Star Group reviews proposed amendments to state constitution (Posted 10/14/2009 02:59 pm)
Johnson and Tarrant County voters will help determine the fate of 11 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution when they begin early voting Monday, Oct. 19, or go to regular polls on Tuesday, Nov. 3.

To assist readers in understanding the 11 proposals on this year’s general election ballot, the Crowley Star will describe each proposal, offer partial pro and con opinions compiled by the Texas House Research Organization and reveal our position on each proposition. In this, the second part of our two-part installment, we cover propositions 6-11. Proposals 1-5 were covered in the Oct. 8 edition of the Crowley Star.

n No. 6 — Proposition No. 6 would authorize the Veterans’ Land Board to provide for, issue and sell state general obligation bonds for the purpose of selling land or providing home-mortgage or land-purchase loans to Texas veterans.

The bonds would not be included in the calculation of state debt payable from the General Revenue Fund. Bond proceeds would be deposited in or used to benefit the Veterans’ Land Fund, the Veterans’ Housing Assistance Fund or the Veterans’ Housing Assistance Fund II, as determined by the Veterans’ Land Board.

Proponents believe the proposal would help secure uninterrupted bonding authority for the board to continue financing land purchases and home mortgages for Texas veterans at lower-than-market rates as a reward for their military service. The board’s current bonding authority, which has served more than 120,000 veterans since the fund’s inception, is forecast to be exhausted by the end of this calendar year.

Opponents contend the proposal would authorize more than $2 billion in new state-backed bonds, a considerable expansion of state debt. Any bonds retired in the future, opponents argue, should have to be reauthorized by the voters before they could be reissued as state debt.

As much as we favor relief and reward to veterans, Proposition 6 seems misdirected and inconsistent with fiscal responsibility.

No. 7 — Proposition No. 7 would add officers and enlisted members of the Texas State Guard and any other militia or military force organized under state law to the exceptions from the prohibition against holding dual offices.

Supporters explain the proposal would simply correct an oversight in the constitution by adding State Guard and other Texas military personnel to the list of offices that civil officials can hold while serving in another office. National Guard and military reserves can hold dual offices. Texas State Guard and state military forces, however, were overlooked in previous amendments.

Opponents say all specific exemptions to dual office holding should be eliminated from the constitution and replaced with a general prohibition against holding two offices simultaneously.

We see Proposition No. 7 as a “housekeeping” measure to correct a previous oversight.

No. 8 — Proposition would authorize the state to contribute money, property and other resources to establish, maintain and operate veterans’ hospitals in Texas.

Supporters say it would allow Texas voters the opportunity to ensure, beyond question, that the state could contribute to a federal initiative to build, operate and maintain veterans’ hospitals in the state.

Texas has already entered into partnerships with the federal government to develop seven veterans’ home facilities — in Amarillo, Big Spring, Bonham, El Paso, Floresville, McAllen and Temple — and upon approval of Proposition No. 8 would be in a position to encourage the federal government to locate a new veterans’ hospital in the state.

Opponents respond that amending the constitution is not necessary for the state to contribute money, property and other resources for another veterans’ hospital. They suggest that specifically authorizing state contributions for veterans’ hospital facilities that previously have been funded exclusively by the federal government could lead to the expectation that the state would contribute a portion of the funding for future facilities.

The likelihood that a new veterans’ hospital might come to Texas anytime soon seems remote at best. But should it happen, the state needs to be a positioned to partner with federal funding and operating agencies.

No. 9 — Proposition No. 9 would establish the public’s unrestricted right to use and have access to and from public beaches. The right would be a permanent public easement.

Proponents say the proposal would strengthen the Open Beaches Act and secure open beaches against any future legislative or judicial action that could undermine core principles of access. Their goal is to ensure that access is preserved for present and future generations.

Opponents argue the Open Beaches Act already provides too much authority to the state to restrict the right of private landowners to enjoy their oceanfront properties. Placing the statute in the construction, they contend, would validate and entrench overbearing state practices that effectively punish property owners for events beyond their control.

Texas Gulf Coast beaches are a major public attraction and, in our view, should not be indiscriminately closed to public access.

No. 10 — Proposition No. 10 would authorize the Legislature to allow members of the governing board of an emergency services district to serve terms of up to four years, rather than the current maximum two-year term.

Proponents say the measure would promote stability and continuity on emergency service district boards and allow board members more time to acquire experience in providing emergency services to their communities.

Terms of certain other boards, most notably for hospital districts, are currently four years.

Opponents claim the proposition would diminish public oversight of the members of the governing boards of emergency services districts. ESD board members, they argue, should be held accountable to the voters by election every two years, the same as members of the Texas House of Representatives.

Our observation is that elected positions on emergency services district boards are often uncontested and sometimes lack announced candidates. The two-year term limit restriction was established in the 19th century and is outdated.

No. 11 — Proposition No. 11 would restrict the use of eminent domain to take property for public purposes. More specifically, it would restrict taking property to instances in which the taking, damage or destruction is primarily for ownership, use and enjoyment by the state, local government or the public at large, or by an entity given the authority of eminent domain for the elimination or urban blight on a particular parcel.

Public use would not include the taking of property for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

Proponents say the proposal would add key protections against abuses of the power of eminent domain by defining legitimate purposes for which private property could the taken. Existing language, they note, does not specify what constitutes a legitimate “public use.”

Opponents contend the proposal could have unintended consequences by introducing language that courts ruling on eminent domain cases could interpret in varying ways. They see the lack of definition of such key terms as “incidental uses,” “transfer” and ”primary purpose of economic development” as an invitation for future litigation that would be costly for the state and local governments.

Proposition No. 11 is arguably the most controversial of this year’s proposed amendments. From our view, it might not go far enough to protect private property rights. Yet it is a step to further protect the rights of private property owners.