Texas Homeowner State Taxes - November Vote

[JSKR]

On November 3rd, there will be Propositions 1, 2, and 3 allowing the State
of Texas to start taxing Residential Homeowners. So if you own a home,
and these laws are passed, you will be taxed by the State.

PLEASE VOTE "NO" to Prop. 2 and 3 (HJR 36) unless you want to pay taxes to
the State also for owning a home.

Proposition 2: The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as
follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to
provide for the ad valor em taxation of a residence homestead solely on the
basis of the property's value as a residence homestead".

Proposition 3: The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as
follows: The constitutional amendment providing the uniform standards and
procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valor em tax purposes".

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2009novballotexp.shtml

[kb5ykj]

Sounds almost like a State Income Tax will be next.

[Wrangler]

Please IGNORE the misleading campaign to vote NO on Prop 2!

Prop 2 does NOT mean that the state can tax your property. It is merely allowing the legislature to alter the constitution to have your home appriased as a HOME and not appraised at some higher priced alternative use. For example: if someone bought the property next to you and build a hotel, your home could be re-appraised as COMMERCIAL PROPERTY since it's best use would be as "commercial property". Current law says appraisal districts must use "higher and best use" as the criteria for appraisal.

If Prop 2 passes, your home will now, by law, have to be appraised as a HOME and not as "commercial property".

The wording that is confusing people is "authorizing the legislature to" etc, etc, etc.

A brief civics lesson......

the legislature MUST pass tax laws. The county (and other taxing entities such as schools, ESD's, etc) levy taxes. The State of Texas is prohibited by the State Constitution from levying a property tax. Prop 2 will NOT change that.

State law (and constitution) says no entity can start a new tax or alter the appraisal district's procedures UNLESS the legislature first allows it. Appraisal districts were created by the legislature. Therefore, the conduct of appraisal districts is regulated by the legislature (NOT the county, etc). Hence, the need for the legislature to amend the State Constitution to instruct appraisal districts how to appraise home values.

Take off the tin-foil hat! There is no conspiracy to tax you more in this instance. In fact, the attempt is to possibly lower your taxable value and protect your home.

[Caretaker]

Wrangler. Well put and thanks for the clarification.. I kept reading thoses props and to me something wasnt right.Just couldnt put my finger on what it actually was.

Now it does keep me in favor of eliminating the property taxes altogether in favor of a broader sales tax.Like what Debra Medina for Gov has been proposing.

What do you think of the other props?. Say Like the one concerning eminent domain.Do you think it will help or hurt?

[Wrangler]

Eminent domain prop is good. This will effectively reverse the US Supreme Ct decision in Kelo which allows government to seize your home and re-sell to developers to put up property that may yield more taxes for the government than your house did.

(FYI--US Supreme Ct said states did not have to follow Kelo IF they adopted a state constitutional provision prohibiting such conduct. Texas is trying to adopt that provision with this prop. It's good, vote for it!)

[KINGCHIP]

I've got to go over them again, but isn't the eminent domain one have language that says that utilities can take property for themselves.? May be wrong. I think that South Texas Property Rights Association(STPRA) is against that one.

[Caretaker]

Eminent domain prop is good. This will effectively reverse the US Supreme Ct decision in Kelo which allows government to seize your home and re-sell to developers to put up property that may yield more taxes for the government than your house did.

(FYI--US Supreme Ct said states did not have to follow Kelo IF they adopted a state constitutional provision prohibiting such conduct. Texas is trying to adopt that provision with this prop. It's good, vote for it!)



Thanks wrangler. I thought that was what it is meant to be but was looking for anothers interpretation.. I wonder if that would help those fighting of the TansTexCor? Any thoughts on that?

[Frank_Reilly]

Wrangler, thanks for clearing up the misconception on Propositions 2 and 3. JKSR isn't to blame; there are others out there that sent her the bad information. I've already received several emails on the issue. Props 2 and 3 are very taxpayer-friendly proposals, and I agree that the eminent domain prop is property owner friendly.

Frank Reilly

[JSKR]

I guess I don't understand it then. Sorry if I jumped the gun. Frankly, with all the other "stuff" that is going on in our country at this point, I (and apparently many, many others) are a bit uneasy about anything that the government is trying to do.

Thanks for the clarification. But still don't understand how it won't be yet another tax on top of the other taxes. If the state can propose to "provide for the taxation of a residence", how does this say to me the state isn't trying to get taxes from me?
Why does the state have to do anything if we are already paying taxes on our property?

Don't mean to seem dense but I am highly untrusting at this point.

As for the eminent domain, I don't trust that either. Who's to say that a "state" won't take my property and say it "is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State".
What would stop the state from taking my property, and those directly across the street on the lake to make a state park or something else for the state to "enjoy"?

[KINGCHIP]

Here is a link to all of the proposed amendments. There is also a short explanation.


http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2009novballotexp.shtml

[Peaches]

Thanks JSKR and others for this thread. Without this infomation, I would have voted against these propositions.

[Wrangler]

I've got to go over them again, but isn't the eminent domain one have language that says that utilities can take property for themselves.? May be wrong. I think that South Texas Property Rights Association(STPRA) is against that one.

Texas has generous laws that permit some utilities to gain access to your property. For instance: Texas law has long allowed a oil & gas pipeline to gain access to your property and place a pipeline across it EVEN IF YOU OBJECT. That is a "eminent domain" situation but the theory was that the state and the people of the state will gain from the development of Oil & Gas. Therefore, the Legislature provided that generous "eminent domain" right. I'm not aware of any extension of this right to the "taking of property" meaning transferring ownership. What I've described is merely "access" and "use" by placing pipelines across your property. You still own the property (and get paid for it's use) but you can't stop them from coming across your land.

I guess I don't understand it then. Sorry if I jumped the gun. Frankly, with all the other "stuff" that is going on in our country at this point, I (and apparently many, many others) are a bit uneasy about anything that the government is trying to do.

JSKR: Don't feel like the "lone ranger", many people misunderstand these proposed amendments.

Thanks for the clarification. But still don't understand how it won't be yet another tax on top of the other taxes. If the state can propose to "provide for the taxation of a residence", how does this say to me the state isn't trying to get taxes from me?
Why does the state have to do anything if we are already paying taxes on our property?

The language is what is troubling and I suppose it has to be worded that way for legal reasons (I'm not a lawyer but experience with lawyers tells me such wordings are often employed for some obtuse legal reason).

Don't mean to seem dense but I am highly untrusting at this point.

As for the eminent domain, I don't trust that either. Who's to say that a "state" won't take my property and say it "is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State".
What would stop the state from taking my property, and those directly across the street on the lake to make a state park or something else for the state to "enjoy"?

You example is well taken. The State COULD under CURRENT law (disregarding this proposed amendment) take your lake front property for a state park (you would have to be paid for it!). That's taking "eminent domain" for PUBLIC use.

The proposal has to do with the State taking your property FOR THE RESALE TO PRIVATE PARTIES FOR PROFIT. This is what the proposed amendment would PREVENT. Thus, IMHO (and I'm not a lawyer) I think if the amendment passes it is possible it would prevent the State from taking your land and re-selling it to a company to develop a privately owned tollroad, etc.

The "Kelo" decision was a New York case where a City in NY State forced the sale of a house to the city so the city could turn around and sell the land to a developer who would erect a very expensive (and highly taxed) condo development. Thus, the city would get "rid" of a home that only paid meager taxes and get a condo development that paid lots more taxes. The US Supreme Ct said that was OK provided that the state constitution didn't prohibit such use of "eminent domain" for private uses. Key words are "for private uses", i.e. in this case to help the developer build his high priced condos. The city justified its action by says it benefited the public because it generated more taxes for public use.

To stop any govenment in Texas (city, county, state, MUD, water district, etc) from doing this, we need this amendment to prohibit use of "eminent domain" for private party use.

It's not a perfect system we live under but its better than others.

[tarheel]

JSKR, thanks for starting this thread, and Wrangler, thanks for straightening the subject out.

I got one of these emails and went and read the stuff at state.tx.us and was confused, since I couldn't see anything sinister about it. This thread was very helpful.

[KINGCHIP]

Texas has generous laws that permit some utilities to gain access to your property. For instance: Texas law has long allowed a oil & gas pipeline to gain access to your property and place a pipeline across it EVEN IF YOU OBJECT. That is a "eminent domain" situation but the theory was that the state and the people of the state will gain from the development of Oil & Gas. Therefore, the Legislature provided that generous "eminent domain" right. I'm not aware of any extension of this right to the "taking of property" meaning transferring ownership. What I've described is merely "access" and "use" by placing pipelines across your property. You still own the property (and get paid for it's use) but you can't stop them from coming across your land.


I don't necessarily have a problem with the actual O&G ROW, we have them and the environmental care helps the ranching cause. It's the access to your property that I have trouble with. They can come on to your property at will, in the name of maintenance. We have an H2S amine unit about 500 yards from our ranch house. I worked the H2S on that well, and a leak could be catastrophic to the family and livestock.

[grumpy]

Wrangler: Would you please comment on Prop 4. That one sounds like more state money for Texas University who already has more than they can spend.

[Caretaker]

Wrangler: Would you please comment on Prop 4. That one sounds like more state money for Texas University who already has more than they can spend.


grumpy. If you look at the wording close on prop 4 you will see that the money would be used for Emerging Research Universitys. I dont think UT is an Emerging U.. The prop says it would actually take the extra moneys from the Higher Ed Fund and transfer it to this New fund..Looks like they are wanting to help New places grow rather then continually expanding the larger Universitys.

[grumpy]

Thanks Caretaker. After I looked again I tend to agree with you. I should have looked more carefully. History makes me wonder though. During my life it always seemed that state money for higher education always found its way to Austin.

[KINGCHIP]

Perry and his daughter are Aggies so it should go over there. Stands to reason.

[butchkemper]

The fund involved is not the Permanent University Fund which the Texas Constitution dedicates to funding universities in the UT System and the A&M System.

More information about the PUF can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_University_Fund.

Butch

[KINGCHIP]

What I get out of it is that the state wants to finance more schools in an attempt to bring them up towards tier 1 level.