Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/3/2009 1:04:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 1:06:20 PM EST by machinisttx]
I actually didn't know anything about it until a few minutes ago when dad stopped by. Since I like to be educated on the ballot items, I'm looking at information about proposed changes via the ballot issues. This is the site I'm using, and the link on that page contains a summary of the amendments, etc..

If you haven't already checked it out, it's a good idea to do so. My list so far:

Amendment 1: No. AFAIK, nothing else gets the protection this amendment would provide and IMO, the government should have to deal with the same issues everyone else does. They certainly aren't going to protect your neighborhood gun range from it(encroachment), nor will they protect my rural area from being ruined by city dwelling idiots who want to live "in the country" but still five feet from the neighbors. If fedgov wants a buffer zone around the base, fedgov can buy it.

Amendment 2: Yes. If a property is used as a home, it should be taxed as such––not to the bullshit "highest and best use" that allows counties and/or municipalities to jack tax rates up to obscene levels.

Amendment 3: Yes. This should have been incorporated into the ballot issue in 1978.

Amendment 4: No. If the school is incapable of achieving it's goal without my tax dollars, it doesn't deserve them to begin with. Further, private business shouldn't be funded even the slightest bit with tax revenues.

Amendment 5: No definite opinion. It would seem to me that I'd rather have people from my own community deciding on appraisal values...reckon I'll leave this one blank.

Amendment 6: I need someone more educated than myself to break this down for me if my conclusion is incorrect. It appears that it would reduce the amount of money available to TX veterans for home/land loans/mortgages. I also read that it removes a requirement for the Veterans Land Board to seek new authority every four years from the TX legislature. I do not like either one of these changes(again, if I'm reading it correctly).

Amendment 7: Absolutely.

Amendment 8: We don't already do this?

Amendment 9: No, the end. Private property should not become public property based on the location of vegetation, nor does the "public" have any right to access property owned by a private party because of the above.

Amendment 10: No. Frequent elections are the means by which the public holds elected officials accountable.

Amendment 11: Yes. Eminent domain is a crock and anything that reduces the government's ability to use it is a good thing.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 1:21:46 PM EST
what about #11?

I'm torn. Supposedly there is state law addressing this, so an amendment would not be necessary...
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 1:24:36 PM EST
I'm leaving now to do that very thing.

Oh by the way i heard on the radio that they only expect 5% to vote in Tarrant county and 3% in Dallas county today.

I guess the few of us that excercise our right to vote will control most of the issues.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 1:25:15 PM EST
I accidentally hit the post button before I got #11 in. Here is some text from the pdf file at the page I linked to.

The proposed amendment would close a loophole that allows
governmental entities to take well-maintained land on grounds of “blight,”
claiming that the taking is necessary because surrounding parcels are
blighted, by allowing a government to condemn for blight only if the
parcel being condemned is itself blighted. In addition, local governments
would be unable to take large parcels of property and sell or lease them to
a private developer to build new developments with the intent of increasing
local tax revenues.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 1:34:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 1:48:46 PM EST
Waiting in line now. 50 people in line and only 2 damn machines for everyone to use. It would help if everyone would read the amendments first.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 2:40:01 PM EST
We fent and took my boy with us. There was a young woman with two kids leaving and another older guy inside when we got there. There were only maybe fifteen names on the list of voters.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 2:54:32 PM EST
Libertarians Take Positions on Proposed Constitutional Amendments
AUSTIN, TEXAS – October 28, 2009 – The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Texas met by teleconference last night to vote on formal positions for the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution on the ballot this Tuesday.

"The purpose of a Constitution is to limit the power of government, not find more ways to intrude further into our lives and wallets," said Texas Libertarian Chair Patrick Dixon.

Perhaps the most controversial of the proposed amendments was Proposition 11, regulating the use of eminent domain.

"On Prop 11 we had a lengthy debate. We realize the growing threat on private property rights and are hopeful for beneficial reforms, but we did not find consensus on whether Prop 11 provides desirable benefits."

###





Proposition 1

(HJR 132)



HJR 132 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow a municipality or a county to issue bonds and notes to finance the purchase of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to military installations. The buffer areas would be used to prevent encroachment or to construct roadways utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation. The municipality or county may pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues for repayment of the bonds or notes.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "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."



RECOMMENDATION: NO



RATIONALE: The measure would increase municipal or county spending and taxes.





Proposition 2

(HJR 36 - #1)



HJR 36 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide for the taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead, regardless of whether the property may have a higher value if it were used for other purposes.



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "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."



RECOMMENDATION: YES



RATIONALE: This amendment promotes property tax fairness. It provides that residences will be taxed on the basis of their actual use regardless of whether that is perceived to be the highest and best use of the property by government officials.





Proposition 3

(HJR 36-3)



This proposed constitutional amendment authorizes 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; authorizes the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations; and authorizes the legislature to provide for the administration and enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.



The Libertarian Party of Texas voted to not take a position on this proposed amendment.





Proposition 4

(HJR 14 - #2)



HJR 14 would amend the constitution to establish the national research university fund to provide a source of funding that will enable emerging research universities in this state to develop into major research universities. The amendment would require the legislature to dedicate state revenue to the fund and to transfer the balance of the existing higher education fund to the national research university fund. This amendment would further require the legislature to establish the criteria by which a state university may become eligible to receive and use distributions from the fund.



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "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."



RECOMMENDATION: NO



RATIONALE: This amendment allows the creation of another state government “slush” fund, providing further opportunities for corruption and misuse, and increasing state spending and taxes.





Proposition 5

(HJR 36-2)



HJR 36-2 is a 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; authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations; and authorizing the legislature to provide for the administration and enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "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."



The Libertarian Party of Texas voted to not take a position on this proposed amendment.







Proposition 6

(HJR 116)



HJR 116 would amend the constitution to authorize the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds, subject to certain constitutional limits, for the purpose of selling land and providing home or land mortgage loans to veterans of the state.



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans ’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."



RECOMMENDATION: NO



RATIONALE: The measure provides special land deals and loans for one class of citizen – the veteran – at the expense of higher taxes for all of the citizens of this state.





Proposition 7

(HJR 127)



HJR 127 would allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices. (Includes becoming a candidate and running for elected office.)



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "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."



RECOMMENDATION: YES



RATIONALE: All qualified residents of Texas should be allowed an equal opportunity to serve as an elected or appointed civil official.





Proposition 8

(HJR 7)



HJR 7 would amend the constitution to authorize the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans’ hospitals in this state.



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”



RECOMMENDATION: NO



RATIONALE: This measure will increase state expenses and ultimately state taxes, while providing special benefits for only a small group of citizens. Further, the obligation for national defense, including care for veterans, is a national one, not a state one.





Proposition 9

(HJR 102)



Currently, the Texas Natural Resources Code provides for the public's right to free and unrestricted access to state-owned beaches along the Gulf Coast. HJR 102 would make this state law a right listed in the Texas Constitution.



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "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."



The Libertarian Party of Texas voted to not take a position on this proposed amendment.





Proposition 10

(HJR 85)



H.J.R. 85 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to provide for members of a governing board of an emergency services district to serve terms not to exceed four years.



H.B. 2653, 80th Legislature, Regular Session, 2007, changed the governing body of an emergency service district in Harris County from an appointed board to an elected board. Under the current structure, board commissioner elections must be held every year in keeping with the staggered seat assignments for the district boards. There was discussion when H.B. 2653 was being debated about changing the terms of office for the boards from two-year terms to four-year terms. Under Section 30, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, the duration of all public terms of office is two years unless otherwise provided in the constitution. The district board commissioners currently serve two-year terms.



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."



RECOMMENDATION: NO



RATIONALE: The current system of one-year staggered elections provides for more public input on a serious local matter.





Proposition 11

(HJR 14-1)



HJR 14-1 seeks to prohibit eminent domain for private use, but the awkward wording grants eminent domain authority to un-named private entities authorized by the Texas Legislature.



The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "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."



The Libertarian Party of Texas could not reach a consensus on this proposed amendment
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 3:23:53 PM EST
I voted in Collin County about noon and it was pretty busy. SS
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 4:42:23 PM EST
early result here and it looks like everyone passed. did anyone even know what the hell they picking?

http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/nov09_147_state.htm
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 4:57:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
early result here and it looks like everyone passed. did anyone even know what the hell they picking?

http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/nov09_147_state.htm

Only 37% reporting.

I still have hope that we haven't been completely overrun...
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 5:00:54 PM EST
On 2nd look.... We are being overrun, how the flying Funyun bag did we let them (ultra-liberals) sneak in here?
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 5:07:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By machinisttx:
I actually didn't know anything about it until a few minutes ago when dad stopped by. Since I like to be educated on the ballot items, I'm looking at information about proposed changes via the ballot issues. This is the site I'm using, and the link on that page contains a summary of the amendments, etc..

If you haven't already checked it out, it's a good idea to do so. My list so far:

Amendment 1: No. AFAIK, nothing else gets the protection this amendment would provide and IMO, the government should have to deal with the same issues everyone else does. They certainly aren't going to protect your neighborhood gun range from it(encroachment), nor will they protect my rural area from being ruined by city dwelling idiots who want to live "in the country" but still five feet from the neighbors. If fedgov wants a buffer zone around the base, fedgov can buy it.

Amendment 2: Yes. If a property is used as a home, it should be taxed as such––not to the bullshit "highest and best use" that allows counties and/or municipalities to jack tax rates up to obscene levels.

Amendment 3: Yes. This should have been incorporated into the ballot issue in 1978.

Amendment 4: No. If the school is incapable of achieving it's goal without my tax dollars, it doesn't deserve them to begin with. Further, private business shouldn't be funded even the slightest bit with tax revenues.

Amendment 5: No definite opinion. It would seem to me that I'd rather have people from my own community deciding on appraisal values...reckon I'll leave this one blank.

Amendment 6: I need someone more educated than myself to break this down for me if my conclusion is incorrect. It appears that it would reduce the amount of money available to TX veterans for home/land loans/mortgages. I also read that it removes a requirement for the Veterans Land Board to seek new authority every four years from the TX legislature. I do not like either one of these changes(again, if I'm reading it correctly).

Amendment 7: Absolutely.

Amendment 8: We don't already do this?

Amendment 9: No, the end. Private property should not become public property based on the location of vegetation, nor does the "public" have any right to access property owned by a private party because of the above.

Amendment 10: No. Frequent elections are the means by which the public holds elected officials accountable.

Amendment 11: Yes. Eminent domain is a crock and anything that reduces the government's ability to use it is a good thing.

I agree with you except for Prop 5... I'm not a home owner as of yet, but I'm getting there, I would like it to be a fair shake for appraisals...

Link Posted: 11/3/2009 5:40:27 PM EST
geez...this is dismal......

My precinct has 2900 registered voters......68 showed......and they voted yes on everything but 5.



mm
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 5:52:54 PM EST
Voted. Went along with my Rep. Senator Dan Patrick. Cypress school board members were much harder.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:04:21 PM EST
6% turnout out of ~13million registered voters? that is surprisingly good, but still sucks in the grand scheme of people caring about their state.


Seriously, who the hell can vote yes on 8-10?
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:19:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:38:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By TheRocketmac:

Originally Posted By machinisttx:
I actually didn't know anything about it until a few minutes ago when dad stopped by. Since I like to be educated on the ballot items, I'm looking at information about proposed changes via the ballot issues. This is the site I'm using, and the link on that page contains a summary of the amendments, etc..

If you haven't already checked it out, it's a good idea to do so. My list so far:

Amendment 1: No. AFAIK, nothing else gets the protection this amendment would provide and IMO, the government should have to deal with the same issues everyone else does. They certainly aren't going to protect your neighborhood gun range from it(encroachment), nor will they protect my rural area from being ruined by city dwelling idiots who want to live "in the country" but still five feet from the neighbors. If fedgov wants a buffer zone around the base, fedgov can buy it.

Amendment 2: Yes. If a property is used as a home, it should be taxed as such––not to the bullshit "highest and best use" that allows counties and/or municipalities to jack tax rates up to obscene levels.

Amendment 3: Yes. This should have been incorporated into the ballot issue in 1978.

Amendment 4: No. If the school is incapable of achieving it's goal without my tax dollars, it doesn't deserve them to begin with. Further, private business shouldn't be funded even the slightest bit with tax revenues.

Amendment 5: No definite opinion. It would seem to me that I'd rather have people from my own community deciding on appraisal values...reckon I'll leave this one blank.

Amendment 6: I need someone more educated than myself to break this down for me if my conclusion is incorrect. It appears that it would reduce the amount of money available to TX veterans for home/land loans/mortgages. I also read that it removes a requirement for the Veterans Land Board to seek new authority every four years from the TX legislature. I do not like either one of these changes(again, if I'm reading it correctly).

Amendment 7: Absolutely.

Amendment 8: We don't already do this?

Amendment 9: No, the end. Private property should not become public property based on the location of vegetation, nor does the "public" have any right to access property owned by a private party because of the above.

Amendment 10: No. Frequent elections are the means by which the public holds elected officials accountable.

Amendment 11: Yes. Eminent domain is a crock and anything that reduces the government's ability to use it is a good thing.

I agree with you except for Prop 5... I'm not a home owner as of yet, but I'm getting there, I would like it to be a fair shake for appraisals...



If I read #5 correctly, the difference would be that if two counties wanted to have a single appraisal board, the state would have to allow it. That might work in your favor, but just as likely is that it won't. Grayson county borders collin county, and to be honest, I'd be in a boiling rage if my taxes went up because some jackass from collin co was on the appraisal board and decided property here was worth more than it really is.....just as an example.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 3:04:48 PM EST
couldn't agree w/ ya more on that one machinisttx. hell, I'm in Rockwall & they're high enough as it is...really don't want any more input!!

here's Rockwall County turnout
Reg Voters 44,576
Ballots Cast 3,681
Voter Turnout 8.26%

1 - no
2 - yes
3 - yes
4 - no
5 - yes
6 - yes
7 - yes
8 - yes
9 - yes (must be loads of those public land tree huggers in this county :) gov needs to be limited in everything! )
10 - yes (i can see where this one is a problem for this county...it's had the same Congressman for over 20yrs!!! Professional Politician!! Need some term limits applied.)
11 - yes
Top Top