vrs
enthusiast
Posts: 2631
Loc: Allen, Texas
Reg: 04-20-00
|
10-29-11 01:55 PM - Post#141317
I put a general notice of election under Open Discussion, but thought this might be a better place for discussion of the amendments themselves.
Amendment #1 - Extend homestead tax exemption of a disabled veteran to the surviving spouse.
Yes. Just yes. If the surviving spouse remarries or moves, the exemption goes away. Yes. Just yes.
Amendment #2 - Renew authority for Texas Water Development Board bonds.
Guarded yes. This is very broad reaching authority - evergreen authority to back bonds up to 6 BILLION dollars. However, the bonds are used to fund loans to local political subdivisions for infrastructure improvements. Those loans (presumably?) are made with local bond authorization elections so the approval authority is pushed down to the local level. Local taxpayers get the money based on the TWDB's AAA rating rather than their own.
Bottom line is that the State of Texas Water Board is using its AAA credit rating to borrow money which it in turn lends to local entities for capital projects at a lower rate of interest than the local subdivision could get on its own.
The kicker here is of course the TWDB's ability to avoid making bad loans. Be-CAUSE this amendment is net zero to Texas taxpayers un-LESS Podunkerville defaults on the loan for its new water tower leaving the rest of us pick up the bill.
Amendment #3 - Renewing state bond authority to finance low-interest student loans.
Divided no. My mind could be changed if I saw data on collection rates and the "in field" employment success rate of persons graduating with degrees and technical certificates under the program that would indicate to me that the program is successful and self-funded as advertised.
Amendment #4 - Allowing counties to participate in certain tax financing zones.
No. The way these tax zones work (as I understand them) is that the political subdivision invests money in an "unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area" and, as a result, developers come in and make good use of the land.
Example might be an area that requires environmental remediation. Developers can't afford to do that on the strength of their own development plans. So the - County in this case - takes out a loan backed by the anticipated increased property tax revenue from the new development to do the remediation. Developers come in after that, build new stuff, life is good.
While there are places where this makes sense, I am unconvinced that these projects are adequately controlled. It is simple for a political subdivision to have local taxpayers underwrite development costs that a developer really should be paying on its own under this mechanism.
I would favor these if the re-development projects were subject to approval by local taxpayers but they aren't. So, no.
Amendment #5 - Allowing interlocal contracts by cities and counties without tax and sinking fund
Yes. Not all interlocal agreements constitute "debt" and they shouldn't be treated that way. This amendment may allow local entities to be more effective in sharing services.
Amendment #6 - Distribution from Permanent School Fund to Available School Fund
NO!
I can't figure out how to make this simple. So, rather than addressing the amendment directly, I'll say this. Public school finance in Texas is fundamentally broken. Rewriting the definition of what constitutes the corpus of the Permanent School Fund so that 6% of it is more money available to transfer to current expenses is a teeny tiny bandaid that won't fix the problem and may jeopardize the ability of the PSF to serve its real purpose in the future.
Austin needs to focus on fixing the problem quit trying to pry nickels and dimes out of the piggy bank. On this particular amendment, I am voting NO!
Amendment #7 - Authorizing El Paso County districts to issue bonds for parks and recreational facilities
Yes. I am trying to figure out why I am voting on this at all. It's not my business. However, a yes vote will kick the issue over to El Paso voters to decide - where it belongs.
Amendment #8 - Appraising open space land for water stewardship.
Yes, I guess. Opposition says this duplicates existing options but no one says it will cause hardship for landowners who already qualify. If it encourages conservation practices at all, then that would be a good thing.
Amendment #9 - Allowing pardon by the governor after successful deferred adjudication
No. But I could be persuaded. If a person is convicted of a crime they can apply for and get a pardon and have their record expunged but if they are granted deferred adjudication they can't. Wait, that's the "yes" argument. I don't think the records should be expunged in the case of a pardon - period. A pardon as I understand doesn't mean the person wasn't guilty - it means they were officially forgiven.
Amendment #10 - Lengthening period before County officials must resign to run for other office
Yes. It's just a 30 day change to reconcile with new filing deadlines.
Next time around I want to see an amendment requiring ALL elected officials to resign the minute they file for another office. For example, Rick Perry is no longer the governor of Texas - he is busy with his full time job of being a candidate for president. Politicians should not be able to hedge their bets like that.
Anyway, that's not on the ballot.
| Blessed be the cracked, for they let in the light. |
|
Dagwood
member
Posts: 83
Reg: 09-09-11
|
11-01-11 08:19 AM - Post#141427
In response to vrs
Your explanation of this was helpful. However, help clarify something for me. Amend 10, if the person resigns and runs for another office, they vacated the position they just resigned from thus allowing for a special election or the next person in the chain of command to fill it? What would happen?
|
vrs
enthusiast
Posts: 2631
Loc: Allen, Texas
Reg: 04-20-00
|
11-01-11 11:19 AM - Post#141460
In response to Dagwood
If I understand your question, it depends on the office.
In this case, if a person files for another office and one year or less remains in the term of office he currently holds then he does not have to resign to run.
If there is more than a year left, then he does have to resign his current position to run for a different one. Options for filling the position vary depending on the office in question and are spelled out in the government code.
I think the LWV explanation is as clear as I could make it, so I'll just quote a part of it here:
Under current law, if certain elected district or county office holders with more than one year left on their current terms announce for or become candidates for another office, they automatically resign from their current office. This “resign-to-run” provision was added to the Constitution in 1958 after the terms for certain officials were changed from two to four years. With a one-year unexpired term, it provided a window for elected officials to file for office by January 2 for an election within the same calendar year without resigning their offices.
Because Senate Bill 100 changed the filing deadline for offices from January 2 of the primary election year to the second Monday in December of the preceding year, the one-year unexpired term no longer allowed the same opportunity for office holders to continue in their current office while running for a new office. Proposition 10 would change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation from one year to one year and 30 days, thus preserving the original intent of the provision.
Lots of elected officials are people like the County Clerk - not legislative politicians - and they do this for a living so "resign to run" would represent real hardship.
Hope this helps!!
Quite a few views on this thread but so far no one stepping up to help me with #3 or #9. I am planning to vote on Thursday.....
| Blessed be the cracked, for they let in the light. |
|
Dagwood
member
Posts: 83
Reg: 09-09-11
|
11-03-11 07:31 AM - Post#141574
In response to vrs
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I believe I'll be voting today as well. If not, definitely tomorrow...
|
Dagwood
member
Posts: 83
Reg: 09-09-11
|
11-04-11 10:22 AM - Post#141693
In response to Dagwood
I found this in my search for who stands where on this election...
http://wetexans.com/propositions-voters-g uide-just...
|
|
