Posted on 11/03/2009 11:54:02 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Prop 1: No
Prop 2: Yes
Prop 3: No
Prop 4: No
Prop 5: No
Prop 6: Neutral
Prop 7: Yes
Prop 8: No
Prop 9: No
Prop 10: No
Prop 11: No
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9697&posts=1
(Not exactly related to 2010 TX Gubernatorial race, but pinging anyway.)
Curious as to why you think opposition to a restriction on eminent domain (prop 11) is a conservative position. Narrowing the definition of “public use” to actually mean “public use” rather than allowing any confiscation of private property - even for the purpose of simply transferring it to another more “favored” private property owner - is consistent with constitutional restraint of government power. Under the current legal environment, I saw homeowners in Hurst Texas robbed of their homes under eminent domain condemnations of their property so that the city of Hurst could then hand their homes over to Simon DeBartolo (of the San Francisco 69ers DeBartolo family) so he could expand Northeast Mall. These families were “compensated” for the taking of their property in the neighborhood of 50 cents on the dollar or less. Proposition 11 would prohibit this sort of confiscation for the purpose of transferring private property from on private party to another.
It’s extra important to have a good voter turnout this soon after the 9/12 Tea Party to let them know we are still engaged and are keeping our eyes on them. So go vote!
Why a “No” on #11? Sounds like it is meant to prevent the taking of private property to benefit other private companies?
From the link:
This is an effort to provide further protections from the abuses of eminent domain that can arise thanks to the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London (2005).
Unfortunately, the wording in the statute authorizing this Amendment is very deceptive. It was changed numerous times during the legislative session and the final version was amended to include the authorization for Amendment #4, the University funding Amendment. Needless to say that’s very shaky ground to begin with, especially when the original wording was much stronger before all the adjustments occurred.
Secondly, this authorizes the legislature to grant eminent domain authority to any undefined “entity” it wishes with a simple 2/3rds vote and we don’t believe that that’s a high enough hurdle! They’ve already granted eminent domain authority to some utilities and hospitals, do we really want that to continue with just a simple 2/3rds vote? I’d rather this one go back to the drawing board and be written up with some real teeth to it and if that’s too difficult, too bad.
Finally, the appearance of this bill is as though the legislature simply wanted to pass some kind of eminent domain restrictions and if we the people vote it down, they can say it’s our fault. Well, we’ve had enough of legislatures not doing the job that we the people sent them to do and then expecting us to live with the results. This should not only be voted down, but those legislators who openly and actively supported it should have to account for why the bill was weakened repeatedly throughout the session and why they haven’t enacted tougher restrictions already. It’s only our fault that they don’t do their jobs, if we don’t vote them out when we have the opportunity.
(I may vote yes on this. I think more restrictions on eminent domain are good, but I see the author’s point.)
See comment #6. I may vote yes on this. I am undecided right now.
"Here are our recommendations:
FOR: Props 2, 3, 5, 7, 11
AGAINST: Props 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10
If you have any questions about our recommendations, please e-mail us at info@afptx.org."
I'm especially concerned about #11 and eminent domain rights. (I cast my votes early today.) THANKS!
Regards . . . Penny
How is Prop #9 different than the status quo?
How is Prop #9 different than the status quo?
From the link:
Unfortunately, this Amendment would further undermine the property rights of individual home owners whose property borders those public beaches that exist in the State of Texas. The wording that is used “a free and unrestricted right to access” is very troublesome and fails to place any benefits on the side of those individual homeowners.
There already exists such a fund, but it is restricted for the use of The University of Texas, Texas A & M University, and Prairie View A & M. The new fund would be available to all Texas universities.
There is no provision in this amendment for adding money to the fund. It's just a wider division. The fund is based on revenues from land owned by the fund (mostly oil royalties) and is a legacy of the old land grant system.
Check out the vote explanations at the link provided in #1.
Did Peggy Venebale explain the reasons for their positions? I’d like to review them if you have them.
From the link:
While proponents of this say that it is an effort to increase funding for our Universities that will result in a higher profile and thus greater academic competitiveness, this is really about providing a limitation on other universities around the state so that an elite handful can have more money to play with.
Technically, this proposal wouldn’t raise taxes, as it is money that’s already been set aside for education, however we believe, as do others, that this will simply result in and encourage further reliance on the taxpayers, rather than causing universities to seek additional private funding.
The other argument being used that this would somehow elevate the profile of these “research universities” and thus provide some additional benefits to the students who attend them, is completely unsupportable with any amount of research. Most universities simply act like “compulsive gamblers and exiled royalty; there is never enough money to satisfy their desires.” That quote is from former Harvard president Derek Bok.
2/3 vote in BOTH houses. Using the word "simple" with "2/3 vote in both houses" reminds me of Fezzig and Indigo Montoya and Fezzig's repeated use of the word "inconceivable".
#3 is good only if you can be sure the Lege will remain in semi-conservative hands. I like my Appraisal District (AD)fine - I’d hate the Houston representatives to have any say in defining how the WHOLE State’s AD’s do things. I’d vote NO on #3.
CERTAINLY . . . I just sent it to you . . . (copy of the complete text of her e-mail).
That’s kind of where I am at this point. 2/3 is a pretty heavy requirement. A simple Democratic majority in either house won’t allow them to monkey with this provision.
Harvard president Derek Bok knows nothing about the Texas university system. This is about the Texas Permanent University Fund (a.k.a “the Puff”). Those universities that do not get distributions from the fund have to go to the legislature every two years for funding. The lucky three that are supported by the fund get hundreds of millions from the fund without any need for taxation.
>> Secondly, this authorizes the legislature to grant eminent domain authority to any undefined “entity” it wishes with a simple 2/3rds vote and we don’t believe that that’s a high enough hurdle!
With all due respect, that’s insane. 2/3 of a conservative Texas legislature is a helluva lot more of an impediment than the ZERO impediment currently in place on every greedy corrupt municipality and school board.
Vote YES on 11.
If something stronger ends up on the ballot, fine — vote YES on that too!
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.