![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
November 2017 Election
Oct. 25th, 2017 08:53 pmIf you have any of the same issues on your ballot as I do, how are you voting? People always say it doesn't matter how you vote, just that you vote. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't want to vote stupidly. And there are so many things I don't care about that I think it often makes sense to abstain so that the people who do care are the ones who make the decision.
Blah, it's already early voting, and I have no clue. Guess I'd better do some research. I started a couple of days ago, but my eyes were glazing over at the League of Women Voters site. I found all the endorsements I could. So here goes:
Texas Constitution Propositions
Proposition 1 - Disabled vet property tax exemption
Allow the Legislature to exempt partially disabled veterans and surviving spouses from paying property taxes on a home received from a charity at less than the market value.
Pro - The League of Women Voters (LWV) says an exemption has already been granted when homes are given for free, so this would expand that exemption. Empower Texans (pro freedom and against big government) says "This is a clean-up amendment."
Con - LWV says some don't like special interest exemptions; all taxes should be reduced.
My conclusion - I don't care much, but I don't like these kinds of weird exceptions at all, so I'm inclined to vote NO. If you want to reward veterans, you should do it with decent pay and benefits. Plus this would only help people who got discounted houses, not people who bought their own or who rent.
Proposition 2: Home equity loan changes
Texas used to not even allow them at all. It's really difficult for me to figure out the real point of these changes. I love how one of the pros is that it reduces costs for borrowers and one of the cons it that it raises costs for borrowers. LWV says the other main pro is more choice and the other main con is fewer protections. They list five specific changes.
Fee Cap - Reduce the maximum fees charged from 3% to 2% of the loan principal but exclude the cost of appraisals, property surveys, title insurance premiums, title insurance, and title examination reports from calculation of the maximum limit on fees. (So I guess the resulting maximum would still be lower.) One pro (per LWV) is that "Lenders will be able to make loans under $100,000 more easily." I don't see how. One con is "Adding the costs for appraisals, surveys, and title insurance and reports on top of a maximum fee limit of 2% of the loan principal would likely be higher than the current 3% cap on all fees." Only wouldn't we have to pay for all that anyway?
Refinancing - Start allowing refinancing as a non home-equity loan. The pro is more flexibility, especially to combine with another loan. The con is that other loan types have fewer protections. Of course no one is making people refinance, but this loss of protections sounds like something that bankers are not going to be mentioning at all to prospective clients, and they will be mentioned in a mass of paperwork so big that no one wants to read it, plus like divorce, people tend to think bad things won't happen to them.
Lines of credit - Stop disallowing additional advances on a home equity line of credit if the unpaid principal exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the homestead. The pro (per LWV) is that borrowers could "initially take out a smaller loan and pay less interest before borrowing more against the line of credit." it seems like they could do that now so long as equity didn't go over 50%. The con (per LWV) is "Current limits require the borrower to budget carefully for projected expenses and their repayment." Uh, shouldn't people always budget carefully for gigantic purchases? I don't see the problem.
Agricultural homesteads - Start allowing home equity loans for homesteads designated for agricultural use. The pro (LWV) is more choices for agricultural properties. The con (LWV) is that home equity choices would be "costlier than farm operating loans and lines of credit due to the added large costs for appraisals, surveys, and title insurance and reports." Again, would anyone make them choose these? Or would banks stop offering farm loans? I don't see the problem.
Approved lenders - Start allowing subsidiaries of banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, and credit unions to make home equity loans; and replace mortgage brokers with mortgage bankers and mortgage companies. This one sounds good to me.
The Houston Chronicle says "All these alterations seem designed to shift the balance away from homeowners and towards the banks - away from caution and towards recklessness," so they recommend against.
Empower Texans says "The less that government interferes in the free market, the more options citizens will have and the less they will pay."
Hmm, if this is about finance company profits at the expense of consumers, I want to oppose it. If it's win-win for most parties, I want to support it. If only the ignorant homeowners will be hurt, I have mixed feelings since those really stupid loans led to a recession for all of us. But this doesn't sound like the kind of rules where banks will package crappy loans with good ones for unsuspecting investors. If it's bad, it just sounds like it will lead to foreclosures. Of course that's what I thought last time. Anyone feel like they understand the winners and losers of this one?
Proposition 3 - Limiting Service of Officeholders
Right now, volunteer appointees can keep serving after the end of their terms if there is no new appointee. The proposition says they need to step down regardless.
Pro - The LWV says this "would address concerns about some gubernatorial appointees being held over in their positions long after their terms have expired. Placing the limit at the end of a regular legislative session allows Senate confirmation hearings of appointees." That makes no sense to me. Nothing currently keeps the governor from selecting a new appointee. Maybe the problem is that if the governor thinks the senate won't approve the new appointee, then at least he or she could keep the old appointee without having to get new permission? Also, "Placing a limit on how long an appointee could continue serving in office would ensure that these unsalaried volunteer positions are rotated among qualified Texans." This doesn't make sense to me either. Are people dying to serve for free? Do these offices greatly benefit from turnover? Empower Texans says "Appointed office holders shouldn’t be allowed to remain in office far beyond the expiration of their term, a practice which has unfortunately become very common in Texas. This amendment encourages the governor and the Texas Legislature to be more effective and diligent in their appointments." (Also, it seems like empty offices = smaller government, so that would make them happy.)
Con - The LWV says current law allows for flexibility and makes it less likely that important positions will end up vacant. Does this mean that people don't want these jobs? The Houston Chronicle says "We have no quarrel with the current "holdover" rule and recommend voting against. Altering this system risks turning appointed positions into tug-of-wars between interest groups or proxy battles for greater political fights. For example, after the lobbying outfit Empower Texans ran afoul of the Texas Ethics Commission, the group tried to pressure the governor into replacing qualified commissioners whose terms had expired. Keeping those holdovers offers a sense of stability. The last thing Texans need are empty seats or more opportunity for political chaos." Couldn't the governor just re-appoint the same people if he wanted to?
I'm inclined to vote NO.
Proposition 4 - Waiting period for constitutionality cases
Requires a court to notify the state attorney general when someone challenges the constitutionality of a state statute. Courts must wait 45 days, after providing the notice, before entering a judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.
One pro is that this does not mess with separation of powers; one con is that it does. Okay, then.
Pro - LWV says this gives the state reasonable opportunity to defend itself. I am confused; don't court cases have people show up on both sides first before a decisions is made? I don't see what the problem is. The Houston Chronicle says "Everyone deserves to know if they're being sued - even the state of Texas." This doesn't make sense to me. Empower Texans also says "This amendment would allow the Texas Legislature and the Texas Attorney General to be better informed about challenges to existing state law so they could either defend the laws or adjust them." Okay, maybe they are not called on to defend themselves somehow. Nope, Dallas Morning News says "You'd think that if someone challenged a state law, the attorney general's office would know quickly. Not so. In 2013, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a state law requiring courts to notify the attorney general of challenges." Shouldn't they just hire someone to watch the courts, like everyone else does?
Con - LWV says this could delay a Texan’s right to pursue and receive relief from unconstitutional laws. None of the pro people have addressed the 45-day delay part of this rule. Is that because most of these cases take much longer than that?
I'm inclined to vote NO on this one.
Proposition 5 - sports raffles
Even more sports teams can hold raffles.
Pro - Per LWV, more sports teams could have this way to get money. The Houston Chronicle says "Right now the state Constitution restricts these sorts of lotteries, which have routinely raised thousands for worthy causes, to the state's 10 major league sports franchises. Voters should approve this amendment to expand the opportunities for charity to all the minor and major league teams in Texas." Dallas Morning News agrees: "They've been successful in raising thousands for charity with no reported problems. We see no reason why other professional teams shouldn't have the same opportunities, with the same safeguards in place, to contribute to their communities." And part of me thinks if people want to blow their money on raffles, they should be allowed to.
Con - Per LWV, this expands gambling and could inspire other groups to ask for permission to have raffles. Personally, I am not a fan of raffles. They are boring. I rarely want the prize, and even if I do, I'm probably not going to get it. Meanwhile, it's just people reading off names or numbers and waiting for someone to notice they won. Snore. But it's not all about me. Is this the kind of thing where people can waste their money on millions of tickets? Or is your entry ticket also your raffle ticket? If the former, I am opposed to an idiot tax. Empower Texans says "While seemingly innocuous, this amendment would expand state-sanctioned gambling. State-sanctioned gambling is a corrupting force for Texas government." That surprises me--I'd expect them to be pro letting people do whatever they want! Also, don't the sports teams get this rather than the government and therefore wouldn't they be the ones tempted into corruption? Confusing. And then the sports teams decide who to donate it to. I'd rather people decide for themselves who to donate to.
I'm inclined to vote NO. I blame Louis L'Amour, who taught me that big piles of money are asking for trouble. Of course if you support any of the charities that gets extra money because of this, you might want to talk me out of that vote. I really don't know who would benefit.
Proposition 6 - First responder property tax exemption
This lets the legislature exempt from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a first responder who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.
Again, one pro is that "The fiscal impact on a single taxing district would be minimal" but one con is that "School districts would receive less revenue from property taxes so the state may decide to cover this reduction by taking it from the General Revenue Fund, creating a cost to the state." So how do I know?
Pro - Per LWV, these folks deserve the same protections as veterans. Empower Texans says "Honoring the spouses of first responders is a noble undertaking."
Con - Per LWV, this is yet another special interest thing; I oppose weirdo special-interest things. Empower Texans says "Texans should be concerned about the rampant growth in constituencies receiving property tax exemptions. These exemptions risk making Swiss cheese of the tax code, leaving taxpayers outside of the exceptions to pick up the costs." I don't care about the slippery slope argument. I do care that this only helps widow[er]s of first responders killed in the line of duty if they haven't remarried. It doesn't help renters, and it messes with re-marriage decisions. I think it would be better just to provide decent life insurance. I mean a constitutional amendment about property tax is wacko.
I'm voting NO.
Proposition 7 - banks and toasters
Let financial institutions "award prizes by lot to promote savings."
Pro - Per LWV, people don't save enough, so incentives are good and it's not like normal lotteries where people actually lose their money; they can actually withdraw it at any time. The Houston Chronicle agrees. So does the Dallas Morning News: "This could help residents find a path to financial security, especially in low-income areas, eliminating the need to turn to predatory payday lending operations that can get people in a deeper financial hole. Banks and credit unions would be allowed to set up "prize-linked savings accounts" for customers. The more deposits you make, the more chances you have to win a prize."
Con - Per LWV, it's weird to let only one non-charity hold raffles and it's a slippery slope.
(Empower Texans abstains again.)
Again, I think of lotteries as stupid, but I think people should be allowed to do stupid things if they want. I think of not having savings as stupid, too, or at least distracted. Interestingly this could help stupid and distracted people to do something smart, so that would be cool, I guess. I'd really rather that savers be rewarded with decent interest rates. Or that thing where you give us ALL real money to achieve savings goals (like put $X in for Y amount of time).
Urg. I'm inclined to abstain.
Travis County Bonds
I don't get the point of bonds. You have to raise taxes to pay them, and then you have to pay for interest, too. Is anything so urgent that we can't just save up? On the other hand, interest rates seemed to be subsidized by the government, and cost increases while saving up may indeed be worse than paying interest, despite "official" inflation calculations. Interestingly, LWV does not provide pro or con arguments for these bonds, though they do say that one point of bonds is to let voters decide. And one of the things I got in the mail explains that bond money is exempt from the Robin Hood rule where taxes from richer districts are moved to poorer districts. So this is a loophole for richer districts to keep more of their money. I hate that. But I know that even our school district is drastically underfunded right now. (Although I couldn't help looking it up: first-year teachers at AISD are now making $47,257 per year, so they totally caught up with and passed my highest salary ever. So that's good. For them.)
Proposition A - $93.44 million for roadway, drainage, bridge, bicycle, and pedestrian projects
Roadway Capacity- the addition of new lanes to existing roadways, construction of new roadways, or the widening of narrow roadways. Drainage/Stream Crossings- Improvements to provide for the rehabilitation or replacement of substandard bridges and improvements to road related drainage. Finally, funding is included to provide for new sidewalks and bicycle safety projects; moreover, many of the added lane capacity projects will include the construction of bike lanes and sidewalks.
Pro - Sure sounds good. The Austin Chronicle says "The road projects, with a couple of exceptions, add needed capacity to existing highways; the drainage and stream-crossing projects should lower the number of dangerous or closed roadways at high water; the bicycle and sidewalk projects begin to integrate access that should no longer be an afterthought."
Con - As usual, I fear anything involving roadway "improvements," because we suck at that around here.
I guess I'm inclined to vote YES.
Proposition B - $91.49 million for parks and land conservation projects
In eastern Travis County, park funds will be used to build a system of parks along the Colorado River and its tributaries and to improve soccer fields at Northeast Metro Park. In western Travis County, funds will be used to acquire land or interest in parkland, to build a sports complex near Lakeway, and to expand overnight facilities at Arkansas Bend Park. Funds for conservation easements will be used in both eastern and western Travis County for projects that meet County standards for protecting natural and cultural resources.
Pro - I do have a soft spot for soccer fields because I've used them for ultimate frisbee. Not to mention parks and conservation in general.
I'm inclined to vote YES.
Austin Independent School District Bond
The issuance of $1,050,984,000 school building bonds for the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, renovation, expansion, improvement, modernization and equipment of school buildings in the district, including (i) technology systems and equipment, (ii) safety and security systems and equipment, (iii) improvements to address overcrowding and safety concerns, (iv) improvements for students with special
needs, and (v) reinvention programs for twenty-first century learning; the purchase of the necessary sites for school buildings; and the purchase of new school buses, and the levy, pledge, assessment and collection of ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the district, sufficient, without limit as to rate or amount, to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds and the costs of credit agreements executed in connection with the bonds.
This sounds great to me, but like something that should have been covered all along with regular taxes. But LWV say that this is exactly the kinds of things bonds are often used for "as opposed to the day-to-day costs like salaries." People really don't get that maintenance should be regarded as a day-to-day cost.
LWV says:
Here are some of the major items in the package:
• New buildings for Brown, Casis, Govalle, Brentwood, Menchaca elementary schools and Rosedale School.
• Phase 1 modernization of Bowie High School.
• New 800-student campus for Eastside Memorial High School and International School on the original L.C. Anderson High site.
• Move the Liberal Arts and Science Academy to the current Eastside Memorial site, which would allow it to expand to up to 2,000 students.
• Phase 1 modernization of the Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders.
• New 800-student middle school in the Mueller development.
• Phase 1 construction of a school to relieve overcrowding at Blazier Elementary.
• The $1.05 billion bond proposal comes with no tax rate increase. According to AISD and indepedently verified by the Austin Chamber of Commerce, that can be accomplished partly because the District would not borrow the funds all at once. The District would pay off existing debt at higher interest rates as it takes on new debt at the lowest interest rates possible. All money raised through bonds remains in AISD.
Pro - Per LWV, this covers overdue maintenance and loads of projects all over town, plus makes use of schools with more capacity than is needed to take in students from overcrowded schools, and will institute a new Facilities Master Plan.
Con - That new Master Plan is racist--only mostly Hispanic and African American Title I schools in east Austin would be closed even if students there are doing very well whereas lots of other low-enrollment schools are not being targeted. And these schools are often "central hubs of activity for their neighborhoods and families." Also west Austin schools get more of the funding. Also, they claim there will be no tax rate increase, but that's because they're counting on rising property values to increase taxes enough to cover this.
Ugh, we really need money for this stuff. But I really, really despise racism so, so much. The Austin Chronicle says "Austin's school district finds itself in dire need, with nearly $5 billion looming in renovation and expansion. It has old and collapsing campuses, and students crowded into spaces designed to take a fraction of their number. What this $1 billion bond does is provide a little bit of relief for every single campus, and a lot for the most needy campuses and communities. The most controversial point of the bond is the great East Austin switch: giving the LASA magnet its own campus at the former Johnston High, moving Eastside Memorial High to the renovated Old Anderson campus, and allowing LBJ High to expand into the rooms currently occupied by LASA, as well as adding a medical track. Opponents call it a racist plan that further segregates East Austin. Supporters see it as way to give both LASA and LBJ room to expand, and perhaps heal the scars left when Old Anderson – Austin's first high school for African-American students – closed down. The two sides have been at loggerheads on this, but it's one component of a massive plan, and should not capsize the entire deal. Ultimately, AISD's bond represents a moral question for Austin voters: Do they want students to be stuck in old, ill-suited buildings, or do they want them in safe, modern campuses that are suited for a modern education? Moreover, voting against this bond will not prevent underenrolled schools from closing; it just means that students enrolled there will have nowhere to go when those schools do close. There is still a lot of work to be done on district facilities, but this is a long-overdue first step."
I guess I'm thinking I should vote yes and then write letters to encourage them to change the Master Plan to be less racist.
Blah, it's already early voting, and I have no clue. Guess I'd better do some research. I started a couple of days ago, but my eyes were glazing over at the League of Women Voters site. I found all the endorsements I could. So here goes:
Texas Constitution Propositions
Proposition 1 - Disabled vet property tax exemption
Allow the Legislature to exempt partially disabled veterans and surviving spouses from paying property taxes on a home received from a charity at less than the market value.
Pro - The League of Women Voters (LWV) says an exemption has already been granted when homes are given for free, so this would expand that exemption. Empower Texans (pro freedom and against big government) says "This is a clean-up amendment."
Con - LWV says some don't like special interest exemptions; all taxes should be reduced.
My conclusion - I don't care much, but I don't like these kinds of weird exceptions at all, so I'm inclined to vote NO. If you want to reward veterans, you should do it with decent pay and benefits. Plus this would only help people who got discounted houses, not people who bought their own or who rent.
Proposition 2: Home equity loan changes
Texas used to not even allow them at all. It's really difficult for me to figure out the real point of these changes. I love how one of the pros is that it reduces costs for borrowers and one of the cons it that it raises costs for borrowers. LWV says the other main pro is more choice and the other main con is fewer protections. They list five specific changes.
Fee Cap - Reduce the maximum fees charged from 3% to 2% of the loan principal but exclude the cost of appraisals, property surveys, title insurance premiums, title insurance, and title examination reports from calculation of the maximum limit on fees. (So I guess the resulting maximum would still be lower.) One pro (per LWV) is that "Lenders will be able to make loans under $100,000 more easily." I don't see how. One con is "Adding the costs for appraisals, surveys, and title insurance and reports on top of a maximum fee limit of 2% of the loan principal would likely be higher than the current 3% cap on all fees." Only wouldn't we have to pay for all that anyway?
Refinancing - Start allowing refinancing as a non home-equity loan. The pro is more flexibility, especially to combine with another loan. The con is that other loan types have fewer protections. Of course no one is making people refinance, but this loss of protections sounds like something that bankers are not going to be mentioning at all to prospective clients, and they will be mentioned in a mass of paperwork so big that no one wants to read it, plus like divorce, people tend to think bad things won't happen to them.
Lines of credit - Stop disallowing additional advances on a home equity line of credit if the unpaid principal exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the homestead. The pro (per LWV) is that borrowers could "initially take out a smaller loan and pay less interest before borrowing more against the line of credit." it seems like they could do that now so long as equity didn't go over 50%. The con (per LWV) is "Current limits require the borrower to budget carefully for projected expenses and their repayment." Uh, shouldn't people always budget carefully for gigantic purchases? I don't see the problem.
Agricultural homesteads - Start allowing home equity loans for homesteads designated for agricultural use. The pro (LWV) is more choices for agricultural properties. The con (LWV) is that home equity choices would be "costlier than farm operating loans and lines of credit due to the added large costs for appraisals, surveys, and title insurance and reports." Again, would anyone make them choose these? Or would banks stop offering farm loans? I don't see the problem.
Approved lenders - Start allowing subsidiaries of banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, and credit unions to make home equity loans; and replace mortgage brokers with mortgage bankers and mortgage companies. This one sounds good to me.
The Houston Chronicle says "All these alterations seem designed to shift the balance away from homeowners and towards the banks - away from caution and towards recklessness," so they recommend against.
Empower Texans says "The less that government interferes in the free market, the more options citizens will have and the less they will pay."
Hmm, if this is about finance company profits at the expense of consumers, I want to oppose it. If it's win-win for most parties, I want to support it. If only the ignorant homeowners will be hurt, I have mixed feelings since those really stupid loans led to a recession for all of us. But this doesn't sound like the kind of rules where banks will package crappy loans with good ones for unsuspecting investors. If it's bad, it just sounds like it will lead to foreclosures. Of course that's what I thought last time. Anyone feel like they understand the winners and losers of this one?
Proposition 3 - Limiting Service of Officeholders
Right now, volunteer appointees can keep serving after the end of their terms if there is no new appointee. The proposition says they need to step down regardless.
Pro - The LWV says this "would address concerns about some gubernatorial appointees being held over in their positions long after their terms have expired. Placing the limit at the end of a regular legislative session allows Senate confirmation hearings of appointees." That makes no sense to me. Nothing currently keeps the governor from selecting a new appointee. Maybe the problem is that if the governor thinks the senate won't approve the new appointee, then at least he or she could keep the old appointee without having to get new permission? Also, "Placing a limit on how long an appointee could continue serving in office would ensure that these unsalaried volunteer positions are rotated among qualified Texans." This doesn't make sense to me either. Are people dying to serve for free? Do these offices greatly benefit from turnover? Empower Texans says "Appointed office holders shouldn’t be allowed to remain in office far beyond the expiration of their term, a practice which has unfortunately become very common in Texas. This amendment encourages the governor and the Texas Legislature to be more effective and diligent in their appointments." (Also, it seems like empty offices = smaller government, so that would make them happy.)
Con - The LWV says current law allows for flexibility and makes it less likely that important positions will end up vacant. Does this mean that people don't want these jobs? The Houston Chronicle says "We have no quarrel with the current "holdover" rule and recommend voting against. Altering this system risks turning appointed positions into tug-of-wars between interest groups or proxy battles for greater political fights. For example, after the lobbying outfit Empower Texans ran afoul of the Texas Ethics Commission, the group tried to pressure the governor into replacing qualified commissioners whose terms had expired. Keeping those holdovers offers a sense of stability. The last thing Texans need are empty seats or more opportunity for political chaos." Couldn't the governor just re-appoint the same people if he wanted to?
I'm inclined to vote NO.
Proposition 4 - Waiting period for constitutionality cases
Requires a court to notify the state attorney general when someone challenges the constitutionality of a state statute. Courts must wait 45 days, after providing the notice, before entering a judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.
One pro is that this does not mess with separation of powers; one con is that it does. Okay, then.
Pro - LWV says this gives the state reasonable opportunity to defend itself. I am confused; don't court cases have people show up on both sides first before a decisions is made? I don't see what the problem is. The Houston Chronicle says "Everyone deserves to know if they're being sued - even the state of Texas." This doesn't make sense to me. Empower Texans also says "This amendment would allow the Texas Legislature and the Texas Attorney General to be better informed about challenges to existing state law so they could either defend the laws or adjust them." Okay, maybe they are not called on to defend themselves somehow. Nope, Dallas Morning News says "You'd think that if someone challenged a state law, the attorney general's office would know quickly. Not so. In 2013, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a state law requiring courts to notify the attorney general of challenges." Shouldn't they just hire someone to watch the courts, like everyone else does?
Con - LWV says this could delay a Texan’s right to pursue and receive relief from unconstitutional laws. None of the pro people have addressed the 45-day delay part of this rule. Is that because most of these cases take much longer than that?
I'm inclined to vote NO on this one.
Proposition 5 - sports raffles
Even more sports teams can hold raffles.
Pro - Per LWV, more sports teams could have this way to get money. The Houston Chronicle says "Right now the state Constitution restricts these sorts of lotteries, which have routinely raised thousands for worthy causes, to the state's 10 major league sports franchises. Voters should approve this amendment to expand the opportunities for charity to all the minor and major league teams in Texas." Dallas Morning News agrees: "They've been successful in raising thousands for charity with no reported problems. We see no reason why other professional teams shouldn't have the same opportunities, with the same safeguards in place, to contribute to their communities." And part of me thinks if people want to blow their money on raffles, they should be allowed to.
Con - Per LWV, this expands gambling and could inspire other groups to ask for permission to have raffles. Personally, I am not a fan of raffles. They are boring. I rarely want the prize, and even if I do, I'm probably not going to get it. Meanwhile, it's just people reading off names or numbers and waiting for someone to notice they won. Snore. But it's not all about me. Is this the kind of thing where people can waste their money on millions of tickets? Or is your entry ticket also your raffle ticket? If the former, I am opposed to an idiot tax. Empower Texans says "While seemingly innocuous, this amendment would expand state-sanctioned gambling. State-sanctioned gambling is a corrupting force for Texas government." That surprises me--I'd expect them to be pro letting people do whatever they want! Also, don't the sports teams get this rather than the government and therefore wouldn't they be the ones tempted into corruption? Confusing. And then the sports teams decide who to donate it to. I'd rather people decide for themselves who to donate to.
I'm inclined to vote NO. I blame Louis L'Amour, who taught me that big piles of money are asking for trouble. Of course if you support any of the charities that gets extra money because of this, you might want to talk me out of that vote. I really don't know who would benefit.
Proposition 6 - First responder property tax exemption
This lets the legislature exempt from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a first responder who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.
Again, one pro is that "The fiscal impact on a single taxing district would be minimal" but one con is that "School districts would receive less revenue from property taxes so the state may decide to cover this reduction by taking it from the General Revenue Fund, creating a cost to the state." So how do I know?
Pro - Per LWV, these folks deserve the same protections as veterans. Empower Texans says "Honoring the spouses of first responders is a noble undertaking."
Con - Per LWV, this is yet another special interest thing; I oppose weirdo special-interest things. Empower Texans says "Texans should be concerned about the rampant growth in constituencies receiving property tax exemptions. These exemptions risk making Swiss cheese of the tax code, leaving taxpayers outside of the exceptions to pick up the costs." I don't care about the slippery slope argument. I do care that this only helps widow[er]s of first responders killed in the line of duty if they haven't remarried. It doesn't help renters, and it messes with re-marriage decisions. I think it would be better just to provide decent life insurance. I mean a constitutional amendment about property tax is wacko.
I'm voting NO.
Proposition 7 - banks and toasters
Let financial institutions "award prizes by lot to promote savings."
Pro - Per LWV, people don't save enough, so incentives are good and it's not like normal lotteries where people actually lose their money; they can actually withdraw it at any time. The Houston Chronicle agrees. So does the Dallas Morning News: "This could help residents find a path to financial security, especially in low-income areas, eliminating the need to turn to predatory payday lending operations that can get people in a deeper financial hole. Banks and credit unions would be allowed to set up "prize-linked savings accounts" for customers. The more deposits you make, the more chances you have to win a prize."
Con - Per LWV, it's weird to let only one non-charity hold raffles and it's a slippery slope.
(Empower Texans abstains again.)
Again, I think of lotteries as stupid, but I think people should be allowed to do stupid things if they want. I think of not having savings as stupid, too, or at least distracted. Interestingly this could help stupid and distracted people to do something smart, so that would be cool, I guess. I'd really rather that savers be rewarded with decent interest rates. Or that thing where you give us ALL real money to achieve savings goals (like put $X in for Y amount of time).
Urg. I'm inclined to abstain.
Travis County Bonds
I don't get the point of bonds. You have to raise taxes to pay them, and then you have to pay for interest, too. Is anything so urgent that we can't just save up? On the other hand, interest rates seemed to be subsidized by the government, and cost increases while saving up may indeed be worse than paying interest, despite "official" inflation calculations. Interestingly, LWV does not provide pro or con arguments for these bonds, though they do say that one point of bonds is to let voters decide. And one of the things I got in the mail explains that bond money is exempt from the Robin Hood rule where taxes from richer districts are moved to poorer districts. So this is a loophole for richer districts to keep more of their money. I hate that. But I know that even our school district is drastically underfunded right now. (Although I couldn't help looking it up: first-year teachers at AISD are now making $47,257 per year, so they totally caught up with and passed my highest salary ever. So that's good. For them.)
Proposition A - $93.44 million for roadway, drainage, bridge, bicycle, and pedestrian projects
Roadway Capacity- the addition of new lanes to existing roadways, construction of new roadways, or the widening of narrow roadways. Drainage/Stream Crossings- Improvements to provide for the rehabilitation or replacement of substandard bridges and improvements to road related drainage. Finally, funding is included to provide for new sidewalks and bicycle safety projects; moreover, many of the added lane capacity projects will include the construction of bike lanes and sidewalks.
Pro - Sure sounds good. The Austin Chronicle says "The road projects, with a couple of exceptions, add needed capacity to existing highways; the drainage and stream-crossing projects should lower the number of dangerous or closed roadways at high water; the bicycle and sidewalk projects begin to integrate access that should no longer be an afterthought."
Con - As usual, I fear anything involving roadway "improvements," because we suck at that around here.
I guess I'm inclined to vote YES.
Proposition B - $91.49 million for parks and land conservation projects
In eastern Travis County, park funds will be used to build a system of parks along the Colorado River and its tributaries and to improve soccer fields at Northeast Metro Park. In western Travis County, funds will be used to acquire land or interest in parkland, to build a sports complex near Lakeway, and to expand overnight facilities at Arkansas Bend Park. Funds for conservation easements will be used in both eastern and western Travis County for projects that meet County standards for protecting natural and cultural resources.
Pro - I do have a soft spot for soccer fields because I've used them for ultimate frisbee. Not to mention parks and conservation in general.
I'm inclined to vote YES.
Austin Independent School District Bond
The issuance of $1,050,984,000 school building bonds for the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, renovation, expansion, improvement, modernization and equipment of school buildings in the district, including (i) technology systems and equipment, (ii) safety and security systems and equipment, (iii) improvements to address overcrowding and safety concerns, (iv) improvements for students with special
needs, and (v) reinvention programs for twenty-first century learning; the purchase of the necessary sites for school buildings; and the purchase of new school buses, and the levy, pledge, assessment and collection of ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the district, sufficient, without limit as to rate or amount, to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds and the costs of credit agreements executed in connection with the bonds.
This sounds great to me, but like something that should have been covered all along with regular taxes. But LWV say that this is exactly the kinds of things bonds are often used for "as opposed to the day-to-day costs like salaries." People really don't get that maintenance should be regarded as a day-to-day cost.
LWV says:
Here are some of the major items in the package:
• New buildings for Brown, Casis, Govalle, Brentwood, Menchaca elementary schools and Rosedale School.
• Phase 1 modernization of Bowie High School.
• New 800-student campus for Eastside Memorial High School and International School on the original L.C. Anderson High site.
• Move the Liberal Arts and Science Academy to the current Eastside Memorial site, which would allow it to expand to up to 2,000 students.
• Phase 1 modernization of the Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders.
• New 800-student middle school in the Mueller development.
• Phase 1 construction of a school to relieve overcrowding at Blazier Elementary.
• The $1.05 billion bond proposal comes with no tax rate increase. According to AISD and indepedently verified by the Austin Chamber of Commerce, that can be accomplished partly because the District would not borrow the funds all at once. The District would pay off existing debt at higher interest rates as it takes on new debt at the lowest interest rates possible. All money raised through bonds remains in AISD.
Pro - Per LWV, this covers overdue maintenance and loads of projects all over town, plus makes use of schools with more capacity than is needed to take in students from overcrowded schools, and will institute a new Facilities Master Plan.
Con - That new Master Plan is racist--only mostly Hispanic and African American Title I schools in east Austin would be closed even if students there are doing very well whereas lots of other low-enrollment schools are not being targeted. And these schools are often "central hubs of activity for their neighborhoods and families." Also west Austin schools get more of the funding. Also, they claim there will be no tax rate increase, but that's because they're counting on rising property values to increase taxes enough to cover this.
Ugh, we really need money for this stuff. But I really, really despise racism so, so much. The Austin Chronicle says "Austin's school district finds itself in dire need, with nearly $5 billion looming in renovation and expansion. It has old and collapsing campuses, and students crowded into spaces designed to take a fraction of their number. What this $1 billion bond does is provide a little bit of relief for every single campus, and a lot for the most needy campuses and communities. The most controversial point of the bond is the great East Austin switch: giving the LASA magnet its own campus at the former Johnston High, moving Eastside Memorial High to the renovated Old Anderson campus, and allowing LBJ High to expand into the rooms currently occupied by LASA, as well as adding a medical track. Opponents call it a racist plan that further segregates East Austin. Supporters see it as way to give both LASA and LBJ room to expand, and perhaps heal the scars left when Old Anderson – Austin's first high school for African-American students – closed down. The two sides have been at loggerheads on this, but it's one component of a massive plan, and should not capsize the entire deal. Ultimately, AISD's bond represents a moral question for Austin voters: Do they want students to be stuck in old, ill-suited buildings, or do they want them in safe, modern campuses that are suited for a modern education? Moreover, voting against this bond will not prevent underenrolled schools from closing; it just means that students enrolled there will have nowhere to go when those schools do close. There is still a lot of work to be done on district facilities, but this is a long-overdue first step."
I guess I'm thinking I should vote yes and then write letters to encourage them to change the Master Plan to be less racist.