pdf
Reply »
Carter Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Standard UT responce to help them retain ALL of the funding.
Reply »
texun Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 am
An exceptionally useful response. U of H is probably the best candidate, in part because it is not part of the UT System. If you look at the history of UT Dallas you will note that it was founded as a research-oriented institution, complete with a Nobel laureate. Over the years, the Regents and System were careful to keep it from competing with UT Austin, a rational policy though one that stunted UTD. I assume that the unspoken non-compete policy would remain in force even if UTD were selected as the candidate for advancement. U of H is the best bet.
Reply »
paulburka says:
This is first-rate information. Even without it, I would have said that U of H is closest to tier-one status. The problem at U of H is admissions standards. UT Dallas is much more rigorous.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Paul, admission standards? That’s a small thing when you consider they can easily be changed. UH clearly has the others covered.
Reply »
Stevie F. says:
Let me go against the tide and say I’ve got reservations about #4. I think it’s appealing to talk about creating more “leading” universities. However, we’ve been driving up tuition while neglecting the schools that do most of the teaching in this state. It’s too easy to pass an amendment promising to fund a few top schools when the state doesn’t have a viable plan for providing affordable higher education for most Texas student.
Reply »
Rog says:
There is a story out there about why number 7 is a bad idea. Some members of the Texas legislature have been made officers in the Texas guard, which is under the direction of the legislature, and have enjoyed significant pay increases in their pay as guardsmen. Doesn’t smell good.
Reply »
Proud Javelina Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
What about all the congressment that are member of the Army Reserves or Navy Reserves? Should they also not be allowed to serve because they control the Army’s budget? Think about what you’re saying here.
Reply »
John Otto says:
Paul, This does not destroy fair and equal. It requires “residence homesteads” to be valued fairly and equally as a residence. Everyone seems to make the assumption that if “highest and best use” is used to value a homeowner’s lot value then that homeowner has numerous offers for his residence at commercial real estate values, or could easily put it on the market for that. That just isn’t so. What is happening is someone unlucky enough to be close to a commercial area can have their lot value affected by commercial land values in the area. What is being done under the “highest and best use” is creating unequal appraisals amongst homeowners and is resulting in condemnation by valuation. Prop 2 only benefits “residential homesteads”, where someone actually lives and claims his homestead. So your answer to the gentleman who tesitified before my select committee about his residential lot going from $30,000 in 2007 to $300,000 in 2008 (oh, and his home was dropped from $120,000 to $60,000 that sounds fair doesn’t it?) is sell your property for the windfall because if the appraisal district says it’s worth that under highest and best use, it MUST be so. How would you like to make his argument before the appraisal review board regarding highest and best use?
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 am
I voted YES on 2 for the reasons that others have given. My taxes shouldn’t be increased even though it is in a location that “would potentially” be a good business location. It is a homestead with 2 1/2 large lots. If it were bought and made into a commercial area, or I opened a business I could understand a tax increase.
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
#2 MUST PASS! Otherwise appraisal districts can continue to take the amount of money needed to feed the bloated bureaucracys and divide it by the property on the rolls and call it a day. The “highest and best use” could mean your property is valued like the ground floor of a skyscraper while your 70 year old HOME is falling apart. YES ON 2!!!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 am
On the other hand, why should others pick up the tab for you, when your property is worth more than theirs? It’s one of the inherent problems with a property tax based system…and fairness isn’t exclusively on either side…it’s just a choice.
Reply »
John says:
Paul, I have to disagree with you on #1. While I DO support #11, #1 is not the same thing. This is allowing for the purchase of the land, not the seizure of the land through eminent domain. There is a big difference here.
Reply »
Someone who understands the Constitution Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
The government can’t take land without paying for it, regardless of its use. Whether they take it for a military base or economic development does not matter, they will still pay “fair market value”.
Also if you read proposition 11 closely, it does very little to limit the ability of the government to take private property under eminent domain. It was akin to a giant publicity stunt, The Alamo included.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:04 am
Re #1, in John’s letter, why do cities and counties need a constitutional amendment to be allowed to purchase land? If you have a willing buyer and willing seller, just buy the land. The hardest thing to understand about this group of propositions is why they needed to be constitutional amendments.
Reply »
Chris H says:
Re: #7
I understand it’s going to pass because I’ve seen no Texan blink twice at it. However, it continues to undermine the principle of Art 1 Sec 24 of the TX Constitution. While the ship has left a long time ago as this is a “house-cleaing” amendment, it bears repeating.
“The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.”
How exactly can the military remain subordinate to a civil authority when military members are of that civil authority?
Reply »
Proud Javelina Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 am
Are you proposing that all civil officials in the State of Texas – whether they be congressmen, state reps, county judges or school board members – not be allowed to serve their state or country? That seems a bit drastic to me.
Reply »
Chris H says:
Representative Otto,
I agree with your post regarding Prop 2. Another way you might suggest keeping the appraisal boards in line is to make the appraisal value a firm offer by the appraisal board.
If they want to value that 60k lot @ 300k, allow the homeowner to sell it to the appraisal board for 300k.
Reply »
Allmaya says:
Uh, Paul, except for #10, you come down exactly the same as the Austin Chronicle.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Good for the Chronicle. I applaud their insight.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 am
Paul, you also came down the same as the BOR endorsements we made Oct. 23 — we even gave an “n/a” for #10:
http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9527/endorsements-2009-constitutional-amendment-elections
The only exception was number three — though we weren’t that far off. The only reason we said “no” was that that, while it could (and we recognized the possibility) allow everyone to play under the same rules, we’d like to know what those rules were, first, before we gave the Legislature control of that process.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
What are the predictions for how the vote goes? All of them are likely to pass aren’t they?
Reply »
colin says:
Paul,
You say, “But I do have a problem with the requirement that after 2010, the Legislature can authorize the use of eminent domain only by a 2/3 vote. Supermajorities are a bad idea. We have representative government.”
How does this square with your support for the 2/3rds rule in the Texas Senate? I ask as someone who agrees that it often prevents some really bad legislation from being passed. It’s also worth noting that we now have a de-facto super majority rule in the U.S Senate. Perhaps you’ve addressed this apparent philosophical disparity in a previous post.
Reply »
MonkeyMan Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Colin, there’s a distinction between a procedural rule that applies to all legislation and establishing a supermajority requirement based upon the subject matter of the legislation. I agree with Paul that the latter is a bad idea.
Reply »
bde says:
Paul,
The Texas State Guard is not the Texas National Guard. Any office holder is more than free to join the Texas Air or Army National Guard and be subject to real dangers. The Texas State Guard is people who make up thier rank and uniforms and volunteer. It may make them feel like thier special but they certaintly do not go into “harm’s way.”
Reply »
Proud Javelina Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Just FYI – the Texas State Guard is technically defined as National Guard Reserves by the Pentagon. Furthermore, last year Texas State Guard members volunteered more than 42,000 working days in support of state and local authorities responding to hurricanes, wild fires, etc. It’s not about “harm’s way” – it’s about emergency response.
Reply »
Rog says:
And members of the legislature, who set the pay rates for the Texas State Guard, are being invited to join, and thus raise their own pay.
Reply »
bde says:
Texas State Guard members do not get paid. However, they do get to wear a madeup uniform with a fabricated rank and go around calling themselves “major this” and “commander that” when it means nothing. If they want to play soldier they should go out on halloween or joing the armed forces.
Reply »
TXAirGuardNCO says:
Ok, as far as the comments on the Texas State Guard(TSG), let me address a few items. The State Guard is an auxillary force used in times of natural disater or other emergency. They can also be used to supplement Texas Army and Air National Guard units (ie, a unit is called to active duty and/or deployed outside the state, the TSG can fill critical postions for continuity at the Army/Air guard installation). Memebers of the TSG get paid $123 per day, regardless of rank, when on duty. As far as the uniform goes, it is the same as the Army/Army guard, except for the Maritime forces, which wear the uniform of the USMC, the only differences are the insignia/markings. peolpe join the TSG because they want to serve, not b/c they “want to play soldier”. These individuals do alot of the same work that full time National Guard members, except that the don’t get paid the same or the same benefits, to diparage their service is sad. Many of these folks have already served their county/state and want to continue serving in times of need.
Curent Ops of the TSG:
Department of Defense Interface Communications Exercise (DICE)
Operation Border Star I, II, III, IV, & V
Oral Rabies Vaccination Program
Support to State Operations Center (SOC)
Support to Texas National Guard
Support to Texas Air National Guard
Support to TXMF Muster Day
Military Ceremonies & Funeral Support
Community Service Support
Other support ops:
Hurricane Ike (2008)
Hurricane Gustav (2008)
Hurricane Dolly (2008)
Hurricane Dean (2007)
Lake Leon Flood (2007)
Marble Falls Flood (2007)
Operation Wrangler (2006)
Hurricane Rita (2005)
Hurricane Katrina (2005)
Hurricane Ivan (2005)
Space Shuttle Debris Recovery, Weatherford (2003)
Reply »