2019 election notes

Here is a summary of my findings on the next election. I have loads more notes, so ask if you have questions. But I'm trying not to make this too dry.

Here are my biases:
* Some things are best handled by a market system, but externalities are best handled by government.
* Putting a lot of money in one place is begging for corruption, but generally I stick my head in the sand about this.
* I will vote for things that I think will be improvements even if I think they are still terrible.

(By far my best source on the state propositions was the House Research Organization report, which I found via a link from the Texas Tribune, a neutral paper.)

Texas State Proposition 1 - Letting municipal judges hold multiple offices

This appears to be about corruption (holding multiple paid offices at the same time, some in areas where they were not elected) versus pragmatism (smaller and rural systems have trouble finding qualified candidates, which can have a negative impact on public health and safety; taxpayer-funded training will go further). There are already exceptions for appointed positions; this would allow the same for elected positions. Since districts do not overlap, there would be no conflict of interest. Critics say judges may not be able to give adequate focus to each court, but judges serving in more than one city would continue to be accountable to each city, the voters, and others.

My vote: For.

Texas State Proposition 2 - More water development bonds

This appears to be about learning from Detroit. It would increase bond debt for the whole state to improve water quality in low-income places. I'm cool with that because basically clean water is the most important health improvement over ancient times, this would not be handled well by the market system, and I'm good with some people having to pay to help other people for basic needs.

My vote: For.

Texas State Proposition 3 - Allow post-disaster property tax relief.

This appears to be about precision versus efficiency and affordability. The tax code already allows for re-appraisals in disaster areas pro-rated to the time of the disaster. But many taxing units choose not to allow reappraisals; reappraisals require extensive time and resources to personally examine potentially hazardous damaged property and appraise its value.

But it's also about required versus allowed relief. Currently, taxing units have a choice. This proposition would require relief (though only if the disaster occurred before a tax rate is adopted. What do they mean "before"? I guess they mean after the last property tax due date but before the next rate setting. I'm not sure when property tax rates are usually set. I think my re-appraisals have been mid-summer and the rates have been set several months later.) And this requirement could deny local governments of funds they need to continue to provide essential services.

My vote: Against, I guess. Edited 10/31/19--Decided to go along with my knowledgeable friend and vote For for faster, cheaper relief, taxing less for things that are worth less.

Texas State Proposition 4 - Prohibiting a state income tax

Texas has a long history of no state income tax. Although I am pro-income tax as a progressive way to collect taxes, I can't help believing those who feel that adding an income tax would ultimately raise the total taxes collected--any other taxes would either not be lowered enough or would immediately start rising again. (Additional disclaimers: I like getting the cheap version of Turbo Tax since I have no state income tax. I think my income is a smaller percentage of the median than my property value, so I might benefit from income tax replacing some or all of my property taxes, but my expenditures requiring sales tax are very low indeed.)

So anyway, a state referendum is already required to start an income tax. Supporters say this proposition would send a message that Texas is committed to maintaining a business-friendly low-tax environment. Gag me. Ahem, I mean we still have sales taxes and very high property taxes, so are we just attracting suckers? And we could still remove this Amendment, but it would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature as well as another vote. I prefer less bureaucracy.

Edited (10/25/19) to add: I just read this on NextDoor, summarized from Ballotopia: "It removes: (1)the restriction that 2/3 of any income tax revenue must be used to pay down school property taxes and 1/3 must be used to fund public education, and (2) corporate franchise tax (which funds public schools) could be in jeopardy with a change in wording from “natural person” to “individual”. The change sets up the corporate franchise tax/corporate margin tax to be challenged in court as unconstitutional and potentially struck down. A corporate loophole in the works. A “yes” on this amendment could very negatively impact public school funding in the state. If the “individual” designation ends up in court, corporations could free themselves from significant taxes. Where does the burden then fall? Likely on property taxes."

My vote: Against.

Texas State Proposition 5 - Dedicating sporting goods sales tax to parks and history, for real

This one challenges my understanding of how laws even work.

"In 1993, state lawmakers passed legislation allowing up to 94 percent of the sporting goods sales tax to go to parks, with the remaining 6 percent designated for the state's historical commission, which maintains Texas' 22 historic sites. However, in the following decades, they allocated an average of just 40 percent of the tax to the parks system and used the rest to help balance the state budget, according to parks advocates," though more in recent years. - per the Texas Tribune So why are they allowed to do that? This amendment would say they're not allowed to do that without the approval of 2/3 of both houses. Why don't we have an amendment saying they're not allowed to do that for any laws at all?

Critics fear future such amendments and prefer maintaining flexibility for the budget. They tend to oppose dedicated funds in general.

Supporters say that state and local parks benefit sporting goods companies and that this would help agencies plan long term for repairs, projects and new parks, prevent minor repairs from become major ones, and reduce the strain on parks from increasing visitorship and even taking in natural disaster evacuees, repairing over-burdened roads, bathrooms, bridges, and trials. The parks system already has an estimated $781 million in deferred maintenance needs.

I like parks being supported by government. I feel like if the state really needs the money to balance the budget in tough times, they can go ahead and vote for that, but that's more bureaucracy. And the tax is not an extra tax just for this purpose, but the sales tax on certain items. I fear the real question is whether I trust the legislature to divert fund from here only to more important uses.

My vote: For, because of my pro-park bias, in spite of my anti-bureaucracy bias.

Texas State Proposition 6: more cancer funding

This reauthorizes and continues financing for cancer prevention research. This is weird, because I thought most cancer research was funded by the national government and charitable groups, but it turns out Texas is the second-largest funding source after the federal government. Yay for my state doing something not embarrassing!!

(The progressive part of me wonders if mostly only richer people live long enough to get cancer, but then I've also heard that poor areas are subject to more cancerous pollutants, so I don't know.)

Supporters say "Funding CPRIT is an investment in the state economy. Annual grant funding under CPRIT has supported world-renowned scholars, including a 2018 Nobel Prize recipient, and hashelped make Texas a biomedical center. The multiplier effects of CPRIT’s programs have created thousands of jobs, generated billions of dollars in economic activity, and encouraged biotech companies to expand or relocate to the state. ... CPRIT’s efforts have been shown to reduce cancer costs and enhance patients’ quality of life, productivity, and lifespans. The substantial benefits to the state’s economy and to the health of Texans from the sustainable funding for CPRIT’s programs in Proposition 6 would far outweigh the direct commitment of taxpayer resources and state debt." - per the House Research Organization

This is financed by general obligation bonds, which I don't understand. Doesn't that just mean paying not only the actual cost but also interest? Critics disapprove.

Critics also say we have more pressing needs. Also CPRIT has been embroiled in controversy over how it spends taxpayer money. In 2012, it was found to have doled out $11 million without review, leading to the indictment of a former executive, and it was plagued by mismanagement, at least until re-structured in 2013. I wonder if it's better now. I can't find any evidence that it's not.

Edited 10/28/19 to add this summary from a friend who pays attention year-round: "CPRIT has had issues, but overall is a good thing. It should be funded well."

My vote: For, because of my biases for prevention and research and despite my bias against bonds.

Texas State Proposition 7 - Increasing Available School Fund (ASF)

Apparently we are allowed to pass unconstitutional laws on purpose? This amendment in in response to legislation passed in the 2019 session increasing funding for schools.

So the money for the ASF comes from the Permanent School Fund (PSF) and the money for that comes from investment returns and the proceeds from state land and mineral rights.

Supporters say recent investment returns would have allowed greater annual distributions were it not for the $300 million cap on distributions in the Texas Constitution. The land board would retain discretion to distribute revenue levels below the cap should investment returns be lower in a given year. So it sounds like it wouldn't risk the longetivity of the PSF, like I wondered.

Critics are just wah, throwing money at schools might not help. Well, at our current levels of funding, I'm pretty sure it will mostly help.

My vote: For.

Texas State Proposition 8 - Flood infrastructure fund

Flood infrastructure is exactly the kind of thing that can't be handled by the market. This would make a separate fund to provide grants and low-cost loans for anti-flood infrastructure across the state. This sounds really good to me except that money would be taken from the Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF) to jump start $793 million to the Flood Infrastructure Fund, and those funds should be used only for disaster response or relief or for other one-time expenses. Yet apparently this is a one-time expense, and it seems like it could reduce the need for future disaster spending. Critics also say that local governments could default on their loans.

Edited 10/28/19 to add this summary from a friend who pays attention year-round: "We need better flood control. Allowing municipal/county/state coordination."

But even Governor Abbott's commission approves.

My vote: For.

Texas State Proposition 9 - Exempt precious metals in depositories from property taxes

Bleh, I hate these special interest things. Texas allows local ad valorem taxes from income-producing precious metals and local governments can override the current exemption from non-income producing precious metals, though no local governments do tax these. The proposition would exempt from ad valorem taxes precious metal held in a precious metal depository in Texas.

So why? "In 2015, the Legislature created the Texas Bullion Depository, under Government Code ch. 2116, to serve as a custodian of deposits of precious metal from individuals and entities. The depository is administered as a division of the comptroller’s office and operated by a private entity overseen and audited by the comptroller. It began accepting deposits in 2018 and is slated to open in its permanent location in 2020." - per the House Research Organization

Supporters say this would allow state depositories to compete on a level playing field with depositories in other states that do not tax deposits and it could increase chances the Texas depository could join COMEX, the leading marketplace for precious metal exchange. Critics say exemptions should not be used to incentivize economic behavior or to pick winners in the marketplace.

So this would help a new privately-owned depository and potentially any new depositories in Texas as well as their depositors and would not reduce our tax income because no one is currently taxing this stuff anyway. The Austin Chronicle calls this "a pretty naked marketing ploy to get out-of-state goldbugs to deposit their hoards in Texas." I don't get the ramifications of this.

Edited 10/28/19 to add this summary from a friend who pays attention year-round: "I disagreed with the establishment of TX Ft. Knox, and disagree with helping it now."

My vote: Abstain. Against (changed 10/28/19, see above comment; fixed 10/31/19)

Texas State Proposition 10 - Fee-free law-enforcement animal transfer

Finally a no-brainer. Currently the state is not allowed to just give people stuff. This would make an exception to allow retired law-enforcement animals to be given to their handlers or other qualified caretakers, as long as it's in the animal's best interest, honoring the bond they have built. Apparently, sometimes this is already happening, but it may not be considered legal because animals are "property." And sometimes the animals are auctioned off instead.

Critics say the fee is nominal, so this is not needed.

My vote: For.

Travis County Proposition A - Travis County Expo Center

Adds a 2% Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) to fund the expansion and modernization of the Travis County Expo Center. Apparently this mission is well-beloved. But I don't see why we should tax tourists for it. Also, this "puts the county and city at odds, since Austin has raised its own HOT to the state-allowed maximum (for now); thus, the Expo Center tax would only be collected outside the city limits (for now)." - Austin Chronicle

Edited 10/28/19 to add this summary from a friend who pays attention year-round: "Help the Expo Center get renovated, supports East Austin jobs."

My vote: Abstain. Decided 10/28/19 to vote For (see above).

City of Austin Proposition A - approve city land for recreational uses

This was started to oppose a new soccer team and stadium by the owner of a competing team and venue, so no. And it accidentally hurts a bunch of other organizations like the YMCA, the Long Center, the Trail of Lights, and the Umlauf Sculpture Garden. Plus every single city council member opposes it, and they rarely agree on things.

Edited 10/28/19 to add this summary from a friend who pays attention year-round: "Poorly drafted, rife with unintended consequences. Not even the authors want it, now."

My vote: Against.

City of Austin Proposition B - Allocating Hotel Occupancy Taxes for culture

This is about cultural arts versus the convention center, requiring a vote to expand the latter. I'm fine with the process used to plan this latest expansion. This proposition also somehow cuts money for homeless services and for music vendors, musicians, and music industry workers.

Edited (10/26/19) to add: Just got a flyer explaining that supporters (including Save Our Springs and the NAACP) say we need to keep the city from transferring wealth from things that generate tourism in Austin to a failing building (it loses $34 million/year) that primarily benefits multinational hotel corporations. This sounds bad to me. But I also read that Unconventional Austin, which proposed this amendment and sent the flyer, is misrepresenting Texas tax law as it relates to hotel taxes. And Community Impact says it's normal for convention centers to lose money for themselves while bringing in tens of millions of dollars to the economy plus "An expansion could bring an annual stimulus of over $100 million." And the expansion was approved unanimously by City Council. So I won't change my vote.

Edited 10/28/19 to add this summary from a friend who pays attention year-round: "Poorly drafted, rife with consequences. Only a handful of wealthy donors pushing it."

My vote: Against.