Proposition on ballot would move rail yards Texas constitution

AUSTIN -- For years, El Paso officials have studied the multimillion-dollar plan to move hundreds of acres of rail yards out of Downtown to make way for more-attractive development.

Proposition 1 on the Nov. 8 constitutional amendment ballot would create a state fund of up to $2 billion to help move and improve rail lines statewide.

Proponents of the measure say the fund would be the only way to generate billions of dollars needed to move rail yards out of urban areas. Critics contend that the fund would divert money from road construction and that railroad companies and the federal government should bear the heavy financial burden.

"There's no simple solution," said Harold Hahn, president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Mortgage Co., who is on a six-member panel investigating the feasibility of moving rail yards from El Paso to Santa Teresa.

Congress gave New Mexico transportation officials $14 million to study the move, and Hahn said there is a general agreement that Texas will get half of that money for its part of the study.

But cost is not the only factor in a move, Hahn said. The panel, which includes two officials from New Mexico and two from Chihuahua, Mexico, is also examining possible repercussions on the local economy, job market and environment.

"The biggest thing we'll have to look at is the scope of what we're trying to deal with," Hahn said. "Railroads have certainly been an important part of our economy for decades."

Rail yards cover about 300 acres in El Paso. All but about 95 of those acres are in or near Downtown.

Union Pacific owns four rail yards with more than 250 acres in El Paso. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway has a 44-acre yard. In March, both companies signed agreements with the state that outline terms of public-private partnerships to move rail lines away from urban centers.

Joe Arbona, a Union Pacific spokesman, said the company is helping with the feasibility study into moving El Paso rail yards and is providing its own experts.

But how much, if any, of the tab for a move, projected to be in hundreds of millions might be absorbed by railroads themselves is uncertain.

The agreement with the state says only that any railroad contribution "must be commensurate with the private benefit, if any, it derives from the project."

Ted Houghton, a member of the Texas Transportation Commission, which would have authority over the rail relocation fund if voters approve it, said he expects railroad companies would chip in.

"The rail companies sometimes don't want to be there (in urban centers), and they'd like to move, but they don't have enough capital," he said.

El Paso is not the only Texas city with urban rail woes and would probably have to fight hard for any share of the relocation fund if an agreement finally was reached to move the rail yards.

Houston, one of the largest port cities in the nation, has hundreds of rail crossings. Rail lines also crisscross Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin.

"No city can undertake this by themselves -- no city" Houghton said. "It's too expensive."

In some areas, cities want to tunnel the rails. In others, they want to build overpasses. Some just want to move the lines away from the city altogether.

"We're talking about $10 billion to move rail lines across the state," Houghton said. "They're already looking for the railroad fairy to move these things."

Even if voters approve Proposition 1 to create the rail fund, the "railroad fairy" won't have any money to give until at least late 2007, said Mario Medina, who is in charge of rail planning at the Texas Department of Transportation.

When the Legislature meets again in regular session during 2007, it would have to find $100 million to $200 million, and then the transportation commission would seek bonds for as much as $2 billion.

Then, cities would start competing for the money, about one-fifth of what Houghton estimated the state needs.

Medina said the commission would review the cities' plans and look for those that improve safety and the state's overall transportation system and provide economic benefit.

Among the reasons for moving rails away from urban centers is reducing the number of train- auto accidents. Texas ranks first in the nation in rail crossing injuries and third in deaths, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.

Reducing congestion and pollution from cars waiting at rail crossings is also a concern, Houghton said. Moving rails away from urban areas would also allow trains to travel faster and improve trade, he said.

Rail movement could eventually also align with Gov. Rick Perry's Trans Texas Corridor plan to create a statewide network of transportation routes with highways, freight rail and commuter rail.

"Rail's not cheap," Medina said. "It's very important for us to really determine what are the public benefits associated with these projects."

Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, considered an expert on transportation, said public funds could be better spent on building and improving highways, though he predicted voters would "overwhelmingly" approve Proposition 1.

"It sounds good ... ," he said. "There's nobody who's going to say, "Let's not move the railroads.' "

Because railroads travel across states, he said, the onus for funding should be on the federal government. And if moving the lines is important for railroad companies, he said, they should ante up.

"All it is, is more bond money that has to be paid back, and it just is going to divert more money from highways," Pickett said.

If the proposition passes, though, Pickett hopes El Paso will join the funding fight.

Hahn, one of El Paso's rail yard committee members, said he expects a decision about whether to move the yards within a year.

Then, if Texas voters have approved the rail relocation fund, El Paso and the railroad companies can decide to make their proposal to the "railroad fairy."

"The real issue here is how do we work out something that is a win-win situation for everyone," Hahn said.

Nine (9) Constitutional Amendments are on Nov. 8, 2005 Texas ballot.

Bill Number-Sponsors-Ballot Language-Brief Explanation

Prop. 1 - HJR 54 - McClendon - Staples

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment creating the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund and authorizing grants of money and issuance of obligations for financing the relocation, rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities."

Brief Explanation - HJR 54 would create a Texas rail relocation and improvement fund in the state treasury and would authorize grants of state revenue and issuance of public debt to relocate, rehabilitate, and expand privately and publicly owned passenger and freight rail facilities and to construct railroad underpasses and overpasses.

Prop. 2 - HJR 6 - Chisum - Staples

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Brief Explanation - HJR 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.

Prop. 3 - HJR80 - Krusee - Ogden

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment clarifying that certain economic development programs do not constitute a debt."

Brief Explanation - HJR 80 would provide that local economic development program loans or grants (other than debts secured by a pledge of ad valorem taxes or financed by the issuance of any bonds or other obligations payable from ad valorem taxes) do not constitute or create debt. Any provision of state constitutional law that may prohibit or limit the authority of a political subdivision of the state to incur debt does not apply to those loans or grants.

Prop. 4 -SJR 17 - Staples - Gattis

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a criminal defendant who violates a condition of the defendant's release pending trial."

Brief Explanation - SJR 17 would authorize a district judge to deny reinstatement of bail or new bail to a person accused of a felony, if the person's bail had been revoked or forfeited as a result of the person's violation of a condition of release related to the safety of a victim of the alleged offense or to the safety of the community.

Prop. 5 - SJR 21 - Averitt - Flynn

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to define rates of interest for commercial loans."

Brief Explanation - SJR 21 would authorize the Legislature to exempt commercial loans from state usury laws that set maximum interest rates. "Commercial loans" are loans made primarily for business, commercial, investment, agricultural, or similar purposes and not primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Prop. 6 - HJR 87 - Farabee - Lindsay

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment to include one additional public member and a constitutional county court judge in the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct."

Brief Explanation - HJR 87 would increase the size of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct from eleven to thirteen members by increasing from four to five the number of public members and by adding a constitutional county court judge. The additions would ensure that the commission has an odd number of members, which is required by another provision of the state constitution.

Prop. 7 - SJR 7 - Carona - Hochberg

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment authorizing line-of-credit advances under a reverse mortgage."
Brief Explanation - SJR 7 would authorize new options for reverse mortgage agreements for senior homeowners allowing them to draw advances at unscheduled intervals, if and when needed, and only in the amounts needed, during the loan term. These are in addition to options that would allow a lump sum payment after settlement or regular periodic, predetermined equal amounts over a term of years or the lifetime of the homeowner. Additionally, SJR 7 would: (1) prohibit the agreement from requiring the use of a credit card, debit card or similar device to obtain an advance; (2) prohibit the charge or collection of a transaction fee solely in connection with any debit or advance, after the time the extension of credit is established; and (3) prohibit the lender or holder from unilaterally amending the extension of credit.

Prop. 8 - SJR 40 Eltife - Hughes

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment providing for the clearing of land titles by relinquishing and releasing any state claim to sovereign ownership or title to interest in certain land in Upshur County and in Smith County."

Brief Explanation - SJR 40 would clear individual land titles by relinquishing and releasing all claims of state ownership interests, including mineral interests, in two local areas, namely, a roughly 4,600 acre area located roughly 14 miles southeast of Gilmer, Texas, and a separate 900 acre area located north of Tyler, Texas.

Prop. 9 - HJR 79 - Krusee - Staples

Ballot Language - "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a six-year term for a board member of a regional mobility authority."

Brief Explanation - HJR 79 would authorize the Legislature to provide staggered six year terms of office for board members serving on regional mobility authorities, with no more than one-third of the board positions being appointed every two years.

Busy day for choices in Texas!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.