Elections in Texas - 10 Amendments

Many may not realize but we have 10 amendments on our ballot right now and elections are open in Texas.  Early voting ends this Friday with election next Tuesday (November 8th).  Traditionally off year propositions are all passed, because only those that are for the amendments go vote.  The rest either are unaware, uneducated, or just don't care about the propositions. 


This year there are billions (yes really billions) of dollars at stake, along with more and more government.  Is it really a year not to care and be knowledgeable on what's on the ballots.


The following explanations and basic explanation is from Vote Texas. I have 2 writings from We Texans in there that wrote anything I could of said much clearer.  There are just a couple of these that seriously are complicated and making them even more complicated. The rest I've added my 2 cents in for all it's worth.  Most of these amendments need to go down in flames, but come Tuesday, unless you and I and our fellow Texans get out to vote they will pass. 


So pass the word, get the neighbors to vote and let's tell Austin to start doing their jobs and taking care of business!

Proposition Number 1 (SJR 14)

SJR 14 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran with an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the surviving spouse’s residence homestead as long as the surviving spouse has not remarried, the property was the residence homestead of the surviving spouse when the qualifying veteran died, and the property remains the residence homestead of the surviving spouse.

Dennis's Note - I'm a veteran and and advise I give here would be very bias.  I'll let you decide.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran."

Proposition Number 2 (SJR 4)

SJR 4 would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Water Development Board to issue additional general obligation bonds on a continuing basis for one or more accounts of the Texas Water Development Fund II, with the restriction that the total amount of bonds outstanding at any time does not exceed $6 billion.

Dennis's Note - I'm not keen on any additional $6B that our state wants to add to our debt, especially a revolving account with no time limitations on it.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”

Proposition Number 3 (SJR 50)

SJR 50 would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board or its successors to issue and sell general obligation bonds on a continuing basis for the purpose of financing educational loans for students, subject to certain constitutional restrictions, including a restriction as to the maximum principal amount of bonds outstanding at any one time.

Dennis's Note - Ok, I'm not a believer our system needs more money thrown at it.  I'm a believer that our entire education system needs revamping.  We could drain ever penny we have in this current system and get no better results.  This is NOT a comment on our teachers, but on the curriculum and methods that are given to them to teach.  Until our state gets that straight, we are just pissing money down the drain, and we would add to that if this passes.
 
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”

Proposition Number 4 (HJR 63)

HJR 63 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area within the county, and to pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues imposed on property in the area by the county for repayment of such bonds or notes.  The amendment does not provide independent authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates.

Dennis's Note - Under current law, cities are authorized to use property tax revenue to secure loans to fund the development of blighted areas.  This proposal would extend that authority to counties. So groups are concerned that the counties could use this for eminent domain abuse.


The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area.  The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates."

Proposition Number 5 (SJR 26)

SJR 26 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow cities and counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities and counties without having to assess an ad valorem tax and set aside a specified amount of funds for the payment of costs under the interlocal contract.

We Texans Note - Currently, cities and counties may not create debt unless a tax is levied that is sufficient to pay the principle and interest on the debt.  Cities and counties frequently enter into “interlocal contracts” whose term is less than one year because the costs associated with those agreements are funded from the current budget.  To enter into a contract that extends beyond the current year would have the effect of creating a debt that will carry to future tax years. Debt of that type should require voter approval on a case by case basis and not be permitted unilaterally through a constitutional amendment. (They said it clearer than I could)


The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund."

Proposition Number 6 (HJR 109)

HJR 109 would amend the constitution to increase the amount of principal that is available for withdrawal from the permanent school fund each year and would also clarify certain references to that fund in the constitution.  Increased access to the principal of the state public education trust fund would be based upon HJR 109 granting the authority to consider alternative market calculations when determining the amount of principal that is available for distribution to the available school fund.  HJR 109 would also provide authority to distribute to the available school fund annual revenue from school fund land or other properties up to $300 million per year.

Dennis's Note - Right now the state has money set aside for our kids educations.  They are allowed to spend 6% of that money every year, with the thought that they will make at least that must between years.  This is a common practice and secures financing for things like education.  If we allow them to draw down the principal then eventually we will have $0 in the fund and guess what, they'll be looking for our tax money to build it back up.  

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund."

Proposition Number 7 (SJR 28)

SJR 28 would amend the constitution by adding El Paso County to the list of counties authorized to create conservation and reclamation districts to develop parks and recreational facilities financed by taxes.

Dennis's Note -  Don't we have enough taxing authorities already?  The city and county already have authority to tax.  Now we really want to create another entity to tax us and have to watch over?


The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities."

Proposition Number 8 (SJR 16)

SJR 16 would amend the constitution by requiring the legislature to provide for taxation of open space land devoted to water stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.

Dennis's Note -  This would make Parks and Wildlife responsible for determining property tax appraisal qualifications for water stewardship.  Really?  Parks and Wildlife now need to get into our tax appraisals?  What are they doing up in Austin?

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity."

Proposition Number 9 (SJR 9)

SJR 9 would amend the constitution to authorize the governor, on the written recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, to grant a pardon, reprieve, or commutation of punishment to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision.

Dennis's Note -  The problem is that the Texas Constitution allows the governor to grant reprieves, commutes and pardons for convictions, but only for convictions.  And our laws have loop holes that leave those that who received deferred adjudication so that employers and others can still pull records and hold them against those who the judge never intended too.  Instead of adding another loop hole, why doesn't Austin fix this properly?

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision."

Proposition Number 10 (SJR 37)

SJR 37 would amend the constitution by extending the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain local elected officeholders if they announce candidacy or become candidates for another office from one year to one year and 30 days.


We Texans Note -The “resign-to-run” provision was added to the Texas Constitution in 1958 and was designed to insure officeholders gave their undivided attention to the duties of their office rather than campaigning while in the middle of their term.  The provision created an automatic resignation for elected officials who began their campaign for a new office with more than one year remaining in their current term

Terms for these officials end December 31.  Previously, with filing deadlines in January, officials could announce their candidacy for another office on Jan. 1 or 2 and continue to serve the remainder of their current term.  In order to insure adequate time to send ballots to military and overseas voters, the filing deadline has been moved from Jan. 2 to the second Monday in December.  This provision would extend the provision so that an automatic resignation was not triggered unless the candidate began their campaign more than one year and 30 days before the expiration of their current term.
 
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.

District Champs

Congratulations Apaches Football for holding off the La Vernia Bears and becoming the District 28-3A Champs. 

Cuero is next, and I think this last game was a wake up call for the tribe to not assume your opponents are going to roll over and play dead.  So with that in mind I think we'll have plenty of turkeys for Thanksgiving after next weekend. 

After that it's on to the play-offs.  But let's get past Cuero first.


God Bless,
Dennis Nesser

I've been going to Apache games for 16 year now.  Back when, I has a foster son on a playoff team that did well.  But in all my years of watching Apache football I've never seen a better rounded team. 

Generally we've had great offenses with decent defenses, not this year.  This year we've got an outstanding defense tagging with a great offense.  This is the real deal, all round team.

I was a bit worried after we smacked Sam Houston that our boys would get a big head and stumble this week, but coach obviously keep the boys heads in the game, and not looking forward to the next game before we get there. 

They've played as a team, and as a team I think they will go far.  Without a doubt this is the best team I've ever seen play for the Apaches. 

Good luck to them as they continue on, I know we still have La Vernia next week, but this will be an great year to end up in Cuero.  Thinking there will be some gobblers ducking from the Apache tomahawks.  :)   One week at a time though!

God Bless
Dennis Nesser

2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 depending

Well I have been working overtime this week and didn't get a chance to write, and honestly the newspaper beat me to the punchline, at least part of it.

First I'd like to know why 2 of the people removed from city positions names were release immediately to the public, and one of them couldn't be release till this week?  Why was Belinda Walkers name withheld when the original statements were made when both Billy  Malaer and Ricky Bazans names were released immediately?  Does it have anything to do with her family?  If not what then?  I can say in all my probes no one can tell me why this one was specifically excluded and the city was unable to let us know who Belinda offically was until now. 

Then I see where Mr. Cavazos is retiring. Now I've made it clear that I thought he should of been shown the door 10 minutes after Mr. Malaer.  If we were going to release Mr Malaer for lack of confidence then what the heck did we have in Mr Cavazos?  Why was he given any more opportunity than any of the other employees that were shown the front door?  If Mr. Cavazos had been doing his job we'd be much better off financially then we are today.  I'm not talking 10s of dollars, but 100,000s of dollars.  Mr Cavazos was the only person who could of and was obligated to come before the council with the problems that were happening in our books.  He was responsible for all checks and balances and procedures for money handling.  He had a responsibility as a city employee AND CPA!

Now the positive spin on all this, while I'm not certain if all the problem issues are taken care of, we have an opportunity to turn things around!  It's not going to be easy, and honestly it's easier to keep everything as is rather than make the necessary changes.  But the opportunity is NOW to make those changes.  We have a new city manager that has already made some changes, and hopefully will be leading the way for more changes. Some in personnel, some in procedures, some in the way we think about city employees.  Let's make positive change in this town, bring life back to it, and have a place that is no longer a laughing stock of those looking in, but a place to be proud to say you're from!

God Bless
Dennis Nesser

The Lie of the Museum District

So this spring our council approved a 'Museum District" for a section of downtown and up through the museums and log cabin.  There were articles about it in both papers I believe.

Now before these came to a vote by our council I asked Mr. Bob Burchard about this district.  He very specifically told me that this was a name only designation, and would carry absolutely NO regulatory connotations to it.  I told him I was concerned that this would be used to try to take away property owners rights in that district.  "Absolutely not" was Mr. Burchards' response to me. 

Later that night at that city council meeting Mrs Glenda Gordon told the council that this was purely a designation that would hold no regulatory connotations.  There were several of the council members that weren't exactly for this designation, but felt that since it was purely in name only it would be ok.  This then would go to our state legislators so that we would be designated the first  "museum district" in Texas.  What a great marketing campaign. That's ALL it was suppose to be, a marketing ploy! 

So I'm going to just put it as clear as I can, we were lied to!  Mrs. Gordon, the same person who brought this designation to the council, has since used the museum district designation to try to close down a new business in that district, the recycling center on St. Louis.

Per the Gonzales Cannon - "Eddie Escobar, an attorney representing Gonzales citizen Glenda Gordon" then followed by "“I also represent the museum district,” Escobar said. “We’re seeking a temporary injunction while this case is pending. That is the first step in this process.” - the case is the one Mrs Gordon has brought against the City of Gonzales, Mr. Lorenzo Hernandez (land owner), and the Recycle Center.  Now why would Mr. Escobar represent a district that was in name only?  No regulatory connotations what-so-ever?  Why was it even mentioned in the lawsuit and the newspaper?

Out of curiosity this morning I decided to drive by for myself. The recycle center is a nice, clean business.  Compared to the green giant that stands less than 2 blocks away, and right across from the park, this business looks like a surgical unit in it's cleanliness.  Both recycling, one looks like the scrap yard, one looks like a welcome business in our community.

Then around backside of the recycling center on Darst is a house with "No Trespassing" signs, a garage that is falling down and cram packed with crap, fences down between the house and garage and their fence between them and the recycle center is falling down (I know this is their fence because I use to own that house and fence).  The house has been vacant for years, and yet the ONLY person other than Mrs. Gordon that isn't paid to complain is the current owner of this house (note owner, not occupant, as they live in Smiley).  Not the business that operates every day as a day care, not the apartment building across the street where people live, and the city has receive absolutely ZERO complaints on this property for any violations what so ever, nor Mr. Sam Lewis from compliance control.

So first of all I want to know what the city council plans to do about this now regulatory designation of "Museum District".  Personally I believe we were lied to as to the reason for it and it should be immediately removed from our books.  I'm sick and tired of being lied to and anterior motives for things coming before our council.  Remove the designation and forbid it from coming back to the council.  We don't like liars and we were lied to about it.

In the past we've had a lot of complaints about Gonzales and the need to recycle.  We've got it, it's on St. Louis and working well.  I've read recently where people are complaining that we need more work for our kids.  Where do you think those come from?  They come from new businesses!

We should be happy to see Mr. Peralez and his business come to town.  We should be welcoming as many businesses like his, good community citizens, that are wanting to come to town.

Mrs Gordon can keep her museum district, we don't need it especially when it start infringing on property rights. 

God Bless,
Dennis Nesser

It a freaking blog!

So someone made comment that I had a campaign sign up in violation of our city ordinance limiting campaign signs to 60 days prior to an election. This idiot must live under a rock to not realize that any and EVERYTHING on that board is connected to a blog and that particular blog was Nesser for Mayor where I explained that what I'm really calling for is for people to step up and run for office.

I'm not sure why city council member and mayor have this 'only the holy few' can even run for office, and after all that's not me right? 

I hear from several people that have opinions on EVERY agenda item that comes up.  They need to run for mayor or council.  I hear from people that have out of the box ideas for this city (you know like we actually should be bringing business TO Gonzales, not chasing them away), they should run for mayor or council.  There are people that have some fiscal knowledge that this city could desperately use right now.  They should be running for office.  And while the 'total package' would be nice, I'm not sure who in Gonzales would have all those attributes. 

If you've never run for office it's not a problem.  There is no requirement to have been dog catcher before you run for mayor.  Come by, I don't care who you are, I'd spend an evening with you and talk to you about running for an office and the basics of it.  What you'll have to have, what you should do, what you can expect. 

On a side note I don't know what's happened that some have had issues posting comments.  I posted a fix to it on the previous blogs comments.  I will put them at the bottom of this too. I have not blocked anyone from posting a comment on this blog.

God Bless,
Dennis Nesser



Fix to not being able to post a comment:
Tools - Internet Options
Click on the "Privacy" tab.
Set the Privacy slider to "Medium".
Hit the "Advanced" button, and examine the "Advanced Privacy Settings".
Check “Override automatic cookie handling”
Click both "First party Cookies" and "Third party Cookies" should be set to "Accept"

Nesser for Mayor

 

Ok, bet I got your attention on that one didn't I? I figured it's first shot weekend, so I'd make the first shot in the upcoming election.  But before I get to much further, I have no intention of running for mayor, but I do have intentions of making sure those that are considering it understand the process.  And those who think they can run this city should do so.  That's right as far as I'm concerned there should be 10 people running for mayor and council. 

First of all it cost NOTHING to file to run for mayor or city council.  There is no declaration of political party, it doesn't matter Democrat, Republican, Independent or Other, it doesn't go on the ballot anywhere.  No certifications are needed, you don't even have to have a high school diploma, nothing!  The only requirement is that you have been a citizen of Gonzales for the last 6 months. So running for mayor or city council is available for anyone in this city who is a resident.  The only thing you have to do is declare with the City Secretary, and fill out some paperwork, bingo you're running for office.

Now we've got some talented people that don't necessarily want to be in politics but would make an excellent mayor. If you know someone in that category it's time to start talking seriously to them about  We've got some people that I'm certain think they know it all that have their opportunity to show the city what they really know, you know put up or shut up (I'm certain many put me in this category).  And yes, you'll have some with personal agendas run too, and the voters will have to sift through all the $#@! to figure out who really will be the best person for mayor.  This should not be a one (wo)man race for either mayor or city council.

So if you think you might want to be mayor or council member, NOW is the time for you to start getting a team together.  People who will talk you up.  People willing to knock on doors with/for you.  People to make you look good.  A platform of things you'd like to see happen in the city would be a good start.  What are your visions for the city? Get it together so you can convince the citizens to vote for you.  And if you have a plan to get the citizens out to vote, that would work even better!  You can't wait till May and expect this stuff to fall into place.  You've got to start now.

If rumors are right we'll have 2 positions that will not have incumbents running.  Nothing concrete, but I'd expect at least one, if not both, of the 2 Bobbys won't run again.  So opportunity is there now for someone to step up. It's time we put some leadership into this city for growth, development of our current assets, and some fiscal responsibility.  If you know someone who can do that for this city, now is the time to get their name out there!

God Bless,
Dennis Nesser