Posted on 10/12/2009 8:41:11 AM PDT by Ro_Thunder
See also Kelo V City of New London...
More digging is definitely in order.
Bookmark
Number 11 looks to be a worthless, 'feel good' piece of political pandering. The 'urban blight' loophole is big enough to allow for pretty much any redevelopment project - including one along the lines of Kelo.
That was my thought as well: unless there’s a definitive and closely-circumscribed definition of “urban blight”, I’m against it.
Colonel, USAFR
See also Kelo V City of New London...”
That ‘site’ is today not only NOT developed, it is full of weeds and feral cats.
It is totally unknown when or IF the development will EVER take place.
Sure would like to see Kelo sue the city and the developer for not sticking to their word about the ‘strong need’ for such a development in the first place.
See also Kelo V City of New London...”
That ‘site’ is today not only NOT developed, it is full of weeds and feral cats.
It is totally unknown when or IF the development will EVER take place.
Sure would like to see Kelo sue the city and the developer for not sticking to their word about the ‘strong need’ for such a development in the first place.
I am being taxed way to much on property tax as it is now. Why do I want this?
“On the other hand, it may be intended to address some county-level irregularities where ad valorem taxes are already being collected. “
It’s my understanding that the intent is to remove the varying standards. Some counties will tax property based on it’s commercial value (if it zoned as such) to increase the taxes eventhough it is used exclusively as a residence homestead.
This may be a good ammendment.
-Toonces
That’s my point - I agree, btw. If they want us to have a county property tax, school tax, Emergency Services District tax, sales tax, and now they want to add a state-wide property tax? Forget that.
I so agree.
I need more clarification especially on proposition 2. The wording worries me the most. Adding a state property tax would be devastating to many Texans who are already struggling to keep their home. I am 110% against that. We need to lower or eliminate property tax, not add another one.
We were deceived on one of these a few years ago if I remember correctly. It was the amendment to give money to railroads to help improve crossings and the like which turned into a tax for the TTC. It’s been a few years, but I do remember something about that, just not every detail. Bottom line is, I do not trust any politician to do the right thing.
Agree with that - I trust politicians as far as I can throw them (I’m not very physically strong, btw).
The lottery was to be used for education, etc. The US income tax was a temporary measure to help pay for WWI (IIRC, possibly WWII). Regardless, a state property tax will be devastating to many.
I’d like a good explanation of these proposals.
Just a couple of guesses:
Proposition 2 (HJR 36 - #1) The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”
- don’t know. I’m not a property owner. perhaps because of the lack of zoning, where some neighborhoods are being overtaken by commercial businesses run out of former home, this is to prevent a residential property on the same block from being taxed at the commerical valued rate.
Proposition 3 (HJR 36 - #3) The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”
- I think this is to stem the tide of challenges to property valuations. As long as that process still remains for homeowners, this may not be bad.
Proposition 11 (HJR 14 - #1) The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature ’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”
- And the later passage seems to be to block the “recent” action by the Supreme Court that permits a government entity to seize your property and force the sale to a private concern so that they can bring in more tax money (through redevelopment and sales taxes).
But I’m not a land owner and I am not a lawyer or politician.
Texas election ping
Also, anyone in the Houston, Tx area; please consider Roy Morales a real conservative for Mayor. None of the others are.
We need to get the word out.
Dan Patrick, a State Senator, and Conservative talk-show host and champion for lower property taxes, has posted his recommendations “FOR” each of these ammendments:
http://www.danpatrick.org/amendments-oct2009.html
I don't know if that is because he just wants to pass laws, or if these are actually good things to pass. I will look them over more carefully.
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.