This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting ends tomorrow for the 2009 Constitutional Amendment Election. Seeing as how few people have voted (we've barely cracked 1% in Travis County), it's high time you get down there and cast your ballot, especially in favor of Proposition 4, which will fund top-tier research universities here in Texas. That ballot measure alone makes it worth dragging yourself out to vote.
In case you haven't seen them, Burnt Orange Report issued endorsements on the ballot proposition. You can also check out other endorsements in our overviews of each proposition (and, ahem, in the box at the upper right). BOR even made the Ballotpedia's round-up of endorsements from media outlets across the state. Pretty cool!
Turnout has been light, save for in Houston, where a hotly contested Mayoral Election serving to drive turn-out to the polls. Today, current Houston Mayor and US Senate candidate Bill White announced his strong support for Propositions 4 and 8.
Bill White on Proposition 4:
Improving higher education is critical to our nation's future. For Americans to win in a world economy based on our skills and knowledge, we must make smart investments now. Currently Texas only has two public national academic research universities, but there are seven universities across the state that have the potential to achieve national prominence. By investing resources in higher education on the front end, Texas universities could set themselves up to lead the nation in higher education, keep more of our talented students in the state, and receive more research grants, all which promote long-term economic growth in Texas.
Bill White on Proposition 8:
With Proposition 8, Texans can make sure that our military veterans receive what they deserve. Proposition 8 would give the state government authority to contribute funding to the nine in-patient veterans hospitals that serve more than 1.7 million veterans in Texas. By allowing state funds to be combined with federal funds, veterans' services and facilities could expand and improve.
Making sure that veterans receive the respect and resources they deserve is an issue that hits home for me. My father (pictured to the side) is a disabled WWII veteran who went to college on the GI Bill, and I was able to go to the college of my choice because of the American Legion. I have not forgotten those who serve our country, and as mayor, I joined other elected officials to create the Returning Veteran Initiative (RVI). This special initiative, which has been recognized by the Military Affairs Council, gives returning veterans the welcome they've earned with coordinated social services, reductions in red tape, and employment opportunities. Since its implementation in 2007, the Department of the Army has recognized the program as one of the finest in the country and Houston has been named one of the most military friendly cities to live and work.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
In Texas, the month of November in odd-numbered years brings elections to ratify the latest batch of constitutional amendments put forth by the preceding legislative session. The Legislature proposes these amendments in joint resolutions in the House and Senate. They must pass each body by a two-thirds vote, and cannot be vetoed by the governor. The amendments, if approved by the majority of voters, take effect immediately following the official vote canvass, unless a later date is specified in the resolution.
This year, several of these amendments are important enough to merit advocacy on your part to make sure that folks turn out to vote. Specifically, we strongly encourage a "YES" vote on propositions 4, 8, and 9, and a "NO" vote on proposition 11, and suggest that you encourage others to do likewise. These are critical amendments for the future of Texas, and will do good work to make sure that our state lives up to our values.
Many of these amendments deal with appraisals and property tax issues. While we believe that all of them are well-intentioned by the legislature, several of them may have unintended negative consequences, or may need to be more clear and specific before becoming enshrined in the state constitution.
These endorsements conclude our look at the ongoing Constitutional Amendment Election. We hope you have enjoyed our efforts to explicate these amendments, and strongly encourage you to get out and vote. Finally, while this post is rather long, well, so is the Texas state constitution, thanks to endless amendment elections such as this. Early voting runs through Friday, October 30th, with Election Day on Tuesday, November 3rd.
The Burnt Orange Report issues the following endorsements in the November 3, 2009 Constitutional Amendment Election:
Proposition 1 is largely a procedural question dealing with whether towns and counties have the constitutional authority to purchase open space near military bases. This amendment could result in cities and counties choosing to take on additional debt to pay for the land purchases. The amendment could also lower the amount taxable property in a given municipality, thus potentially necessitating an increase in property taxes. While military installations with extensive artillery or aeronautical exercises might be disruptive to folks in the area, an equally valid solution is to cease developing areas that encroach on military bases.
It is not the duty of every homeowner to subsidize the continual sprawl that has encroached upon our military installations and made this measure necessary, and at a potential cost to all, not just those who chose to live by the bases. The Burnt Orange Report recommends a NO vote on Proposition 1.
Proposition 2 allows for a residential property to be appraised for taxation solely on its value as a homestead, rather than as hypothetical commercial development that could be built in its place. Traditionally, properties are appraised on their "highest and best use," regardless of what is actually built there.
There is already a cap on appraisal increases at 10% per year. Furthermore, this measure could well have the unintended effect of lowering the property tax base in school districts, thus hurting a significant source of their funding. There is also concern that it will not have the same effects in rural and urban areas. This amendment also does not address development of higher-cost residences in residential neighborhoods, which also can have a negative impact on homeowners. The Burnt Orange Report recommends a NO vote on Proposition 2.
Proposition 3 would remove the constitutional requirement that enforcement of appraisal standards originate in the county where the tax is imposed. It would also provide for meaningful state oversight of the appraisal process, and allow the state to address inequities and inconsistencies in the process. The proposition is intended to enable the Legislature to enact laws that would require properties in all Texas counties to be appraised in the same manner. However, the Legislature did not enact the laws that would determine the nature of statewide uniformity of local appraisal. This also raises questions of ever-changing statewide appraisal standards as the political winds shift. Furthermore, there are concerns that residents would need to travel extensive distances to protest appraisals. Thus, it seems problematic to allow the Legislature this authority without knowing exactly what kind of standardizations might be passed.
Clearly, there are problems with the appraisal process in Texas. This amendment could well be a good effort, but should be more specific and accompanied by a concrete program to enact this oversight and standardization before it's written into the state constitution. The Burnt Orange Report recommends a NO vote on Proposition 3.
Higher education in Texas is desperately in need of a serious infusion of funds. This proposition, which will direct money specifically towards institutions striving to become Tier 1 Universities-nationally respected institutions that conduct over $100 million in research per year-will be a huge boon to our state. These funds will attract top researchers and students to Texas, where they will conduct ground-breaking research that in turn can create the innovations and new industries of the future. Prop 4 will stimulate the economy through new innovations, and enable more Texas students to reach higher levels of educational achievement.
Opponents of the measure suggest that innovation should come from the private sector, rather than public funds. Unfortunately, our Governor has been particularly hostile to efforts to bring this innovation to Texas. What our state has lost in Perry's rejection of clean energy businesses and the battery consortium can be somewhat regained in cutting-edge research conducted by leading scholars who will be drawn to our new Tier 1 institutions. Furthermore, Proposition 4 will be funded by using money the state already has, and will not cost the taxpayers any additional money.
Furthermore, this presents an opportunity for greater geographic dispersion of Tier 1 institutions across Texas. UT Austin, Texas A&M, and Rice University are fairly close together. If UTEP or UT-Arlington are able to qualify, this will bring top research education opportunities physically closer to more Texans. For undergraduates and graduate students that need to study close to home, these funds can create the opportunity for a top-notch education they otherwise could not receive.
We must cast one note of caution: Texas doesn't currently fund UT and A&M at the level needed to maintain their competitiveness. Serious budget cuts are resulting in a loss of faculty and graduate students, which will hurt not only research output but also the quality of education received by undergraduates. Thus, while the effort to create new leading research institutions is important, we cannot overlook and underfund the existing economic and educational powerhouses we already have. And we cannot let these future Tier 1 institutions eventually fall victim to the same fate.
This proposition, if used and maintained as intended, will have a transformative effect on Texas. The Burnt Orange Report strongly encourages a YES vote on Proposition 4.
Again, it is clear that there are problems with the appraisal process in Texas. This amendment will enable adjoining counties to form consolidated appraisal districts. In rural areas, this is a particularly necessary measure, as there is apparently a shortage of qualified people willing to serve on these boards. While this is likely not a trivial matter to folks in rural counties who are facing delays in their appraisal protests, this amendment raises the larger issue of the seeming need to amend the Constitution to make any and every procedural change to our government. Nevertheless, the Burnt Orange Report recommends a YES vote on Proposition 5.
Proposition 6 enables Texas to keep our promise to our veterans. The larger dollar amount of the loans would enable Texas to provide even more veterans buy a home. This amendment helps Texas keep our promise to those who serve our country. Furthermore, this amendment enables the Veterans' Land Bonds to roll over, rather than requiring a special authorization every time. In that sense, it might actually decrease the number of procedural amendments we vote on every two years: a double win. The Burnt Orange Report recommends a YES vote on Proposition 6.
Proposition 7 will allow members of the Texas State Guard to seek civil office. Currently, individuals are not allowed to hold more than one compensated position with the state. This is essentially correcting an oversight: when the original list of exemptions to the double-dipping law were created, the Texas State Guard was not particularly active. Now they are, and deserve to be on the list of exempted groups who can hold more than one compensated office. The Burnt Orange Report recommends a YES vote on Proposition 7.
Proposition 8 would help provide much-needed medical care to the 1.7 million veterans living in Texas, by enabling the state to contribute resources to veterans' hospitals. Given the size of our state, many of our veterans have difficulty reaching VA facilities for needed care. Some estimates suggest that up to one third of our Texas veterans are essentially without care due to lack of nearby facilities. This amendment will give Texas further abilities to remedy this situation, by creating a clear constitutional authority for the state to contribute to these facilities. The Burnt Orange Report strongly encourages a YES vote on Proposition 8.
Proposition 9 will protect our public beaches-and our ability to access them-for the people of Texas in perpetuity. This amendment enshrines our Open Beaches Act in the constitution, and demonstrates the commitment of the people of Texas to keeping our beaches open to all. Rapid erosion and increasingly severe weather over the past few decades is literally transforming our coastline, and erosion is pushing the actual beach line back, under private property. We all benefit from the beaches, the ocean and the marine life in and around them. They are a public good, and deserve to remain public property and open to all. The Burnt Orange Report strongly encourages a YES vote on Proposition 9.
On its face, Proposition 11 sounds as if Texans will once and for all receive some protection from seizure of private property through eminent domain. However, it is a convoluted amendment that Governor Perry and Senator Hutchison are running around the state touting as a real solution to eminent domain reform. It provides no such solutions.
The amendment fails to define economic development. Public use is also not clearly defined. Neither is "urban blight." This amendment does nothing to prohibit the Legislature from using its powers to continue to let government bodies and quasi-governmental agencies from abusing eminent domain. It also does not prohibit the legislature from creating even more agencies, commissions, or bodies that can exercise the power of eminent domain.
A better amendment would have clearly defined public use and economic development. A better amendment would have mandated compensation for diminished access to a landowner's properties, and included the provisions from Rep. Yvonne Davis' bill to require relocation assistance for displaced landowners. A stronger amendment needs to limit the granting of eminent domain powers to new entities and mandate good-faith negotiations when governmental entities cannot avoid taking property by eminent domain, thus forcing governmental entities to offer fair prices for land they must take and hopefully avoiding protracted legal battles. A vote against this amendment will force the Legislature to pass meaningful eminent domain reform. The Burnt Orange Report strongly encourages a NO vote on Proposition 11.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Throughout Monday and Tuesday, BOR has been looking at at the various issues on the ballot for this fall's constitutional amendment election. As we prepare our own endorsements, here's an overview of the amendment process and a centralized list of our posts on the subject so far. Burnt Orange Report staff endorsements will be published on Friday.
Background on Constitutional Amendments:
The Legislature proposes these amendments in joint resolutions in the House and Senate. They must pass each body by a two-thirds vote, and cannot be vetoed by the governor. The ballot wording of the amendment is specified in the joint resolution itself. The amendments, if approved by the majority of voters, take effect immediately following the official vote canvass, unless a later date is specified in the resolution. Examples of resolutions passed in 2007 include cancer funding, record votes in the Legislature, and property tax exemptions for work vehicles. For a truly comprehensive look at the amendments and arguments for and against them, I highly recommend the House Research Organization's voter guide (PDF). It doesn't endorse, but gives very solid background on each amendment.
Summary of Amendments and Previous Endorsements:
View excerpts from the League of Women Voters' guide and compare endorsements from The Austin Chronicle, El Paso Times, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Houston Tea Party Patriots, and Senator Kirk Watson's Watson Wire.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Yesterday and today, Burnt Orange Report is providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 11: Restricting Use of Eminent Domain to Taking Property for Public Purposes
"This amendment would spell out the conditions under which private property could be taken by eminent domain. Specifically, the taken property must be owned, used, and enjoyed by the public at large, state or local government, or other agency granted the power of eminent domain by law. Taking private property for economic development or to enhance tax revenues would be prkhibited by the Texas Constitution, not simply by Texas law. ... As of January 1, 2010, the power of eminent domain could be granted only by a two-thirds vote of the Texas Legislature." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
NO. "While in general we don't care for land seizures for private development, this is yet another poorly drafted attempt to amplify the current property-rightist wave of eminent domain hysteria and an invitation to endless court fights over rational public policy."
El Paso Times:
NO. "This proposition concerns eminent domain and the wording is much too broad. Eminent domain is a necessary governmental power, but it must not be used to victimize helpless property owners."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
YES. "Proposition 11 would require that any condemned property be held and used by a public entity for a legitimate public purpose. It also would restrict cities' ability to take and improve blighted property. Cities now can declare entire neighborhoods to be areas of blight; Proposition 11 would require that blight be proven on each individual property."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
YES. "It would prohibit the government from taking property without a clearly stated purpose and would require the government to keep the property, not sell it to another buyer who might pay higher taxes."
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. "It also would make clear that while some jurisdictions could still condemn land for "public use," that term wouldn't apply to an economic development project."
This is the last of our 11 posts on these amendments. We welcome your thoughts on these issues. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Yesterday and today, Burnt Orange Report is providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 10: Allowing Board Members of Emergency Services Districts to Serve Four Years
"Proposition 10 would ... allow members of governing boards of Texas emergency service districts to serve terms not to exceed four years." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
YES. "But trivial, and this belongs in ordinary legislation, not the state constitution."
El Paso Times:
YES. "This would provide more continuity and experience on the boards."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
NO. "This is goofy. There's no good reason why board members of obscure districts in Harris County should have longer terms than members of the Texas House."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
No Endorsement.
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. It "would lengthen the term of emergency services district board members from two to four years."
These posts will conclude tonight. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Yesterday and today, Burnt Orange Report is providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 9: Establishing a Right to Use and Access Public Beaches
"Proposition 9 would establish the public's unrestricted right to access public beaches as a permanent easement. ... The proposed amendment would also authorize the Legislature to enact laws to protect the public access to the beach and the easement from interference and encorachment. There would be no right of private enforcement." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
YES. "A very good amendment. This is actually an important defense of the constitutional right of all Texans - but not currently stated in the constitution - of permanent access to public beaches without interference from developers or other private interests."
El Paso Times:
NO. "This proposition involves public access to beaches and doesn't need to be in the Constitution."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
YES. "How many miles of Gulf of Mexico beaches in Texas are publicly owned and open for year-round use? All of them. 624 miles, from Sabine Pass on the Texas-Louisiana border to the Rio Grande, ... are federally protected. In the Nov. 3 constitutional amendment election, Texans have a chance to keep it that way."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
NO. "Under the Open Beaches Act, the state has forced homeowners to move or remove their houses after hurricanes and other changes to the coastline. The law should be weakened, not placed in the Constitution."
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. "It also says beaches would continue to belong to the public, even if storms or erosion move the beach under houses or other buildings."
These posts will continue throughout the day. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Yesterday and today, Burnt Orange Report is providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 8: Authorizing the State to Contribute Resources to Veterans' Hospitals
"Texas now has nine inpatient veterans' hospitals ... The state does not currently have the authority to contribute to a veterans' hospital operated by the federal government. This proposed amendment would allow Texas to partner with the [VA] and local communities to establish additional health care facilities." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
YES. "We frankly can't believe it takes a constitutional amendment to get this done, and even the sponsors weren't sure."
El Paso Times:
YES. "Even though the hospitals are federally funded, state resources could be used to enhance and improve the facilities. Our veterans deserve this."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
NO. "Prop 8 says it would be OK for the state to contribute money, property or other resources to help build and operate VA hospitals. But the Legislature also passed a law to do the same thing whether Prop 8 is approved or not. Doesn't that make Prop 8 unnecessary?"
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
No Endorsement.
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. "Most immediately, this would allow the state to help build a veterans hospital in the Rio Grande Valley, as required by a law that took effect earlier this year."
We'll wrap these up in the late afternoon and evening tonight. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Yesterday and today, Burnt Orange Report is providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 7: Allowing Members of the Texas State Guard to Hold Civil Office
"Currently, civil officers are prohibited in holding more than one compensated civil office, unless specifically exempted in the Constitution. ... The Texas State Guard was overlooked during earlier amendments to this section largely because they were not very active. However, in recent years they have become much more active and provide vital services to Texas during natural disasters." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
YES. "When the current exceptions to "double-dipping" were written, everybody but the state guard or similar militia was included. The more, the merrier."
El Paso Times:
YES. "This would allow Texas State Guard members and members "or other state militia or military group" to hold other civil offices."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
NO. "A better way to do this, rather than holding an election every time some exception seems like a good idea, is to scrap the list and give the Legislature the authority to make exceptions by statute. Voters could hold the Legislature responsible for bad decisions."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
No Endorsement.
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. It "would clarify that members of the Texas State Guard (or similar groups) could hold civil offices such as justice of the peace or county commissioner."
These posts will continue throughout the day. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Yesterday and today, Burnt Orange Report is providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 6: Renewing Veterans' Land Board Bond Authority for Land and Mortgage Loans
"In effect, the proposed amendent would reauthorize all previously authored general obligation bonding authority in the Veterans Housing Assistance Fund, the Veteran's Housing Assistance Fund II, and the Veterans' Land Fund."--League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
YES. "But regulatory. This allows rollover bond authority without a special authorization every single time; it's not a constitutional matter."
El Paso Times:
YES. "This will allow the Veterans Land Board to continue to issue loans to veterans, using money that has been paid back on previous loans."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
NO. "Every time the VLB needs more money, it has to come to voters for a constitutional amendment. ... [The amendment] eliminates the need for periodic elections, but $4 billion would be far more than the VLB has had available at any one time in the past. ... Is $4 billion too much? Is it enough? Voters can't tell, and they shouldn't have to guess."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
No Endorsement.
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. It "would let the Veterans' Land Board issue more debt than it does now to help Texas veterans acquire land or get a mortgage loan."
These posts will continue throughout the day. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Yesterday and today, Burnt Orange Report is providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 5: Allowing Consolidated Boards of Equalization for Appraisal Districts
"The primary function of a board of equalization is to hear appeals of the appraised value of taxable property and to resolve disputes between taxpayers and the appraisal district. ... This amendment would allow the Legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that want to consolidate their appraisal review process." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
YES. "But entirely trivial. If you need to do this by constitution, you don't have one."
El Paso Times:
YES. "Consolidating appraisal review boards could help, particularly rural counties, find more-qualified people to sit on the boards."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
NO. "Adjacent counties can already consolidate their appraisal districts and thus their appraisal review boards. ... Consolidation as already allowed makes sense. Prop 5 is a solution searching for a problem."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
YES. "Many rural counties have a difficult time finding enough qualified and willing candidates to sit on their appraisal review boards. Proposition 5 would let counties join together to form consolidated appraisal review boards."
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. It "allows adjoining appraisal districts or similar entities to consolidate their review board functions so they can be more efficient."
These posts will continue throughout the day. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
Read Glen Maxey's tell-all about his quest to uncover the truth about Rick Perry.
Now available in paperback!
The Perry Compendium
Know the truth about Rick Perry's record of failure.
--On The Issues: Rick Perry's positions on the issues that matter.
--In Our Archives: A growing list of everything we've written about Rick Perry.
--On Perry's Trail: Regular coverage of campaign stops, quotes, and coverage.
--Everything Else: Lists, links, and archives from across Texas.
Making sure that veterans receive the respect and resources they deserve is an issue that hits home for me. My father (pictured to the side) is a disabled WWII veteran who went to college on the GI Bill, and I was able to go to the college of my choice because of the American Legion. I have not forgotten those who serve our country, and as mayor, I joined other elected officials to create the Returning Veteran Initiative (RVI). This special initiative, which has been recognized by the Military Affairs Council, gives returning veterans the welcome they've earned with coordinated social services, reductions in red tape, and employment opportunities. Since its implementation in 2007, the Department of the Army has recognized the program as one of the finest in the country and Houston has been named one of the most military friendly cities to live and work.