Jump to content

PSA: Nov 2023 Texas Constitutional Amendments (14)


bernorange

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

This is the one I think I waffled the most on. I could be argued either way. I mean, hell, property taxes are a wealth tax. It's essentially the same thing just applied to different property.

I thought about property taxes with this amendment. I'm confident that Texas voters will overwhelmingly vote yes on the amendment to ban wealth taxes. I would assume that some crusader will take this amendment and file a lawsuit that residential property taxes should be level for every homeowner. Charging someone more due to property value is a wealth tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number 1

Spoiler
Quote

      SECTION 1.  Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 36 to read as follows:
             Sec. 36.  (a)  The people have the right to engage in
      generally accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture,
      or wildlife management practices on real property they own or
      lease.
             (b)  This section does not affect the authority of the
      legislature to authorize by general law the regulation of generally
      accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture, or wildlife
      management practices by:
                   (1)  a state agency or political subdivision when there
      is clear and convincing evidence that the law or regulation is
      necessary to protect the public health and safety from imminent
      danger;
                   (2)  a state agency to prevent a danger to animal health
      or crop production; or
                   (3)  a state agency or political subdivision to
      preserve or conserve the natural resources of this state under
      Section 59, Article XVI, of this constitution.
             (c)  This section does not affect the authority of the
      legislature to authorize by general law the use or acquisition of
      property for a public use, including the development of the natural
      resources of this state under Section 59, Article XVI, of this
      constitution.

My recommendation: NO. It is probably going to pre-empt well-reasoned city ordinances that stop animal abusers from stuffing livestock onto tiny urban plots of land that they are renting out from an absentee landlord. Might even invalidate lease terms and open the floodgates for yuppies to keep chicken coops in their highrise balconies. Not very well thought out or well written.

Number 2

Spoiler
Quote

SECTION 1.  Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 1-r to read as follows:
             Sec. 1-r.  The governing body of a county or municipality may
      exempt from ad valorem taxation all or part of the appraised value
      of real property used to operate a child-care facility.  The
      governing body may adopt the exemption as a percentage of the
      appraised value of the real property.  The percentage specified by
      the governing body may not be less than 50 percent. The legislature
      by general law may define "child-care facility" for purposes of
      this section and may provide additional eligibility requirements
      for the exemption authorized by this section.

My recommendation: YES.  I don't see any downside, but it might not deliver everything intended because it allows the legislature to create "additional eligibility requirements" that will certainly be something like "donate to the Alliance Defending Freedom" or "sign this pledge that the 2020 election was stolen."

Number 3

Spoiler
Quote

 SECTION 1.  Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 25 to read as follows:
             Sec. 25.  The legislature may not impose a tax based on the
      wealth or net worth of an individual or family, including a tax
      based on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an
      individual or family.

My recommendation:  NO.  This benefits nobody deserving of any benefit. Fuck the rich. Fuck Harlan Crow. I hope Merrick Garland personally raids his properties, liquidates all his assets, and gives the money to Planned Parenthood.

Number 4

Spoiler
Quote

SECTION 1.  Section 1, Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is
      amended by adding Subsections (n) and (n-1) to read as follows:
             (n)  This subsection does not apply to a residence homestead
      to which Subsection (i) of this section applies. Notwithstanding
      Subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Legislature by general
      law may limit the maximum appraised value of real property for ad
      valorem tax purposes in a tax year to the lesser of the most recent
      market value of the property as determined by the appraisal entity
      or 120 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of
      the property for the preceding tax year. The general law enacted
      under this subsection may prescribe additional eligibility
      requirements for the limitation on appraised values authorized by
      this subsection.  A limitation on appraised values authorized by
      this subsection:
                   (1)  takes effect as to a parcel of real property
      described by this subsection on the later of the effective date of
      the law imposing the limitation or January 1 of the tax year
      following the first tax year in which the owner owns the property on
      January 1; and
                   (2)  expires on January 1 of the tax year following the
      tax year in which the owner of the property ceases to own the
      property.
             (n-1)  This subsection and Subsection (n) of this section
      expire December 31, 2026.
             SECTION 2.  Sections 1-b(c) and (d), Article VIII, Texas
      Constitution, are amended to read as follows:
             (c)  The amount of $100,000 [$40,000] of the market value of
      the residence homestead of a married or unmarried adult, including
      one living alone, is exempt from ad valorem taxation for general
      elementary and secondary public school purposes.  The legislature
      by general law may provide that all or part of the exemption does
      not apply to a district or political subdivision that imposes ad
      valorem taxes for public education purposes but is not the
      principal school district providing general elementary and
      secondary public education throughout its territory.  In addition
      to this exemption, the legislature by general law may exempt an
      amount not to exceed $10,000 of the market value of the residence
      homestead of a person who is disabled as defined in Subsection (b)
      of this section and of a person 65 years of age or older from ad
      valorem taxation for general elementary and secondary public school
      purposes.  The legislature by general law may base the amount of and
      condition eligibility for the additional exemption authorized by
      this subsection for disabled persons and for persons 65 years of age
      or older on economic need.  An eligible disabled person who is 65
      years of age or older may not receive both exemptions from a school
      district but may choose either.  An eligible person is entitled to
      receive both the exemption required by this subsection for all
      residence homesteads and any exemption adopted pursuant to
      Subsection (b) of this section, but the legislature shall provide
      by general law whether an eligible disabled or elderly person may
      receive both the additional exemption for the elderly and disabled
      authorized by this subsection and any exemption for the elderly or
      disabled adopted pursuant to Subsection (b) of this section.  Where
      ad valorem tax has previously been pledged for the payment of debt,
      the taxing officers of a school district may continue to levy and
      collect the tax against the value of homesteads exempted under this
      subsection until the debt is discharged if the cessation of the levy
      would impair the obligation of the contract by which the debt was
      created.  The legislature shall provide for formulas to protect
      school districts against all or part of the revenue loss incurred by
      the implementation of this subsection, Subsection (d) of this
      section, and Section 1-d-1 of this article.  The legislature by
      general law may define residence homestead for purposes of this
      section.
             (d)  Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, if a
      person receives a residence homestead exemption prescribed by
      Subsection (c) of this section for homesteads of persons who are 65
      years of age or older or who are disabled, the total amount of ad
      valorem taxes imposed on that homestead for general elementary and
      secondary public school purposes may not be increased while it
      remains the residence homestead of that person or that person's
      spouse who receives the exemption.  If a person who is 65 years of
      age or older or who is disabled dies in a year in which the person
      received the exemption, the total amount of ad valorem taxes
      imposed on the homestead for general elementary and secondary
      public school purposes may not be increased while it remains the
      residence homestead of that person's surviving spouse if the spouse
      is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person's death,
      subject to any exceptions provided by general law.  The
      legislature, by general law, may provide for the transfer of all or
      a proportionate amount of a limitation provided by this subsection
      for a person who qualifies for the limitation and establishes a
      different residence homestead.  However, taxes otherwise limited
      by this subsection may be increased to the extent the value of the
      homestead is increased by improvements other than repairs or
      improvements made to comply with governmental requirements and
      except as may be consistent with the transfer of a limitation under
      this subsection.  For a residence homestead subject to the
      limitation provided by this subsection in the 1996 tax year or an
      earlier tax year, the legislature shall provide for a reduction in
      the amount of the limitation for the 1997 tax year and subsequent
      tax years in an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the 1997 tax
      rate for general elementary and secondary public school purposes
      applicable to the residence homestead.  For a residence homestead
      subject to the limitation provided by this subsection in the 2014
      tax year or an earlier tax year, the legislature shall provide for a
      reduction in the amount of the limitation for the 2015 tax year and
      subsequent tax years in an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the
      2015 tax rate for general elementary and secondary public school
      purposes applicable to the residence homestead. For a residence
      homestead subject to the limitation provided by this subsection in
      the 2021 tax year or an earlier tax year, the legislature shall
      provide for a reduction in the amount of the limitation for the 2023
      tax year and subsequent tax years in an amount equal to $15,000
      multiplied by the 2022 tax rate for general elementary and
      secondary public school purposes applicable to the residence
      homestead. Beginning with the 2023 tax year, for any tax year in
      which the amount of the exemption provided by Subsection (c) of this
      section applicable to the residence homestead of a married or
      unmarried adult, including one living alone, or the amount of the
      exemption provided by Subsection (c) of this section applicable to
      the residence homestead of a person who is disabled as defined by
      Subsection (b) of this section and of a person 65 years of age or
      older is increased, the legislature shall provide for a reduction
      for that tax year and subsequent tax years in the amount of the
      limitation provided by this subsection applicable to a residence
      homestead that was subject to the limitation in the tax year
      preceding the tax year in which the amount of the exemption is
      increased in an amount equal to the amount by which the amount of
      the exemption is increased multiplied by the tax rate for general
      elementary and secondary public school purposes applicable to the
      residence homestead for the tax year in which the amount of the
      exemption is increased.
             SECTION 3.  Section 22, Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is
      amended by adding Subsection (a-1) to read as follows:
             (a-1)  Appropriations from state tax revenues not dedicated
      by this constitution that are made for the purpose of paying for ad
      valorem tax relief as identified by the legislature by general law
      are not included as appropriations for purposes of determining
      whether the rate of growth of appropriations exceeds the limitation
      prescribed by Subsection (a) of this section.
             SECTION 4.  Section 30, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is
      amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
             (e)  The Legislature by general law may provide that members
      of the governing body of an appraisal entity established in a county
      with a population of 75,000 or more serve terms not to exceed four
      years.
             SECTION 5.  The following temporary provision is added to
      the Texas Constitution:
             TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) This temporary provision applies
      to the constitutional amendment proposed by H.J.R. 2, 88th
      Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2023.
             (b)  The amendments to Section 1-b, Article VIII, of this
      constitution take effect for the tax year beginning January 1,
      2023.
             (c)  The amendment to Section 22, Article VIII, of this
      constitution applies to appropriations made for the state fiscal
      biennium beginning September 1, 2023, and subsequent state fiscal
      bienniums.
             (d)  This temporary provision expires January 1, 2025.

My recommendation:  YES. The homestead cap needs to be modernized. I haven't done the math to see what the revenue consequences will be short term or long term, but generally speaking we should be taxing the rich and not relying on homesteads for funding our schools.

Number 5

Spoiler
Quote

SECTION 1.  Section 1, Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is
      amended by adding Subsections (n) and (n-1) to read as follows:
             (n)  This subsection does not apply to a residence homestead
      to which Subsection (i) of this section applies. Notwithstanding
      Subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Legislature by general
      law may limit the maximum appraised value of real property for ad
      valorem tax purposes in a tax year to the lesser of the most recent
      market value of the property as determined by the appraisal entity
      or 120 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of
      the property for the preceding tax year. The general law enacted
      under this subsection may prescribe additional eligibility
      requirements for the limitation on appraised values authorized by
      this subsection.  A limitation on appraised values authorized by
      this subsection:
                   (1)  takes effect as to a parcel of real property
      described by this subsection on the later of the effective date of
      the law imposing the limitation or January 1 of the tax year
      following the first tax year in which the owner owns the property on
      January 1; and
                   (2)  expires on January 1 of the tax year following the
      tax year in which the owner of the property ceases to own the
      property.
             (n-1)  This subsection and Subsection (n) of this section
      expire December 31, 2026.
             SECTION 2.  Sections 1-b(c) and (d), Article VIII, Texas
      Constitution, are amended to read as follows:
             (c)  The amount of $100,000 [$40,000] of the market value of
      the residence homestead of a married or unmarried adult, including
      one living alone, is exempt from ad valorem taxation for general
      elementary and secondary public school purposes.  The legislature
      by general law may provide that all or part of the exemption does
      not apply to a district or political subdivision that imposes ad
      valorem taxes for public education purposes but is not the
      principal school district providing general elementary and
      secondary public education throughout its territory.  In addition
      to this exemption, the legislature by general law may exempt an
      amount not to exceed $10,000 of the market value of the residence
      homestead of a person who is disabled as defined in Subsection (b)
      of this section and of a person 65 years of age or older from ad
      valorem taxation for general elementary and secondary public school
      purposes.  The legislature by general law may base the amount of and
      condition eligibility for the additional exemption authorized by
      this subsection for disabled persons and for persons 65 years of age
      or older on economic need.  An eligible disabled person who is 65
      years of age or older may not receive both exemptions from a school
      district but may choose either.  An eligible person is entitled to
      receive both the exemption required by this subsection for all
      residence homesteads and any exemption adopted pursuant to
      Subsection (b) of this section, but the legislature shall provide
      by general law whether an eligible disabled or elderly person may
      receive both the additional exemption for the elderly and disabled
      authorized by this subsection and any exemption for the elderly or
      disabled adopted pursuant to Subsection (b) of this section.  Where
      ad valorem tax has previously been pledged for the payment of debt,
      the taxing officers of a school district may continue to levy and
      collect the tax against the value of homesteads exempted under this
      subsection until the debt is discharged if the cessation of the levy
      would impair the obligation of the contract by which the debt was
      created.  The legislature shall provide for formulas to protect
      school districts against all or part of the revenue loss incurred by
      the implementation of this subsection, Subsection (d) of this
      section, and Section 1-d-1 of this article.  The legislature by
      general law may define residence homestead for purposes of this
      section.
             (d)  Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, if a
      person receives a residence homestead exemption prescribed by
      Subsection (c) of this section for homesteads of persons who are 65
      years of age or older or who are disabled, the total amount of ad
      valorem taxes imposed on that homestead for general elementary and
      secondary public school purposes may not be increased while it
      remains the residence homestead of that person or that person's
      spouse who receives the exemption.  If a person who is 65 years of
      age or older or who is disabled dies in a year in which the person
      received the exemption, the total amount of ad valorem taxes
      imposed on the homestead for general elementary and secondary
      public school purposes may not be increased while it remains the
      residence homestead of that person's surviving spouse if the spouse
      is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person's death,
      subject to any exceptions provided by general law.  The
      legislature, by general law, may provide for the transfer of all or
      a proportionate amount of a limitation provided by this subsection
      for a person who qualifies for the limitation and establishes a
      different residence homestead.  However, taxes otherwise limited
      by this subsection may be increased to the extent the value of the
      homestead is increased by improvements other than repairs or
      improvements made to comply with governmental requirements and
      except as may be consistent with the transfer of a limitation under
      this subsection.  For a residence homestead subject to the
      limitation provided by this subsection in the 1996 tax year or an
      earlier tax year, the legislature shall provide for a reduction in
      the amount of the limitation for the 1997 tax year and subsequent
      tax years in an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the 1997 tax
      rate for general elementary and secondary public school purposes
      applicable to the residence homestead.  For a residence homestead
      subject to the limitation provided by this subsection in the 2014
      tax year or an earlier tax year, the legislature shall provide for a
      reduction in the amount of the limitation for the 2015 tax year and
      subsequent tax years in an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the
      2015 tax rate for general elementary and secondary public school
      purposes applicable to the residence homestead. For a residence
      homestead subject to the limitation provided by this subsection in
      the 2021 tax year or an earlier tax year, the legislature shall
      provide for a reduction in the amount of the limitation for the 2023
      tax year and subsequent tax years in an amount equal to $15,000
      multiplied by the 2022 tax rate for general elementary and
      secondary public school purposes applicable to the residence
      homestead. Beginning with the 2023 tax year, for any tax year in
      which the amount of the exemption provided by Subsection (c) of this
      section applicable to the residence homestead of a married or
      unmarried adult, including one living alone, or the amount of the
      exemption provided by Subsection (c) of this section applicable to
      the residence homestead of a person who is disabled as defined by
      Subsection (b) of this section and of a person 65 years of age or
      older is increased, the legislature shall provide for a reduction
      for that tax year and subsequent tax years in the amount of the
      limitation provided by this subsection applicable to a residence
      homestead that was subject to the limitation in the tax year
      preceding the tax year in which the amount of the exemption is
      increased in an amount equal to the amount by which the amount of
      the exemption is increased multiplied by the tax rate for general
      elementary and secondary public school purposes applicable to the
      residence homestead for the tax year in which the amount of the
      exemption is increased.
             SECTION 3.  Section 22, Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is
      amended by adding Subsection (a-1) to read as follows:
             (a-1)  Appropriations from state tax revenues not dedicated
      by this constitution that are made for the purpose of paying for ad
      valorem tax relief as identified by the legislature by general law
      are not included as appropriations for purposes of determining
      whether the rate of growth of appropriations exceeds the limitation
      prescribed by Subsection (a) of this section.
             SECTION 4.  Section 30, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is
      amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
             (e)  The Legislature by general law may provide that members
      of the governing body of an appraisal entity established in a county
      with a population of 75,000 or more serve terms not to exceed four
      years.
             SECTION 5.  The following temporary provision is added to
      the Texas Constitution:
             TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) This temporary provision applies
      to the constitutional amendment proposed by H.J.R. 2, 88th
      Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2023.
             (b)  The amendments to Section 1-b, Article VIII, of this
      constitution take effect for the tax year beginning January 1,
      2023.
             (c)  The amendment to Section 22, Article VIII, of this
      constitution applies to appropriations made for the state fiscal
      biennium beginning September 1, 2023, and subsequent state fiscal
      bienniums.
             (d)  This temporary provision expires January 1, 2025.

My recommendation: YES.  I don't see the downside here. Interest, dividends and investment income from some passive investment, capped at $100M, to make the UTSAs and UTRGVs better is the first of many steps we should have already taken to get the UT system on par academically with the UC system.

Number 6

Spoiler
Quote

 SECTION 1.  Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 49-d-16 to read as follows:
             Sec. 49-d-16.  (a)  The Texas water fund is created as a
      special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue
      fund.  The fund is administered by the Texas Water Development Board
      or by that board's successor in function as provided by general law.
      The legislature may appropriate money for the purpose of depositing
      the money to the fund to be available for transfer as provided by
      Subsection (b) of this section.
             (b)  The administrator of the Texas water fund may use the
      fund only to transfer money to other funds or accounts administered
      by the Texas Water Development Board or that board's successor in
      function. Money transferred from the Texas water fund to a fund or
      account may be spent without further legislative appropriation in
      the manner provided by general law governing the use of money in the
      fund or account to which the money was transferred.  The
      administrator may restore to the fund money transferred from the
      fund and deposited to the credit of another fund or account.  
      Legislative appropriation is not required for the administrator to
      transfer money from or restore money to the fund, including the
      transfer of money from the fund to or the restoration of the money
      from:
                   (1)  the Water Assistance Fund No. 480;
                   (2)  the New Water Supply for Texas Fund;
                   (3)  the Rural Water Assistance Fund No. 301; or
                   (4)  the Statewide Water Public Awareness Account.
             (c)  The Texas water fund consists of:
                   (1)  money transferred or deposited to the credit of
      the fund by general law, including money appropriated by the
      legislature directly to the fund and money from any source
      transferred or deposited to the credit of the fund authorized by
      general law;
                   (2)  any other revenue that the legislature by statute
      dedicates for deposit to the credit of the fund;
                   (3)  investment earnings and interest earned on amounts
      credited to the fund;
                   (4)  money from gifts, grants, or donations to the
      fund; and
                   (5)  money returned from any authorized transfer.
             (d)  The legislature by general law shall provide for the
      manner in which money from the Texas water fund may be used, subject
      to the limitations provided by this section.
             (e)  Of the amount of money initially appropriated to the
      Texas water fund, the administrator of the fund shall allocate not
      less than 25 percent to be used only for transfer to the New Water
      Supply for Texas Fund.
             (f)  The expenses of managing the investments of the Texas
      water fund shall be paid from that fund.
             (g)  For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
      constitution:
                   (1)  money in the Texas water fund is dedicated by this
      constitution; and
                   (2)  an appropriation of state tax revenues for the
      purpose of depositing money to the credit of the Texas water fund is
      treated as if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by this
      constitution.
             (h)  Any unexpended and unobligated balance remaining in the
      Texas water fund at the end of a state fiscal biennium is
      appropriated to the administrator of that fund for the following
      state fiscal biennium for the purposes authorized by this section.

My recommendation: YES.  Don't see any downside here. Water is good. We need it. Having an untouchable fund is a step in the right direction.

Number 7

Spoiler
Quote

 SECTION 1.  Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 49-d-16 to read as follows:
             Sec. 49-d-16.  (a)  The Texas water fund is created as a
      special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue
      fund.  The fund is administered by the Texas Water Development Board
      or by that board's successor in function as provided by general law.
      The legislature may appropriate money for the purpose of depositing
      the money to the fund to be available for transfer as provided by
      Subsection (b) of this section.
             (b)  The administrator of the Texas water fund may use the
      fund only to transfer money to other funds or accounts administered
      by the Texas Water Development Board or that board's successor in
      function. Money transferred from the Texas water fund to a fund or
      account may be spent without further legislative appropriation in
      the manner provided by general law governing the use of money in the
      fund or account to which the money was transferred.  The
      administrator may restore to the fund money transferred from the
      fund and deposited to the credit of another fund or account.  
      Legislative appropriation is not required for the administrator to
      transfer money from or restore money to the fund, including the
      transfer of money from the fund to or the restoration of the money
      from:
                   (1)  the Water Assistance Fund No. 480;
                   (2)  the New Water Supply for Texas Fund;
                   (3)  the Rural Water Assistance Fund No. 301; or
                   (4)  the Statewide Water Public Awareness Account.
             (c)  The Texas water fund consists of:
                   (1)  money transferred or deposited to the credit of
      the fund by general law, including money appropriated by the
      legislature directly to the fund and money from any source
      transferred or deposited to the credit of the fund authorized by
      general law;
                   (2)  any other revenue that the legislature by statute
      dedicates for deposit to the credit of the fund;
                   (3)  investment earnings and interest earned on amounts
      credited to the fund;
                   (4)  money from gifts, grants, or donations to the
      fund; and
                   (5)  money returned from any authorized transfer.
             (d)  The legislature by general law shall provide for the
      manner in which money from the Texas water fund may be used, subject
      to the limitations provided by this section.
             (e)  Of the amount of money initially appropriated to the
      Texas water fund, the administrator of the fund shall allocate not
      less than 25 percent to be used only for transfer to the New Water
      Supply for Texas Fund.
             (f)  The expenses of managing the investments of the Texas
      water fund shall be paid from that fund.
             (g)  For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
      constitution:
                   (1)  money in the Texas water fund is dedicated by this
      constitution; and
                   (2)  an appropriation of state tax revenues for the
      purpose of depositing money to the credit of the Texas water fund is
      treated as if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by this
      constitution.
             (h)  Any unexpended and unobligated balance remaining in the
      Texas water fund at the end of a state fiscal biennium is
      appropriated to the administrator of that fund for the following
      state fiscal biennium for the purposes authorized by this section.

My recommendation: NO.  I don't want to "incentivize" a goddamn thing if it's not renewable energy. Eat a dick, Schwertner (Author).

Number 8

Spoiler
Quote

 SECTION 1.  Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 49-d-16 to read as follows:
             Sec. 49-d-16.  (a) In this section:
                   (1)  "Comptroller" means the comptroller of public
      accounts of the State of Texas or its successor.
                   (2)  "Fund" means the broadband infrastructure fund.
             (b)  The broadband infrastructure fund is created as a
      special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue
      fund.
             (c)  The fund consists of:
                   (1)  money transferred or deposited to the credit of
      the fund by this constitution, general law, or the General
      Appropriations Act;
                   (2)  revenue that the legislature by general law
      dedicates for deposit to the credit of the fund;
                   (3)  investment earnings and interest earned on money
      in the fund; and
                   (4)  gifts, grants, and donations to the fund.
             (d)  Money in the fund shall be administered by the
      comptroller. Money from the fund may be used, without further
      appropriation, only for the expansion of access to and adoption of
      broadband and telecommunications services, including:
                   (1)  the development, construction, reconstruction,
      and expansion of broadband and telecommunications infrastructure
      or services;
                   (2)  the operation of broadband and telecommunications
      infrastructure;
                   (3)  the provision of broadband and telecommunications
      services; and
                   (4)  the reasonable expenses of administering and
      managing the investments of the fund.
             (e)  The legislature by general law shall provide for the
      manner in which the assets of the fund may be used, subject to the
      limitations of this section. Money in the fund may be used in
      conjunction with other funds or financial resources, including
      money from the federal government, in accordance with procedures,
      standards, and limitations established by federal law and general
      law of this state.
             (f)  The comptroller may transfer money from the fund to
      another fund as provided by general law.  The state agency that
      administers the fund to which the money is transferred as
      authorized by this subsection may use the money without further
      appropriation only for the expansion of access to and adoption of
      broadband and telecommunications services as provided by general
      law.
             (g)  Unless extended by adoption of a concurrent resolution
      approved by a record vote of two-thirds of the members of each house
      of the legislature, this section expires on September 1, 2035. A
      resolution suspends the expiration of this section until September
      1 of the 10th year following the adoption of the resolution.
             (h)  Immediately before the expiration of this section, the
      comptroller shall transfer any unexpended and unobligated balance
      remaining in the fund to the general revenue fund.
             (i)  For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
      constitution:
                   (1)  money in the fund is dedicated by this
      constitution; and
                   (2)  an appropriation of state tax revenues for the
      purpose of depositing money to the credit of the fund is treated as
      if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by this
      constitution.
             SECTION 2.  The following temporary provision is added to
      the Texas Constitution:
             TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) This temporary provision applies
      to the amendment to Article III of this constitution as proposed by
      the 88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, creating the broadband
      infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and
      assist in the financing of connectivity projects.
             (b)  The change made to Article III of this constitution by
      the amendment described in Subsection (a) of this section takes
      effect January 1, 2024.
             (c)  This temporary provision expires January 1, 2025.

My recommendation: YES. Don't see much downside to it.

Number 9

Spoiler
Quote

SECTION 1.  Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 67-a to read as follows:
             Sec. 67-a.  (a) As the Teacher Retirement System of Texas is
      actuarially sound according to an actuarial valuation update
      performed in February 2023, the 88th Legislature, Regular Session,
      2023:
                   (1)  by general law may provide a cost-of-living
      adjustment to annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas
      who are eligible for the adjustment as determined by that general
      law; and
                   (2)  may appropriate an amount of money from the
      general revenue fund to the comptroller of public accounts for
      deposit to the trust fund of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas
      to pay the adjustment authorized by Subdivision (1) of this
      subsection.
             (b)  For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
      constitution, an appropriation of state tax revenues made by the
      88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, for the purpose described
      by Subsection (a)(1) of this section is treated as if it were an
      appropriation of revenues dedicated by this constitution.
             (c)  This section expires September 1, 2025.

My recommendation: YES.  Teachers deserve it. Drop in the bucket from general fund.

Number 10

Spoiler
Quote

SECTION 1.  Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 67-a to read as follows:
             Sec. 67-a.  (a) As the Teacher Retirement System of Texas is
      actuarially sound according to an actuarial valuation update
      performed in February 2023, the 88th Legislature, Regular Session,
      2023:
                   (1)  by general law may provide a cost-of-living
      adjustment to annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas
      who are eligible for the adjustment as determined by that general
      law; and
                   (2)  may appropriate an amount of money from the
      general revenue fund to the comptroller of public accounts for
      deposit to the trust fund of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas
      to pay the adjustment authorized by Subdivision (1) of this
      subsection.
             (b)  For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
      constitution, an appropriation of state tax revenues made by the
      88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, for the purpose described
      by Subsection (a)(1) of this section is treated as if it were an
      appropriation of revenues dedicated by this constitution.
             (c)  This section expires September 1, 2025.

My recommendation:  NO.  Fuck them, that's why. These assholes make obscene profit on the marked up prices of their products. The last thing I'm going to do is give them a hand-out. FUPM.

Number 11

Spoiler
Quote

 SECTION 1.  Subsection (c-1), Section 59, Article XVI, Texas
      Constitution, is amended to read as follows:
             (c-1)  In addition and only as provided by this subsection,
      the Legislature may authorize conservation and reclamation
      districts to develop and finance with taxes those types and
      categories of parks and recreational facilities that were not
      authorized by this section to be developed and financed with taxes
      before September 13, 2003.  For development of such parks and
      recreational facilities, the Legislature may authorize
      indebtedness payable from taxes as may be necessary to provide for
      improvements and maintenance only for a conservation and
      reclamation district all or part of which is located in Bexar
      County, Bastrop County, Waller County, Travis County, Williamson
      County, Harris County, Galveston County, Brazoria County, Fort Bend
      County, [or] Montgomery County, or El Paso County, or for the
      Tarrant Regional Water District, a water control and improvement
      district located in whole or in part in Tarrant County.  All the
      indebtedness may be evidenced by bonds of the conservation and
      reclamation district, to be issued under regulations as may be
      prescribed by law.  The Legislature may also authorize the levy and
      collection within such district of all taxes, equitably
      distributed, as may be necessary for the payment of the interest and
      the creation of a sinking fund for the payment of the bonds and for
      maintenance of and improvements to such parks and recreational
      facilities.  The indebtedness shall be a lien on the property
      assessed for the payment of the bonds.  The Legislature may not
      authorize the issuance of bonds or provide for indebtedness under
      this subsection against a conservation and reclamation district
      unless a proposition is first submitted to the qualified voters of
      the district and the proposition is adopted.  This subsection
      expands the authority of the Legislature with respect to certain
      conservation and reclamation districts and is not a limitation on
      the authority of the Legislature with respect to conservation and
      reclamation districts and parks and recreational facilities
      pursuant to this section as that authority existed before September
      13, 2003.
             SECTION 2.  The legislature intends by the amendment
      proposed by Section 1 of this resolution to expand the authority of
      the legislature with regard to conservation and reclamation
      districts in El Paso County. The proposed amendment should not be
      construed as a limitation on the powers of the legislature or of a
      district with respect to parks and recreational facilities as those
      powers exist immediately before the amendment takes effect.

My recommendation: YES.  Don't see any downside. Let El Paso do what El Paso needs to do.

Number 12

Spoiler
Quote

  SECTION 1.  Section 44, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is
      amended by adding Subsection (d) to read as follows:
             (d)  The office of County Treasurer in Galveston County is
      abolished. The Commissioners Court of Galveston County may employ
      or contract with a qualified person or may designate another county
      officer to perform any of the functions that would have been
      performed by the County Treasurer if the office had not been
      abolished.
             SECTION 2.  The following temporary provision is added to
      the Texas Constitution:
             TEMPORARY PROVISION.  (a)  The constitutional amendment
      proposed by the 88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, abolishing
      the office of County Treasurer in Galveston County takes effect
      only if, at the statewide election at which the amendment is
      submitted to and approved by the voters, a majority of the voters of
      Galveston County voting on the question at that election also favor
      the amendment.  The amendment takes effect January 1, 2024, if the
      conditions of this subsection are met.
             (b)  This temporary provision expires January 2, 2024.

My recommendation: NO.  Something's fishy about this.

Number 13

Spoiler
Quote

 SECTION 1.  Section 1-a(1), Article V, Texas Constitution,
      is amended to read as follows:
                   (1)  Subject to the further provisions of this Section,
      the Legislature shall provide for the retirement and compensation
      of Justices and Judges of the Appellate Courts and District and
      Criminal District Courts on account of length of service, age and
      disability, and for their reassignment to active duty where and
      when needed. The office of every such Justice and Judge shall
      become vacant on the expiration of the term during which the
      incumbent reaches the age of 79 [seventy-five (75)] years or such
      earlier age, not less than 75 [seventy (70)] years, as the
      Legislature may prescribe[, except that if a Justice or Judge
      elected to serve or fill the remainder of a six-year term reaches
      the age of seventy-five (75) years during the first four years of
      the term, the office of that Justice or Judge shall become vacant on
      December 31 of the fourth year of the term to which the Justice or
      Judge was elected
].

My recommendation: YES.  The fewer judicial races, and the fewer inexperienced judges, the better. Let them decide when they want to retire. We've already de facto raised the retirement age by fucking the economy, anyway.

Number 14

Spoiler
Quote

            SECTION 1.  Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by
      adding Section 49-e-1 to read as follows:
             Sec. 49-e-1.  (a)  The centennial parks conservation fund is
      established as a trust fund outside the treasury.  In accordance
      with general law, the fund may be used only for the creation and
      improvement of state parks.
             (b)  The centennial parks conservation fund consists of:
                   (1)  money appropriated, credited, or transferred to
      the fund by the legislature;
                   (2)  gifts, grants, and donations received by the Parks
      and Wildlife Department or the department's successor in function
      for a purpose for which money in the fund may be used under this
      section; and
                   (3)  investment earnings and interest earned on amounts
      credited to the fund.
             (c)  The legislature may appropriate money from the
      centennial parks conservation fund to the Parks and Wildlife
      Department or the department's successor in function for the
      purposes prescribed for the fund by this section and general law.
             (d)  For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
      constitution:
                   (1)  money in the centennial parks conservation fund is
      dedicated by this constitution; and
                   (2)  an appropriation of state tax revenues for the
      purpose of depositing money to the credit of the fund is treated as
      if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by this
      constitution.
             (e)  The reasonable expenses of managing the fund and its
      assets shall be paid from the fund.

My recommendation: YES.  Love our state parks. If this means they stay funded without having to beg every session, I'm for it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston Chronicle had a little background on the proposed amendments. I found it interesting. 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/texas-constitution-amendment-recommendations-2023-18378771.php

edit: found the DMN one also: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/we-recommend/2023/10/23/we-recommend-2023-texas-constitutional-amendments/

Edited by CBT
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chronicle surprised me that they were in favor of raising the judicial retirement age. They pointed out that some older judges add value to the courts and bringing issues to the Legislature. They added that if any judge was found to be incompetent due to illness there are mechanisms in place to remove them at any age.

Local papers aren’t perfect and maybe citizens disagree with them, but all communities need a solid local news source. And while they may have individual writers that you disagree with, they often present a balanced view to some extent.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kevwun said:

The one about agriculture is being pushed so hard that I am positive it is a very bad idea. 

9 hours ago, kevwun said:

So Prop 1 is a solution looking for a problem.  I wonder what it's real purpose is?

I like Nolan Ryan but he's pushing 80 and it wouldn't be hard for somebody to ask him a question, get his response, and slap it on a flyer (which I got last week).

I jokingly told a relative that it would make it hard for the state or city/county to deal with, oh I don't know, Chinese or Saudi farms/ranches that begin sucking up all their water or some big fucking Tyson-like chicken operations that move in next door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2023 at 2:46 PM, chainsaw said:

Number 1

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: NO. It is probably going to pre-empt well-reasoned city ordinances that stop animal abusers from stuffing livestock onto tiny urban plots of land that they are renting out from an absentee landlord. Might even invalidate lease terms and open the floodgates for yuppies to keep chicken coops in their highrise balconies. Not very well thought out or well written.

Number 2

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES.  I don't see any downside, but it might not deliver everything intended because it allows the legislature to create "additional eligibility requirements" that will certainly be something like "donate to the Alliance Defending Freedom" or "sign this pledge that the 2020 election was stolen."

Number 3

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation:  NO.  This benefits nobody deserving of any benefit. Fuck the rich. Fuck Harlan Crow. I hope Merrick Garland personally raids his properties, liquidates all his assets, and gives the money to Planned Parenthood.

Number 4

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation:  YES. The homestead cap needs to be modernized. I haven't done the math to see what the revenue consequences will be short term or long term, but generally speaking we should be taxing the rich and not relying on homesteads for funding our schools.

Number 5

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES.  I don't see the downside here. Interest, dividends and investment income from some passive investment, capped at $100M, to make the UTSAs and UTRGVs better is the first of many steps we should have already taken to get the UT system on par academically with the UC system.

Number 6

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES.  Don't see any downside here. Water is good. We need it. Having an untouchable fund is a step in the right direction.

Number 7

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: NO.  I don't want to "incentivize" a goddamn thing if it's not renewable energy. Eat a dick, Schwertner (Author).

Number 8

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. Don't see much downside to it.

Number 9

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES.  Teachers deserve it. Drop in the bucket from general fund.

Number 10

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation:  NO.  Fuck them, that's why. These assholes make obscene profit on the marked up prices of their products. The last thing I'm going to do is give them a hand-out. FUPM.

Number 11

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES.  Don't see any downside. Let El Paso do what El Paso needs to do.

Number 12

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: NO.  Something's fishy about this.

Number 13

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES.  The fewer judicial races, and the fewer inexperienced judges, the better. Let them decide when they want to retire. We've already de facto raised the retirement age by fucking the economy, anyway.

Number 14

  Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES.  Love our state parks. If this means they stay funded without having to beg every session, I'm for it.

 

The DFW MSA has almost 8 million people and is the largest one in the country without an AAU school in its midst. Texas can and should do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reads a lot like your verbal responses to experimenting on prom night.  Not judging.  Bible says not to.  

I'm honestly still torn on a few.  Especially the 2 Travis County bonds.  Not worth a separate thread but worth discussing...if anybody has some inside baseball on them.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, YGIFS said:

That reads a lot like your verbal responses to experimenting on prom night.  Not judging.  Bible says not to.  

I'm honestly still torn on a few.  Especially the 2 Travis County bonds.  Not worth a separate thread but worth discussing...if anybody has some inside baseball on them.

Well you see we need more bike lanes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three things that surprise me and I am not easily surprised.  

1.  You're only 34. 

2.  You don't know what movie this is from.  KAHN! is a national treasure, gone too soon.

3.  I've watched this film at least 20 times and I never noticed the rack on the blonde in the back.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2023 at 11:27 AM, Brisketexan said:

Prop 1: NO.   It’s too broad, and could even limit the power of the state to limit harmful activities (that CAFO next door, letting rivers of pig shit flow onto your land?  Good luck using a statute to enforce against that, that activity is now arguably constitutionally protected – they’ll sure take that position).

Prop 2: YES.  This creates something of a back-door subsidy for child care facilities, which we desperately need.

Prop 3:  NO.  This is just a stunt to say “no more taxes.”  Texas already has shitty taxing options available, no need to put an amendment in place to make them even shittier.

Prop 4:  MAYBE?  It’s a lot of silliness and trade-offs, and is temporary.  I dunno.  Vote how you want.  I’ll probably vote No, just because anything this Lege does that isn’t plain as day is actually fuckery (and much of their fuckery is plain as day as well).

Prop 5: probably YES.  Better funding of our other public universities (not Texas or aggy) is needed.  Still seems overly complex, but I’m a tentative yes.

Prop 6: STRONG YES.  This is actually the bread-and-butter of what our legislature should be handling.  The TWDB is a good agency all in all, and the projects it will fund are quite needed.  Water is our looming crisis (actually, it’s a crisis already).

Prop 7: NO.  We privatize profits, we socialize costs?  Fuck that.  We built a privatized electric grid, this is their John Galt dream.  Let it rise and fall on John Galt principles.  It’s a shitty model, they don’t need our taxpayer funds to fix it and insulate profit-takers from risk.

Prop 8: YES, but I hear the arguments against it.  I think broadband is a public utility and should be funded as such.  But our lege wants to make it a hybrid, and will probably fuck this up.  That said….we need the infrastructure.

Prop 9: YES.  We need to have reasonable funding of our teacher retirement system, including being able to make COLA adjustments.

Prop 10:  MAYBE.  I see why it’s proposed (make stockpiled medical equipment, like masks, tax-exempt), but I doubt it will really work that way.

Prop 11: YES.  It just adds El Paso County to the list of counties with reclamation districts that can develop parks.  We need this because our Constitution is overly specific about that shit.

Prop 12: NO.  Don’t eliminate county treasurer.  Separation of powers matters.

Prop 13: NO.  For fuck’s sake, 70 or 75 is plenty old enough for a judge.  GTFO after that age.  We don’t need to raise it to 79.

Prop 14: YES.  State parks is a core function, something the lege should pay attention to.  So, I support this one.

 

voted today, this is how my ballot was submitted 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Brisket on most of his takes, and I believe Chainsaw has my same dance card. 

 

Prop 13 is a Yes for me because someone higher up the food chain told me we had a few really good Dem judges who were about to be retired, and this would allow they keep their benches a few more years.  I also had one of them tell me it's no fun going before a judge who is sundowning.  So I guess it's a shrug, but I'd be a definite YES if they had added in some types of mental fitness standards.  

On Prop 6, one of the things the Tribune posted was something about the treatment of fracking water.  That gave me pause, thinking maybe it would be a way for O&G to get taxpayers to pay for some environmental obligation of theirs.   But the overall promise of the venture outweighs the negative, especially since it seems to have pretty good oversight built in.

Quote

A portion of the fund would have to be used for water infrastructure projects in rural areas as well as for water conservation strategies and water loss projects. At least 25% of the fund would be used for the New Water Supply Fund for Texas, which will support projects to increase the state’s water supply through, for example, marine desalination and treating “produced water,” which comes from the ground during the oil fracking process.

What you need to know about Texas’ Nov. 7 constitutional amendment election | The Texas Tribune

One of the provisions of Prop 5 is that the to be eligible for this funding not only does the school have to be a state university, but also have a research budget of at least 20M/yr. and graduate at least 45 Phd's for three years running.    So at least it sets a standard.  I was afraid we'd be sending Baylor a wad of cash to research for proof of creationism over evolution.  

On Prop 4, the temporary part bothers me.  Reminds me of the Trump Tax Plan.  Delicious looking icing on a turd.  Once the rainy-day fund begins to dwindle, where will the ISDs turn for the shortfall in funding due to their tax base being reduced a couple of years earlier?

I'll be interested to see if the Lake Limestone screwup isn't early in the priorities for Prop 14 plans.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

... One of the provisions of Prop 5 is that the to be eligible for this funding not only does the school have to be a state university, ...

As discussed earlier in the thread, the fund proposed in Prop 5 already exists.  Prop 5 is proposing to rename the existing fund and then allow it to siphon off money from Texas rainy day fund.  Are funds purpose built or or all they all slush funds that can be raided and redirected on a whim?  If an idea is worthy (ie. increasing funding for the existing fund), why can't the legislature appropriate funds for it directly?  What happens when Texas needs that rainy day fund for its intended purpose?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted.

Prop 7 ‘s wording makes me rage.

This is blatantly trying to conceal its true intention.

Arg.

Oh well. It’ll get approved bc good people think their going to help with high electricity cost / reliability issues when all it’ll do is siphon off state money to build more natural gas plants that they’ll shit down during a crisis so they artificially cause super high elect costs.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Voted.

Prop 7 ‘s wording makes me rage.

This is blatantly trying to conceal its true intention.

Arg.

Oh well. It’ll get approved bc good people think their going to help with high electricity cost / reliability issues when all it’ll do is siphon off state money to build more natural gas plants that they’ll shit down during a crisis so they artificially cause super high elect costs.

 

The natural gas generator owners are saying that they actually don't want to build any new power generators due to the uncertainty of future electrical prices not the upfront capital costs. My guess is that the next move from the Legislature is to somehow ensure tax dollars will prop up any operational profits.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went same as @chainsaw, except #4 and #13.

Regarding #4, this is the property tax package that the lege spent basically its entire session this year working on (Patrick's plan vs Abbott's). It just needs a rubber stamp from voters. I expect it will pass with a huge margin because tax relief = good. The major point is a cut in property taxes and money from the general fund to make school districts whole. Even though it would have direct financial benefits for me (I'm a homeowner), I voted no for a variety of reasons. Number 1, there's no plan whatsoever about what to do when the state's surplus runs out and school districts are still missing a bunch of tax dollars. There's also a bunch of other random stuff in it that's questionable (elected appraisal boards, cut in franchise tax). Also, fuck the lege (and Abbott).

On #13, I get the arguments in favor, but I'm kinda over super olds in elected office at this point. No more Feinsteins.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, tokamak said:

I went same as @chainsaw, except #4 and #13.

Regarding #4, this is the property tax package that the lege spent basically its entire session this year working on (Patrick's plan vs Abbott's). It just needs a rubber stamp from voters. I expect it will pass with a huge margin because tax relief = good. The major point is a cut in property taxes and money from the general fund to make school districts whole. Even though it would have direct financial benefits for me (I'm a homeowner), I voted no for a variety of reasons. Number 1, there's no plan whatsoever about what to do when the state's surplus runs out and school districts are still missing a bunch of tax dollars. There's also a bunch of other random stuff in it that's questionable (elected appraisal boards, cut in franchise tax). Also, fuck the lege (and Abbott).

On #13, I get the arguments in favor, but I'm kinda over super olds in elected office at this point. No more Feinsteins.

I respect your reasoning on 4. I was somewhat hesitant that it was some sort of trap or monkeys paw situation, but I think a lot of the tax relief will be felt by working and middle class people and not by people who have second homes. If the school districts run out of money because of this, I would imagine it would prompt the people to demand some kind of cash infusion from the state's coffers. A lot of these conservative pet projects aren't popular and won't ever become popular. We just need another 10 or so years for these dinosaurs to die off. In the meantime, I'll gladly accept a higher homestead exemption.

On 13, I don't feel too strongly about it. I just personally know a lot of very sharp people near or over 80, and seeing good judges pushed out due to something like this (instead of the other reasons they could be pushed out, such as actually demonstrating literal Feinstein-like senility) to me struck me as a solution in search of a problem. But it's not one of the more important propositions on the ballot so if it fails, it fails. No big deal to me.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know #4 will pass but I don’t understand the math. If we lower the local school district taxes wont that eventually impact education? I know the state is giving a one-time payout to the schools but that won’t be repeated.

If the state wants to reduce the tax burden on its citizens, why not drop the sales tax percentage? You know, the tax money that goes to the state. And is paid by everyone not just home owners.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my local ISD property tax bill in the mail the other day.  They calculated the tax as if Prop 4 had passed and included a paragraph at the end of the bill stating that if Prop 4 does not pass, they will send me a second bill for the extra tax (that is no longer owed if Prop 4 does pass).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I got my local ISD property tax bill in the mail the other day.  They calculated the tax as if Prop 4 had passed and included a paragraph at the end of the bill stating that if Prop 4 does not pass, they will send me a second bill for the extra tax (that is no longer owed if Prop 4 does pass).

Smart of them. It will pass with 94-95%, and this way they get their tax bills out on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I know #4 will pass but I don’t understand the math. If we lower the local school district taxes wont that eventually impact education? I know the state is giving a one-time payout to the schools but that won’t be repeated.

If the state wants to reduce the tax burden on its citizens, why not drop the sales tax percentage? You know, the tax money that goes to the state. And is paid by everyone not just home owners.

That's my understanding. It's somewhat like the Trump tax cut, in that there is zero long term plan to pay for it. However, unlike the federal government, Texas has to balance the budget. The lege's response to this when they were working on the bill was literally "eh, we'll figure it out later". It has to be one of these 3 options, though:

  1. The state continues to run a surplus forever and makes the decision every two years in perpetuity to send a big chunk of that money to public schools.
  2. The lege raises taxes.
  3. Public schools take a big haircut in revenues.

Which one of those three do we think is most likely?

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Smart of them. It will pass with 94-95%, and this way they get their tax bills out on time.

It's a little blackmail-y, but I assume it's also much easier for them to send a 2nd bill rather than charge the full amount now and then issue every single homeowner a refund later.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tokamak said:

That's my understanding. It's somewhat like the Trump tax cut, in that there is zero long term plan to pay for it. However, unlike the federal government, Texas has to balance the budget. The lege's response to this when they were working on the bill was literally "eh, we'll figure it out later". It has to be one of these 3 options, though:

  1. The state continues to run a surplus forever and makes the decision every two years in perpetuity to send a big chunk of that money to public schools.
  2. The lege raises taxes.
  3. Public schools take a big haircut in revenues.

Which one of those three do we think is most likely?

It's a little blackmail-y, but I assume it's also much easier for them to send a 2nd bill rather than charge the full amount now and then issue every single homeowner a refund later.

Good points. 

I struggle with laws like this because I, even as a non-parent, feel the point of the public school system is to best educate our kids. However I'm reminded in the public education thread, that some in power are actively trying to take down our public school system. It's no surprise they want to defund the schools. It plays into their narrative that public school education is a failure once they take much of the money away.

And don't get me wrong, I know schools waste money. But defunding them will unlikely change that waste.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tokamak said:

That's my understanding. It's somewhat like the Trump tax cut, in that there is zero long term plan to pay for it. However, unlike the federal government, Texas has to balance the budget. The lege's response to this when they were working on the bill was literally "eh, we'll figure it out later". It has to be one of these 3 options, though:

  1. The state continues to run a surplus forever and makes the decision every two years in perpetuity to send a big chunk of that money to public schools.
  2. The lege raises taxes.
  3. Public schools take a big haircut in revenues.

Which one of those three do we think is most likely?

It's a little blackmail-y, but I assume it's also much easier for them to send a 2nd bill rather than charge the full amount now and then issue every single homeowner a refund later.

I'm very much afraid that it's 3 given our state's history in fucking public schools. Prop 4 is one I've gone back and forth on the most, but I think I'm leaning against. Appreciate yours and everyone discussion of all the props. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I know #4 will pass but I don’t understand the math. If we lower the local school district taxes wont that eventually impact education? I know the state is giving a one-time payout to the schools but that won’t be repeated.

If the state wants to reduce the tax burden on its citizens, why not drop the sales tax percentage? You know, the tax money that goes to the state. And is paid by everyone not just home owners.

 

What's the golden rule, again?

He who holds the gold makes the rules.

 

Property taxes fund local shit. And it is collected locally.

Sales tax goes to the state.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

 

What's the golden rule, again?

He who holds the gold makes the rules.

 

Property taxes fund local shit. And it is collected locally.

Sales tax goes to the state.

 

Yes but the state is deciding new rules for local property tax. Which is their legal right but why not let locals decide local matters? And this is about defunding public schools not giving you a tax break.

On the amendment about Galveston’s county treasurer, the problem as I read it was that the former treasurer was conned into giving $500K to someone who ran with the money. Now they want to eliminate the position because they voted in a moron. Why not just elect competent people and create/follow fiscal governance policies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yes but the state is deciding new rules for local property tax. Which is their legal right but why not let locals decide local matters? And this is about defunding public schools not giving you a tax break.

On the amendment about Galveston’s county treasurer, the problem as I read it was that the former treasurer was conned into giving $500K to someone who ran with the money. Now they want to eliminate the position because they voted in a moron. Why not just elect competent people and create/follow fiscal governance policies?

Reduce the size of government until you can drown it in a bathtub is why.

Playbook:

Run on limited gov

Run incompetent people

Get people angry about morons

People vote for more limited gov.

Rinse and repeat.

 

The state gov taking over all matters local is just the natural uniparty progression towards a authoritarian state.

Social issues blind the masses while craven power hungry people like Abbot are used / a conduit for dark money rich fuckers strip out all the checks / balances and extract the peoples $ for themselves.

 

It’s all the shit republicans accuse dems and George Soros of… just in real life and right in front of you. Not need for some secret global conspiracy. It’s far more simple, happening, and works due to our arcane campaign finance laws. 
Every accusation…. And whatnot.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted. I know I voted against the mandatory retirement age increase and the wealth tax issue. Those 2 stuck out. I read this thread before I went as well as read on line. I voted for the property tax deductions increase and the teacher retirement COL raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, UTGrad98 said:

Voted. I know I voted against the mandatory retirement age increase and the wealth tax issue. Those 2 stuck out. I read this thread before I went as well as read on line. I voted for the property tax deductions increase and the teacher retirement COL raise.

I voted. 

 

1 Water Prop - No. Seems like another effort to prevent any oversight for assholes who might want to pollute water, and do whatever they want. No thanks. 

2 Childcare - Yes.

3 Wealth Tax - No, I don't think we need a constitutional amendment to make sure we nevery institute a wealthy tax.  

4 Property Tax - No, fuck greg abbot. 

5 Other Univeristy Fund - Yes, more money for schools, great. Lets do it, and hope they aren't just going to teach Bible Study by 2030. 

6 Water Fund - Yes. 

7 Energy Fund - Yes, it's all shit but we still need more plants. And have them fucking weatherproofed (not a part of the deal).

8 Broadband - Yes. 

9 Teacher Retirement - Yes. 

10 Medical Equipment - Yes. Sure, get some more job creation in the medical field. 

11 El Paso Parks - Yes, sure, I like green spaces 

12 Galveston Treasurer - No, stop gutting govt checks you republican fucks. 

13 Judge Age - No - Fuck your old judges.

14 State Parks - Yes, I like green spaces.


Also, this was my first time/noticing that in Texas they've removed all the fucking party affiliation from candidates. My lawyer friend said it's becuase they were losing all the judgeship elections, no one voting R. Whatever reason, it fucking sucked balls when I got to the council races I knew jack shit about. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Also, this was my first time/noticing that in Texas they've removed all the fucking party affiliation from candidates. My lawyer friend said it's becuase they were losing all the judgeship elections, no one voting R. 

 

I hadn't heard this. Is this statewide or local policy? I wouldn't believe that they were losing votes because of having "R" next to the name. Every other office that's a big benefit in this state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FirstTimeCaller said:

I hadn't heard this. Is this statewide or local policy? I wouldn't believe that they were losing votes because of having "R" next to the name. Every other office that's a big benefit in this state.

I don't know if it was state or local, but it certainly fucked me up here in Houston. And that's just what my attorney buddy told me what was behind the rule changes. I had just assumed it was their next obvious step in voter fuckery, like removing the ability to vote straight ticket. 

So it was probably local, but I'm in Harris Country. We're blue. I know why they would want to do that, but we're blue so why would our local officals do that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't know if it was state or local, but it certainly fucked me up here in Houston. And that's just what my attorney buddy told me what was behind the rule changes. I had just assumed it was their next obvious step in voter fuckery, like removing the ability to vote straight ticket. 

So it was probably local, but I'm in Harris Country. We're blue. I know why they would want to do that, but we're blue so why would our local officals do that?

 

If you're taking about the mayoral race, it's technically non-partisan so they don't list affiliation. 

They eliminated straight ticket voting, but that isn't going to matter in 2023 because there's no partisan races. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Js1 said:

If you're taking about the mayoral race, it's technically non-partisan so they don't list affiliation. 

They eliminated straight ticket voting, but that isn't going to matter in 2023 because there's no partisan races. 

Dude, it was all the way down to the council member at large races. I guess those dont list affiliations either? Either way, it sucked becuase I hadn't prepped for that.

 

So my soliution was to vote for the female with the most ethnic sounding name in each race. Get fucked white male patriarchy. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Dude, it was all the way down to the council member at large races. I guess those dont list affiliations either? Either way, it sucked becuase I hadn't prepped for that.

 

So my soliution was to vote for the female with the most ethnic sounding name in each race. Get fucked white male patriarchy. 

Nope, most municipal elections are non-partisan, which includes the council races.  You pretty much have to research who endorses them and is donating to them.  Not as obvious as SJL and Whitmire being Democrats. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2023 at 9:43 AM, Brisketexan said:

It's not a groundwater pumping amendment.  It's for developing/improving water infrastructure (every drop of water not lost through leaky pipe is an extra drop in our supply), and about developing different sources of water:

The last one isn't about producing water that originates from aquifers, it's about using aquifers as storage mechanisms (inject water when you have it up top, draw from what you injected when you need it).  This prop is the kind of thing the legislature SHOULD be doing - managing the business of the state, and husbanding and improving our resources.

Hey man, I don’t need republicans husbanding anything I’m involved with. Maybe some ambiguously gay or bi dude that’s emo and nice and not too hairy and definitely fit gotta be fit … but the Neanderthals roaming the halls of our state capitol? Yeah nah. No husbanding.

 

On 10/23/2023 at 11:27 AM, Brisketexan said:

Prop 1: NO.   It’s too broad, and could even limit the power of the state to limit harmful activities (that CAFO next door, letting rivers of pig shit flow onto your land?  Good luck using a statute to enforce against that, that activity is now arguably constitutionally protected – they’ll sure take that position).

Prop 2: YES.  This creates something of a back-door subsidy for child care facilities, which we desperately need.

Prop 3:  NO.  This is just a stunt to say “no more taxes.”  Texas already has shitty taxing options available, no need to put an amendment in place to make them even shittier.

Prop 4:  MAYBE?  It’s a lot of silliness and trade-offs, and is temporary.  I dunno.  Vote how you want.  I’ll probably vote No, just because anything this Lege does that isn’t plain as day is actually fuckery (and much of their fuckery is plain as day as well).

Prop 5: probably YES.  Better funding of our other public universities (not Texas or aggy) is needed.  Still seems overly complex, but I’m a tentative yes.

Prop 6: STRONG YES.  This is actually the bread-and-butter of what our legislature should be handling.  The TWDB is a good agency all in all, and the projects it will fund are quite needed.  Water is our looming crisis (actually, it’s a crisis already).

Prop 7: NO.  We privatize profits, we socialize costs?  Fuck that.  We built a privatized electric grid, this is their John Galt dream.  Let it rise and fall on John Galt principles.  It’s a shitty model, they don’t need our taxpayer funds to fix it and insulate profit-takers from risk.

Prop 8: YES, but I hear the arguments against it.  I think broadband is a public utility and should be funded as such.  But our lege wants to make it a hybrid, and will probably fuck this up.  That said….we need the infrastructure.

Prop 9: YES.  We need to have reasonable funding of our teacher retirement system, including being able to make COLA adjustments.

Prop 10:  MAYBE.  I see why it’s proposed (make stockpiled medical equipment, like masks, tax-exempt), but I doubt it will really work that way.

Prop 11: YES.  It just adds El Paso County to the list of counties with reclamation districts that can develop parks.  We need this because our Constitution is overly specific about that shit.

Prop 12: NO.  Don’t eliminate county treasurer.  Separation of powers matters.

Prop 13: NO.  For fuck’s sake, 70 or 75 is plenty old enough for a judge.  GTFO after that age.  We don’t need to raise it to 79.

Prop 14: YES.  State parks is a core function, something the lege should pay attention to.  So, I support this one.

And I pretty much agree with all of this.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the tips, voted today.  Only one I was sure about was our districts Prop A to raise teacher pay…being married to an educator and the PTA Treasurer meant I was already well versed with it.  

Naturally my right wing Aggy fundamentalist Christian neighbor was vehemently against it but couldn’t tell me why.  

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...