Editor’s Note: Vote today from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Find your polling location at www.traviscountytax.org/showVoterSearch.do. You can bring this paper into the ballot box.
| Proposition | Pluses | Minuses | Endorsement | Vote |
| Proposition 1 will allow counties and municipalities to issue bonds or notes to raise money to fund the creation of buffer zones around military bases and to fund the construction of roadways and other infrastructure to protect or promote military installations. |
Military bases provide economic benefits to the cities and counties in which they are located. Without buffer zones, development can press up to the boundaries of the bases, compromising the bases’ ability to facilitate operations such as landing airplanes. Should this happen, bases could be closed. |
The proposition could lead to higher property taxes and cause already indebted counties to take on more debt. It will also allow counties to put use and zoning restrictions within city boundaries, possibly restricting economic development. |
Vote FOR. It allows counties and military installations to work together to facilitate their missions. Losing military bases would hurt the economies of Texas counties more severely than a slight increase in property taxes, and construction of infrastructure to aid military bases would likely benefit the counties as a whole. |
Yes |
| Proposition 2 will authorize the Legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead only on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead. In other words, when undergoing an appraisal for property tax purposes, property with a home must be appraised as a home — not a potential business or commercial venture. |
Right now, property can be appraised and taxed at a higher rate on hypothetical value — a homestead may be appraised for its “potential” worth as a business. This forces residents to pay higher taxes and puts property owners in areas undergoing commercialization at a financial disadvantage. This amendment would require homesteads to be appraised as just that. |
Without appraising property to its full potential, cities and school zones lose money that will have to be found elsewhere. Local school districts could see a drop in tax revenue. | Vote FOR. While it is true that some developing areas may lose tax revenue, the burden of providing that revenue should not be placed on homeowners who find themselves in the middle of a commercialization process, have no intention of selling and have their property appraised as something it isn’t. |
Yes |
| Proposition 3 will allow the Legislature to set property-tax appraisal standards uniformly across the state. Currently, the standards are determined by the county in which the taxes are collected. |
The varying standards imposed by different counties are unfair to residents. For example, small counties often take shortcuts to appraise values, to the detriment of a county’s residents. This amendment would allow for an equal set of standards to be applied to all Texans, regardless of where they live. |
The government should let the counties do their job. The comptroller’s office issues annual property tax studies, and if a county’s appraisals are off, it is required to readjust its numbers. |
Vote FOR. The lack of a uniform appraisal standard has led to Texas’ 254 counties appraising property tax values in a myriad of ways. This proposition will allow for a fair, across-the-board standard. |
Yes |
| Proposition 4 will open a $500 million fund to provide seven public Texas universities — Texas Tech, the University of Houston, the University of North Texas, UT-Arlington, UT-Dallas, UT-El Paso and UT-San Antonio — with the finances to help them achieve prominence as top national research, or “tier-one,” universities. |
With only three tier-one universities — UT, Texas A&M and Rice universities — Texas lags behind states such as New York, which claims seven, and California, with a whopping nine. Voters should be eager to open this dormant fund — which will not be drawn from taxpayer money — to schools, which will then boost educational opportunities for Texas students and economic prospects for the state by way of added jobs, tax revenue and capital investment. |
With Texas already struggling to fund its two public tier-one institutions, it would be wise to open the fund only to those schools closest to top-tier status — for example, Texas Tech University and the University of Houston. And handling one static pool of money to be doled out in one-time injections, the state has no incentive to ensure that the universities are making progress toward top-tier status. | Vote FOR. Having attracted the most attention of the amendments on the ballot in this otherwise quiet off-year election, Prop 4 has enjoyed bipartisan support. The Legislature has set criteria the universities must meet to receive the funds, which should keep schools from stagnating and push them to work toward netting grants and growing graduate and faculty communities. We encourage the Legislature to continue to pay special attention to these schools, whose futures may be difficult to sustain as an already strained tier-one system welcomes possible new additions. It’s not the slam dunk for higher education in Texas that some have deemed it, but it’s close. |
Yes |
| Proposition 5 will authorize the Legislature to allow a single board of equalization for two or more adjacent appraisal districts. The main function of a board of equalization is to hear and resolve disputes over the appraised value of taxable property. | In many rural counties, it is difficult to find enough qualified people to sit on a board of equalization. This amendment would solve this problem as appraisal districts could combine their boards and ensure that they are composed of capable individuals. The amendment’s wording ensures that a larger entity would be unable to force a smaller one to consolidate boards without consent. | Adjacent counties are already allowed to combine appraisal districts, making this amendment unnecessary. It’s assumed that if counties have combined appraisal districts, they already have a combined board of equalization. | Vote FOR. This amendment would make it easier to ensure that boards of equalization around Texas are populated with competent and qualified individuals. |
Yes |
| Proposition 6 will create a revolving fund for the Veterans Land Board. The board sells bonds to make reduced-rate loans for veterans who buy homes or land, but every time that the board needs money, it has to petition voters through a constitutional amendment. This amendment takes the loans voters have approved — $4 billion — and allows the board to reissue bonds as they are paid off. | This proposition eliminates a procedural constitutional amendment that voters approve every few years. It also increases the money available to the Veterans Land Board. |
The fund will operate into the future outside of regular voter or legislative oversight. It will not be reviewed and adjusted based on the number of veterans in the state or the economic climate of the time. |
Vote AGAINST. While supporting our veterans is incredibly important, we prefer regularly approving procedural amendments that allow the board to reissue bonds to creating an independent, unregulated fund. As we saw with the Texas Tomorrow Fund, economic realities and population density change and can have dramatic effects on funds that are supposed to be self-sustaining. This amendment does not allow for adequate adjustments. | No |
| Proposition 7 will allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices. | This Texas Constitution does not include the Texas State Guard as an exception to the rule that bars Texans from receiving payment for more than one civic office at a time. Some civil officials would like to be active in the Texas State Guard. This amendment allows them to do so. | No logical arguments against. |
Vote FOR. The Texas Constitution states that citizens can’t hold more than one civic office for which they receive payment, with the exception of some listed military forces such as the National Guard. At the time, Texas military forces were overlooked. This amendment will fix that problem. |
Yes |
| Proposition 8 will allow the Texas Legislature to fund federally run veterans hospitals in Texas. |
The state can do its part to contribute money to fund hospitals that serve the 1.7 million veterans living in Texas. This amendment will give Texas the power to remedy the severely lacking state of health care for veterans in the state. | The Legislature already passed a law to do what Proposition 8 will do, whether or not it is passed. | Vote FOR. Law or not, the Texas Constitution does not give the state authority to contribute to federally run veterans hospitals, and the federal government is not sufficiently funding Veterans hospitals. Vote for the amendment to ensure that veterans can receive funding from the Legislature. | Yes |
| Proposition 9 seeks to cement a public right to the use of Texas beaches, limiting private owners and developers from settling on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. |
The amendment will ratify the 1959 Open Beaches Act, which rightfully established a public claim to Texas beaches, a public good. |
Erosion and unprecedented weather surges — such as hurricanes Ike and Rita — have moved coastal lines inland, with houses and businesses once on private land suddenly sitting on areas now classified as beaches, which the law classifies as public land liable for governmental seizure. Inserting this act, which is already law, into the Texas Constitution would hurt these homeowners, many of whom have taken their cases to court. |
Vote AGAINST. We support the public right to beaches already specified by law and agree that homeowners knowingly take risks when deciding to build on beachfront property. But we find a constitutional amendment to enshrine the Open Beaches Act — which many proponents have said will help the state fight legal battles against those displaced by hurricanes — too narrowly targeted toward easing the state’s legal woes in fighting these homeowners devastated by extreme weather. We applaud Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson for having allotted grants and extra time for displaced residents to move property out of public space, but we don’t feel that the public’s right to beach use, as of now, presents a constitutional question. |
No |
| Proposition 10 will extend the terms of service for citizens serving on governing boards in Texas emergency service districts from two years to four years. | This amendment would allow for more continuity on the boards. Having board members gain experience working with one another while acquiring greater familiarity with the position itself would assist them in performing their duties more effectively. | Members of both the Texas and U.S. House of Representatives serve two-year terms — why should the public have more oversight over these politicians than they do over members serving on emergency district boards? |
Vote FOR. Giving the members of these boards more time to accrue experience with the position and with one another will allow them to develop more competence, which benefits the public. | Yes |
| Proposition 11 will ban the state from forcibly taking private property for anything other than ”ownership, use, and enjoyment” by the state or the public. The constitution currently allows the state to take land for public use. Prop 11 defines public use. | In the past decade, Texas has taken private property in order to give it to other private entities in the name of the economic interests of the community. Had Gov. Rick Perry’s 2002 proposal to build the Trans-Texas Corridor been implemented, thousands of acres would have been claimed and given to private companies. This amendment will prevent this type of action in the future. | The Texas Legislature has already enacted a law that does essentially the same thing this amendment is meant to do. The amendment also fails to fill actual holes in the Texas Constitution and law, such as defining public use and economic development. | Vote AGAINST. While there must be strict limits on the state’s ability to seize private property, this amendment forces unnecessary language into the Constitution. The legislature and judiciary need to carefully and exactly define the limits of eminent domain in this state to protect Texas property-owners. This carelessly worded and overly specific amendment does not do that. | No |
Comments
2 comments
Independent Thinker
Anyone who needs the Daily Texan to tell them how to vote probably shouldn't be voting anyways.
NorthTxGuy
I've been in the property tax business for over 25 years, employed at times by either government or business, so I think I have a fair and balanced perspective on these issues.Proposition 2 is definitely going to shift the tax burden to those homeowners who don't get the special tax break this proposition would grant. This is definitely NOT going to "benefit all property taxpayers." Just the opposite! Proposition 3 does not specify exactly what the legislators have in mind or will do in future sessions. That's the fatal flaw in this amendment. It takes away local control and gives it to Austin - forever. Voters would be wise to see this power grab by the state for what it is, and vote NO. Then tell your legislators to write amendments that give us the fine print to consider one way or the other. General rule of thumb: If you don't know how an amendment, if passed, would affect you or your wallet, vote NO!Proposition 5 is wholly unnecessary. Neighboring Appraisal Districts, by existing law, can already consolidate their functions, including Appraisal Review Board proceedings, if they need or want to. Why clutter up the Texas Constitution any further with this meaningless amendment? Again, just say NO.
