Comments on: Texas Election on Nov. 3, 2009

By: cynthia curran

cynthia curran — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:10:01 +0000

Houston is pretty liberal, and probably a lot of hispanics from Ca will moe there since its hard to find construcation jobs in Ca. I think Texas has about 10 years from shifting more hispanic and less republican. Texas has a larger black population than Ca. Its only the whites because of religion and some secular conervatives that hve prevented it from beng as liberal as Ca. Ca was so bad that Obama won San Diego which has a lot of non religious conservatives.

By: Janus

Janus — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:59:50 +0000

There are no private beaches in Texas. None. Every inch of shoreline in Texas is classified as a public beach. Prop 9 affects every property own on the Gulf Coast.

The only thing you can really do about prop 1 now is try to convince your county officials to wisely spend your money. They have the authority now. It’s now up to them to see that that power is not abused.

Prop 6 just f***s us. I hope you like paying interest on bonds, because we’re all going to be doing it till people realize bonds aren’t a magical money tree.

By: David Ross

David Ross — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:50:23 +0000

All of them passed.

#7 is so stupid an idea that it will attract a counter-amendment, or even a Federal Constitutional amendment, to upend it again. This is the sort of thing the Oath Keepers will find out about. In retrospect I should have made a stink about it weeks ago.

#9 seems to apply only to public beaches; I don’t see how it would stop the owner of a private section of beach to put up a fence. I don’t really care one way or another. In retrospect I should have abstained like I did from #8.

I’d like to see your take on limiting the damage from #1 and #6.

By: Texas Elections | Celebrity news

Texas Elections | Celebrity news — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:33:38 +0000

[...] Texas Election on November 3, 2009 | The Blog of a Secular … [...]

By: Janus

Janus — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:15:06 +0000

If an amendment doesn’t authorize something, how can it then be used to authorize that thing? It’s one thing to be cynical, but that’s a massive cognitive leap.

Until the constitutional amendment that expressly prohibits the state from levying a state property tax is repealed or amended, the state cannot levy property tax.

By: ScottKeiser

ScottKeiser — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:29:39 +0000

I agree with you on most issues but I can’t believe that anyone would vote for proposition 3. Proposition 3 while it was written by my own State Senator will give the state a backdoor into instituting a state property tax though it does not authorize it now as janus pointed out. If you give the government the power to do one thing they will always take another even if it was unintended.

By: David Ross

David Ross — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:04:17 +0000

Thank you for this post. I found your site via Google, “houston election 2009 conversative endorsements”. I’ll be voting the way you recommend.

By: Janus

Janus — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:52:39 +0000

Um, David, those chain emails floating around are bogus. I appreciate that you’re trying to do some research on the subject, but you should really check your sources. Your statement is just blatantly untrue. Neither amendments change the constitutional prohibition against state-levied property taxes, they merely ensure that county collections of those taxes are fair and equitable. In fact, the legislature already has such standards in place, there’s just no constitutional authority for them to enforce them. This amendment will only bring counties that have aberrant tax codes in place into compliance with current state-established guidelines.

By: David Scott

David Scott — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:32:56 +0000

Constitutional amendments 2 and 3 would allow for state property tax
on homes, tax we currently do not pay. We should vote NO on both 2 and
3 to prevent new taxes.

By: Janus

Janus — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:27:27 +0000

HPD is at around 70% strength and about 1,600 officers short right now. There’s no downsizing going on there. A cut in retirement benefits, maybe (I doubt it, but maybe), but layoffs? It’ll be a cold day in hell when that happens.

Honestly, the bond drives of the last decade or so are catching up to us. Everyone thinks bonds are great things where money magically appears in the city coffers.. but they’re just loans, and like any loan they have to be paid back, with interest. Light rail and stadiums … the money has to come from somewhere. Combine that with the fact that our taxes come from property (which is sagging and being devalued by a number of rather nasty ordinances coming from city hall) and sales (which just plain sucks in an economy) and we are where we are.