|
This article presents the pro, and cons of the
November 3rd Constitutional Amendment Election.
PROPOSITION 1: “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the financing, including through tax
increment financing, of the acquisition by
municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open
spaces adjacent to a military installation for the
prevention of encroachment or for the construction
of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to
protect or promote the mission of the military
installation.”
PRO
– Proposition 1 would allow cities and counties to
help shield military installations in their area
from encroachment by development. The military
installations need protection from encroachment to
ensure the safety and security of an installation’s
operations and training.
CON
– Allowing cities and counties to build
infrastructure under the broad justification of
protecting or promoting the mission of a military
installation could lead to higher property taxes at
a time when property owners are already feeling an
economic burden. Proposition 1 could also allow
cities to infringe on private property rights.
PROPOSITION 2: “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad
valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on
the basis of the property’s value as a residence
homestead.”
PRO
– Would provide an important check on property tax
appraisal hikes. The proposition eliminates the
current standard of property appraisal where
residence homesteads are valued based on their
“highest and best use,” allowing for excessive
property taxation. According to the House Select
Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal
Reform, “appraisal values increased by 200-400% in
one year as a result of the highest and best use
standard.” By passing Proposition 2, residence
homesteads will be appraised based strictly on their
value as a residence homestead, rather than their
value if they were put to their highest and best
commercial use.
CON
– According to the Legislative Budget Board,
“allowing homestead residential property to be
valued based solely on its residential use and
exempted from a highest and best use valuation could
reduce taxable property values and thereby reduce
local tax revenue.”
PROPOSITION 3: “The constitutional amendment
providing for uniform standards and procedures for
the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax
purposes.”
PRO
– Ensures property appraisals for property tax
purposes are done in a consistent manner and are not
subject to bias or manipulation. Every Texan’s
property appraisal will be conducted in the same
manner and evaluated by the same methods allowing
for fair, across the board appraisals.
PRO
– Would remove local control from appraisers and
local officials.
PROPOSITION 4: “The constitutional amendment
establishing the national research university fund
to enable emerging research universities in this
state to achieve national prominence as major
research universities and transferring the balance
of the higher education fund to the national
research university fund.”
PRO
– Will help more Texas Universities reach
nationally-recognized “tier-one” research status.
Texas, the second most populous state in the nation,
only has three “tier one” universities whereas New
York and California have nine and seven
respectively. The fund creates incentives for the
emerging research universities to qualify for state
assistance from the national research university
fund. One incentive will provide matching grants
based on the amount of donations from private
sources; another provides funding incentives based
on a point system to reward universities that meet
critical benchmarks toward achieving national
prominence as major research universities.
CON
– The state of the economy and the likelihood of a
deficit in 2011 make this the wrong time to increase
spending on higher education.
PROPOSITION 5: “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the legislature to authorize a single
board of equalization for two or more adjoining
appraisal entities that elect to provide for
consolidated equalizations.
PRO
– Rural counties often have a limited pool of
qualified and willing candidates to serve on
appraisal review boards. Proposition 5 would allow
counties to form consolidated, shared boards of
equalization, allowing those counties to benefit
from shared talent and higher quality appraisal
review boards. According to the House Select
Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal
Reform the proposition “would expand the pool of
qualified people to serve on the boards.”
CON
– According to the House Research Organization, “the
proposition does not go far enough in allowing
opportunities for appraisal districts to combine
their efforts. Many rural counties have a difficult
time staffing all levels and aspects of their
central appraisal districts. The Legislature should
allow and encourage these districts to consolidate
functions by interlocal agreements. If the counties
see benefits and want to form these agreements, the
state should let them.”
PROPOSITION 6: “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue
general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less
than amounts previously authorized.”
PRO
– The purpose of the proposition is to grant ongoing
bonding authority to the Veterans’ Land Board in the
Texas constitution so that the Board does not need
to repeatedly seek legislative reauthorization. As
the amounts are equal to or less than the amounts
authorized in previous years, the Legislative Budget
Board indicates that the change is not expected to
have noteworthy financial implications for the
state.
PRO
– No apparent opposition.
PROPOSITION 7: “The constitutional amendment to
allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas
State Guard or other state militia or military force
to hold other civil offices.”
PRO
– Would correct an oversight in the Texas
Constitution by adding officers and enlisted members
of the Texas State Guard and other Texas military
forces to the list of offices civil officials could
hold. Many civil officials are active or would like
to become active in the Texas State Guard or other
Texas military forces. Proposition 7 clarifies that
these civil officials are allowed to hold elected
office while serving in the Texas State Guard or
other military forces.
CON
– No apparent opposition.
PROPOSITION 8: “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the state to contribute money, property,
and other resources for the establishment,
maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in
this state.”
PRO
– Veterans have given a great deal of themselves to
the benefit of the United States of America and the
State of Texas. Proposition 8 would allow the state
to contribute to the overall health and well-being
of veterans who have served to protect our freedoms
and liberties.
CON
– Would allow the state to duplicate a service that
is and should continue to be provided by the federal
government. To whatever extent that the federal
government is providing insufficient health care to
veterans, that problem should be redressed at the
federal, rather than state level.
PROPOSITION 9: “The constitutional amendment to
protect the right of the public, individually and
collectively, to access and use the public beaches
bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”
PRO
– Strengthens the 1959 Open Beaches Act by putting
it in the Texas Constitution. Beaches have long been
protected as public property, and developers should
not be able to build properties along the beach and
restrict the public’s right to access. Proposition 9
would strengthen the existing protections of the
easements the public has used to access the beach.
CON
– Locks into the Constitution a statute that is an
affront to private property rights. The Open Beaches
Act already provides too much authority to the state
to restrict the right of private landowners to enjoy
their property, and placing this authority in the
Constitution would only compound the problem by
making the law much more difficult to change in the
future.
PROPOSITION 10: “The constitutional amendment to
provide that elected members of the governing boards
of emergency services districts may serve terms not
to exceed four years.”
PRO
– Authorizing the Legislature to increase the
maximum term for emergency services district board
members from two years to four years, would promote
stability and continuity on Emergency Service
District boards and allow board members more time to
acquire experience and provide emergency services to
their communities.
CON
– Would diminish public oversight over the members
of the governing boards of emergency services
districts. Emergency service districts have great
powers and responsibilities, including the authority
to levy taxes. The power to tax should come only
with the condition of accountability through direct
election by voters every two years, just as with
members of the Texas House of Representatives.
Voters should be able to exercise the same level of
local control over board members of emergency
services districts as they currently do with other
elected officials.
PROPOSITION 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.”
PRO
– Will provide key protections against abuses of the
power of eminent domain by more narrowly and
specifically defining the term “public use” as it
applies to eminent domain in the Texas constitution.
The proposition will specifically preclude the
taking of private property for economic development
or increased tax revenue that would result from the
change in use of the property.
CON
– Introducing vague language of “possession,
occupation, and enjoyment” into the Constitution
could give rise to a wide range of possible court
interpretations. It would undermine decades of
judicial precedent in the area of the law and
introduce uncertainty that could cost taxpayer
dollars in the future.
Source: Texas Conservative Coalition |