Amendment election just days away

By Lauren LaFleur

assistanteditor@jacksonvilleprogress.com

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the fourth in a four-part series about the proposed constitutional amendments that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. Information for analyses of each proposition came from reports published by the House Research Organization and the Texas Legislative Council. Views expressed are not those of the Jacksonville Daily Progress or its staff.

Texans will have the chance to voice their opinion on 11 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution on Tuesday, and Cherokee County voting officials have urged local voters to cast their ballots.

Linda Little, Cherokee County tax assessor/collector, said those wishing to cast their ballots Tuesday need to bring with them their current voter registration card, driver’s license, Social Security card or a utility bill in their name in order to vote.

See Sunday’s Daily Progress for a list of Cherokee County ballot box locations.

Proposition 10

This proposed amendment would allow the legislature to limit those serving on emergency service districts’ governing boards to serve terms up to, but not exceeding, four years.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”

For: Individuals who serve on these boards would be able to give their districts a better sense of continuity and more experience if allowed to serve longer terms. Their services are important enough to their local communities to allow this exception, similar to what is already allowed on several other types of boards, such as hospital district boards. Also, requiring that commissioners run then re-run every two years detracts from the work they should do while on these boards and could promote the holding of these offices by those with the most political savvy rather than by the individual most qualified to do the job.

Against: With authority over critical services and broad powers to exercise that authority, including the power to levy taxes, allowing emergency services district commissioners such long terms would weaken their accountability to the public by diluting the manner in which the public exercises control over those elected to office. These officials should be held to the same accountability standards through election as members of the House of Representatives. Additionally, asserting that a two-year election process for these officials would overpoliticize what is essentially a nonpartisan office is a fallacy. Candidates who attempt to use inappropriate partisan politics in what should be a nonpartisan election run the risk of such tactics backfiring due to voter resentment.

Proposition 11

Proposition 11, the final amendment on Tuesday’s ballot, would allow eminent domain — the taking of private property for public use — to be used only if it is in the case of ownership, use and enjoyment of the property by the State of Texas, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. This would not allow property taken by eminent domain to be transferred to a private entity for economic development purposes or to raise tax revenues. The legislature’s power to allow power of eminent domain in the future would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house, if this amendment is passed.

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.”

For: This amendment would establish clear restrictions on the use of eminent domain, thus enhancing property protections established by the courts in 2005. The amendment would also specify that the term “public use” excludes taking of property for economic development or tax revenue enhancement purposes. Current constitutional language does not specify what “public use” exactly means. Also, before property could be condemned, its intended use would need to be clear — the language relating to the “ownership, use and enjoyment” of the property would give direction to the judicial system of Texas when ruling on eminent domain cases. This language would not preclude leasing the property to a third party or similar arrangement.

This amendment would also nullify an existing loophole allowing governmental entities to condemn well-maintained property on grounds of “blight” simply because surround property is blighted, but rather condemnation for blight would only be allowed if the parcel itself is blighted.

Proposition 11, if passed, would also prohibit the seizing and reselling or leasing of land to private developers to build new developments with the intent of increasing the local tax revenue base.

Against: The problems Proposition 11 attempts to solve are already addressed statutorily. Keeping the matter as is, rather than locking it into permanent place by amending the constitution, would allow the Texas judicial system the time to further review and define current eminent domain laws. Thus concerns for protections for property owners would be addressed. Further, the language defining proper use of condemned property is too vague and would leave to the courts the power of determining the valid reach of eminent domain in Texas. Precedents could be set that could then lead to future litigation that would allow court interpretations that could vary greatly from the legislature’s original intent. This would weaken and impair years of judicial precedent and taxpayer money.

Additionally, the language of this amendment creates ambiguity about what a legitimate use of eminent domain would be for local governments’ use and could possibly disallow local governments from entering into leases with third parties for the purpose of providing ancillary services at public facilities on property gained through eminent domain — airport hangars, hospitals, hotels, restaurants and parking facilities could all be disallowed under this language. These types of uses would serve the general public while boosting local tax base.

This amendment would also allow the legislature the power to grant any entity, including private entities, the authority of eminent domain with a two-thirds vote of all members. Utilities and common carriers have long had this type of power, needed for operations. This amendment could potentially allow any private party the power to seize property through eminent domain and would not give home or business owners any protection from losing their property for private development projects.

Local News

Search Results

Discussion

Site Map

Contact Us