Election day in the Constitutional Amendment election is Tuesday November 5. Polls will be open from 7am to 7pm. On election day, you must vote at the polling location designated for the area in which you live. Also, precincts have been consolidated due to low expected turn out, so do not assume you know where you need to go. You may look up what voting precinct you are in, where that precinct votes, and your sample ballot at the county’'s web site: www.bastropvotes.org. Also, you will be required to present photo ID when you go to vote.
We have nine amendments to vote on, plus some residents of Bastrop County will have a local ESD annexation issue to consider. These issues will require study before you go to the polls. Your ballot will not supply you with enough information from which to educate your vote. Albert’'s rules of Constitutional Amendment elections are as follows:
1. If you don’'t know, vote No. They are asking to change your state Constitution.
2. Take the time, though, to make sure you know. They require study. It is costly to bring these issues to the voters for consideration, and it requires a 2/3 majority vote of our House and Senate. So these issues all enjoyed wide-spread support. That doesn'’t necessarily mean you should vote for them, but it does mean they are worthy of your attention.
Understand that conservatives will disagree on whether or not to support a given amendment. That is fair. There is no “right” answer. Study the issues and arguments, and use your best judgment. Following are some links to some further information and explanation on the amendments:
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/Constitutional_Amendments/amendments83_HRO_2013-11-05.pdf
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/Constitutional_Amendments/83_tlc_2013-11-05.pdf
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/Constitutional_Amendments/83_tlc_2013-11-05.pdf
You will likely find that information helpful. In the comments below, I will explain my vote, and perhaps you will find that useful.
----
Proposition 1 - homestead tax exemption for the surviving spouse of a veteran killed in action
I will vote for this amendment for the obvious purpose of supporting our fallen veterans’ surviving spouse. Those conservatives who oppose this do so from a perspective of uniformity of taxation. If we start carving out growing exceptions to taxation, then the rest of us must shoulder that burden. In this case, I’'m OK with that.
Proposition 2 - Repeal State Medical Education Board and Fund
I will vote for this. This is a housekeeping amendment designed to repeal the existence of a board and fund that are no longer in use and whose duties have been delegated elsewhere.
Proposition 3 - Longer tax exemption for airplane parts
I will vote against this one. Texas has a tax on inventory that businesses hold. Currently, there is an exemption for airplane parts held in the state for 175 days or less. Such parts that are temporarily held within that time period are not taxed. This amendment would increase the potential exemption period for up to 720 days (2 years). But it is up to local taxing authorities to make the financial decision of whether to extend the period. So if we approve this, nothing changes unless your local taxing authority takes advantage of it.
Apparently this would help the airline/aerospace industry because they must keep replacement parts close at hand for repairs, but may not need them for some time. If businesses keep them out-of-state to avoid the tax, that makes them less able to get a part immediately when needed. The proponents seek to keep Texas competitive in this industry.
I oppose the amendment because I would prefer the inventory tax to be completely done away with rather that preferential treatment being given to cherry-picked industries. If Texas wants to compete, and no one around us has a similar inventory tax, then we need to get rid of it. Being rid of it entirely would help the big and the little alike. If the big boys get individual exemptions, there will likely never be political pressure sufficient to help the little guy, too. I’'m sympathetic to the airline industry'’s plight, but would like a different solution.
Proposition 4 - homestead tax exemption for disabled veterans who receive their home from a charity
I am for this, again to help the disable veteran. In a prior election, we exempted totally disabled veterans from homestead taxes, but apparently this is a loophole that has since been discovered. The amendment is designed to close the loophole and ensure all totally disabled veterans get the intended exemption.
Proposition 5 - reverse mortgages to purchase homes
I oppose this one. Currently, you may take out a reverse mortgage on your home, but not to purchase the home. This seeks to fix that, allowing you to purchase your home with a reverse mortgage. Those who want a reverse mortgage must have two transactions - a purchase mortgage, and then a reverse mortgage. Proponents say this would reduce closing costs by allowing a buyer to purchase a home with a reverse mortgage in one transaction instead of two.
I oppose it as a further erosion of the homestead protection. Texas is a debtor-friendly state, and has made the policy decision from our inception that a person's homestead cannot be taken for the payment of their debts. The public benefit is a more stable society and more wary lenders. I believe in that public policy, even though it is against my business interest as a debt-collecting attorney. The only three exceptions I can think of were for a purchase money loan, a mechanic’'s lien (for unpaid improvements to the property) or for a tax lien. Once upon a time, those were the only debts for which a creditor could seize your home.
Some years ago, by Constitutional Amendment, Texans eroded the homestead protection somewhat by allowing home-equity loans and reverse mortgages. That allowed a consumer to access their equity, but it also put their homes at risk of seizure if they defaulted on those loans. I opposed those measures back then, and oppose this one as a further erosion of the homestead protection. Also the reverse mortgage often works out that the homes of senior citizens go to the lending bank when they pass away. I question whether complicated loan deals that result in the bank owning the major assets of the elderly are necessarily in the consumer’'s best interest.
Conservatives usually view this much differently than I. They usually regard expanding financial options a good thing, and rely on personal responsibility/buyer beware to answer the kind of concerns I raise above.
Proposition 6 - Remove $2 billion from Rainy Day Fund to finance water infrastructure projects
Putting "Rainy Day Fund" and "water" in the same sentence is a grand way to stir controversy, and this amendment hasn't disappointed. I oppose this one, but for reasons all my own. I support expanding Texas’ water infrastructure to help meet expected demand. We need to increase our capacity to capture surplus surface water during seasons of surplus supply, and we need to better utilize ground water within a given aquifer’'s recharge rate. Conservation, innovation also need not be neglected. We live on a planet whose surface is 2/3 water, renewable in a naturally occurring (code for God-created) water cycle, and yet we act like we are without resource or options. But this proposition is about financing, not water projects.
The State Water Plan is already set; Prop 6 doesn’'t affect that. Texas is divided into 16 water regions. Every 5 years since 1961, those 16 regions look at their territory and project what their water needs will grow to in 50 years. They are then tasked with coming up with infrastructure proposals that will meet that demand by the time it is realized. That information becomes a region’'s regional water plan. All 16 plans are submitted to the State Water Development Board (TWDB), who then compiles those 16 plans, sets statewide priorities based on those 16 plans, and publishes the State Water Plan. Our regional districts prepared their most recent regional plans in 2010/2011, and in 2012 the TWDB published the current State Water Plan. Voting for or against Prop 6 will therefore not change what is in the 2012 State Water Plan. It is what it is, and it isn'’t going to change by this vote. (I note that all the debate I have heard decrying water projects curiously do not cite the State Water Plan. I cannot tell whether any of the fears you hear discussed in our community are factually based on actual proposals in the State Water Plan. For instance, after having spent a fair amount of time pouring over the State Water Plan, I have been unable to find any proposed water pipeline from Bastrop County to anywhere. If you have found it, please let me know. I’'m still looking.)
Prop 6 does not pay for water projects. Local governments (and therefore their taxpayers) are responsible for the cost of building their own water infrastructure. Prop 6 merely proposes to make money available for local governments to borrow from when building their project. This is but one option for local governments. They will also have all their routine borrowing sources available. If we vote Prop 6 down, local governments may proceed on their water projects using other financing options. If we approve Prop 6, the $2b will be used to loan money to local governments to build the water projects they proposed. I believe to be eligible to get a loan from this money, your local government must apply for the loan, and the project they want to finance must have been included in the regional plan, have made it into the State plan, and be of sufficient priority in that plan to warrant financing it now. So this is merely a financing option.
Prop 6 provides a cheaper financing option that what we approved 2 years ago. In 2011, Texans approved giving the TWDB continuing authority to borrow up to $6 billion as a pool of money to loan to local governments for the building of their water projects. There is a rumor going around that the $6 billion is completely unspent (so why ask for $2 billion more now?), but it appears to me the rumor is false, at least partly, if not totally. I re-read the State information packet that was published on that proposition back when it was under consideration. It said that $1.1 billion was already outstanding in loans, and that by approving a $6 billion cap, we were adding only an additional $4.9 billion on top of what was already loaned. So at the time the $6 billion amendment was passed, $1.1 billion of that $6 billion was already loaned out. We would also have to believe that not a single loan application for water projects has been approved in the intervening two years. That seems to me unlikely, so I tend to view that as a likely untrue rumor unless someone is willing to quote an authority on that. So what we approved two years ago was authority to borrow money, that we would then loan. Prop 6 proposes to take money already in our pocket, and use it to make loans. Obviously we can loan money we already have cheaper than money we have to borrow to get.
To me, the central policy question of Prop 6 is: is this an appropriate use of Rainy Day Funds? I believe it is not, and that'’s why I oppose Prop 6. Rainy Day Fund is our emergency fund. Financing of long-range planning infrastructure projects is not an emergency. We recently and correctly refused to spend Rainy Day Funds to supplement a short-term budget when tax revenue was down. The argument was that Rain Day Funds are not for planned expenses (like a budget), instead its your contingency funds for what you couldn’'t plan on. Proponents argue that Rainy Day Fund is expected to grow (with oil/gas taxes designated to it) at a rate sufficient that we won'’t need or miss these funds. If that is so, we should lower the tax rate. I have heard a rumor that if we withdrew the $2b today, Rainy Day Fund would drop below the minimum required to maintain our current credit rating. I have heard that the rumored counter-argument is that Rainy Day is expected to grow at a rate that will outpace the withdrawals so that we will not in fact jeopardize our credit rating. These rumors again don’'t cite authority, but if true, would increase my opposition to Prop 6. If we are going to use those funds at all, I would not want to rely on projections, but on actual numbers of what is in hand.
There are other arguments floating around that struck me less credible or central to the real issue (Evil-Corp will profit from this; if we build more reservoirs ranching/farming will end as we know it; this is really just some backroom conspiracy between Rs and Ds to rule the world; Rural Texas will be without water if it passes; Texas will be without water if it doesn't pass). Should we use Rainy Day Funds as an additional financing option when local governments build their water projects? I think not. And I believe communities are capable of building the infrastructure that they need using the financing sources already available to them. All this talk makes me thirsty!
Proposition 7 - Allowing home rule municipalities to fill vacancies by appointment
I will vote for this one. Special elections are required to fill vacancies in our municipalities. Personally, I support the electoral process. This amendment, if passed, will create the option for municipalities to fill vacancies of less than a year by appointment. If it passes, a municipality must hold a vote of its citizens to change its charter to make use of this option. By supporting this amendment, I am creating an additional option, then leaving it up to the citizens of each municipality to decide what is best for them.
Proposition 8 - Changes a tax rate cap on a hospital district in Hidalgo County
I will vote for this one. This is an unfortunate local issue that comes to the entire State to decide, and it is the most misleading language on the ballot. By reading the ballot, it looks like you are taking away a hospital district, but you aren'’t. From what I can piece together, years ago, Hidalgo County got Constitutional authority to establish a hospital district if they chose, with a stated tax rate cap of 10 cents per hundred of appraised value on property. I believe they never in fact created that hospital district, and the Constitutional authority has sat unused on the books all this time. My understanding is that times have since changed. Hidalgo County is now attempting to establish a hospital district, and the stated cap of 10 cents per hundred is lower than the 75 cents per hundred cap that every other county in the State has. The planners have likely deemed the 10 cent cap too low to be viable, and want to be treated like every other County. Much of this is supposition on my part, but it’'s the best I can figure from the sources I'’ve reviewed.
Of course my instincts are to preserve lower tax caps, or help someone avoid taking a tax hit. But I have no information on then impact of such a vote.
If passed, the citizens of Hidalgo County will have additional wiggle room for their hospital district, but whether they create one at all and at what tax rate will be up to the local political process. I have too little information on the lay of the land in Hidalgo County to cast an informed vote on this one. I asked the Chairman of the Republican Party of Hidalgo County for his input, offering to proxy vote for Republicans there, and received no substantive input. That at least informs me that there is no coordinated opposition to this among Republicans there (that they can readily communicate).
Given that, it strikes me that if I vote, no, I am making a policy decision for those citizens. If I vote, yes, I am expanding their options, but leaving it to them to decide what is best for their community. So given what little I have to go on, I will vote to expand their options.
Proposition 9 - Increasing punishments against judges accused of misconduct
I oppose this one. Currently, when a judge is accused of misconduct before the State Commission of Judicial Conduct, if the Commission finds it warranted, it may publicly censure the judge, or recommend retirement or removal of the judge. The proposition seeks to add to their toolbox the ability to give a warning, public admonition, or require additional training.
Judges are targets for complaints. Every contested case they hear, someone leaves disgruntled. Our judges are also elected, so there are also political opponents. From that pool of people come complaints, warranted or not. The current set of punishments naturally limit the Commission to taking disciplinary action in egregious situations. Expanding the options to warnings and training requirements, in my view, invites the Commission to engage in more micro management of the judiciary and invites them to give more weight to lesser complaints. Should the political philosophy of the Commission turn more liberal, would they seek to harass our conservatives with warnings and trainings? Given that judges must also stand election, I am content with punishments for serious wrong-doing only.
Emergency Services District 2/Paige VFD service area
This is a local issue that will appear on the ballots of some of the residents of Bastrop County. Paige Volunteer Fire Department (VFD) has requested to be annexed into Bastrop County'’s Emergency Services District #2 (ESD2). The residents of the service area of Paige VFD must therefore vote on whether they want to be annexed into ESD2, and the current residents of ESD2 must vote on whether to allow them to come in.
For the citizens of Paige VFD service area, the vote has tax implications. They would join a taxing district that they are not currently a part of. To do so means that a new line item goes on your property tax statement that would be (I believe) 10 cents per $100 of value of your property. Paige VFD is supported by an amount of money given to it by the County, and by its own fundraisers. The tax money would help them primarily with facilities and equipment expenses.
For the citizens of ESD2, there is not a direct tax implication. There is no change in their taxes if they approve the annexation. There is, however, an increase in the number of stations and service territory covered by the budget and management of ESD2. The increase in stations and service territory would be offset by the new infusion of tax base from the incoming citizens. I have no analysis of whether such annexation would result in a net financial gain to ESD2, a net financial loss, or a wash. It would probably depend on how the ESD2 board members choose to allocate the tax money among the stations in the district.
It is my understanding that both territories (ESD2 and Paige VFD) must separately approve the annexation for it to occur. If either side declines, it doesn'’t happen. Thus the citizens of ESD2 cannot suck Paige VFD citizens into their district against their will, nor can Paige VFD citizens force their way into ESD2 against its will.
You can find out whether this issue affects you at www.bastropvotes.org by examining the sample ballot for your precinct and the service area maps posted online for both Paige VFD and ESD2.
----
I hope you find this helpful. The point is not to tell you how to vote, but to help acquaint you to the issues. If you weigh these differently and come to a different conclusion, fair enough.
Albert L. Ellison, Chairman
Bastrop County Republican Party
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment