TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:I am a firm believer that all deeds should be for a fixed plot of land. Movable boundaries like water or vegetation lines should never be allowed in a deed. TOBA seems to me like a way to take property without compensation, at least as it was just applied. It seems wrong to me.

In the interest of beating a dead horse, TOBA does not affect ownership. Your square footage, as measured by latitude and longitude, can become completely submerged. You still own it.

TOBA says that the property owner cannot restrict public access to the beach between the vegetation line and the water.

You can't fight nature. On the Gulf Coast, property gets submerged by erosion. Deviation of rivers has submerged property in other places. The borders of states have moved because rivers changed course. What happens when a landslide dumps a parcel of land into a valley?

- Jim

Zee wrote:Who would have thought there really needed to be a vote and a new law to stop Perry from taking private property.

I think when Gov. Perry is retired and looks back on his career, he is going to realize that the TTC was his worst mistake.

- Jim

ELB wrote:Also while talking about const. amendments and small turnouts...makes me wonder what TSRA could do with certain issues and a good turnout of TSRA members...

Interesting thought.

We could put "shall issue" into the Constitution. The strategy would have to be worked out by someone smarter than I.

The existence of CHL is almost an open secret now. I remember the furor when it passed in 1995 (and I lived in another state at the time); but when blood failed to flood the streets, people largely forgot about it.

Drawing attention to CHL issues attracts opponents as well as proponents.

- Jim

The Annoyed Man wrote:My view is that if the state has a compelling interest in making sure that the public has access to beaches, then let the state designate already state-owned coastal land as public beach, or buy coastal land for that purpose.

I think the difference between Texas and other coastal states is that beaches have always been considered open to the public, ab origine.

When Texas won its independence from Mexico, it was sparsely populated. The new government of the Republic parceled out land to investors, but it retained the old common law of public beach access.

Another critical difference is that the Gulf Coast of Texas is low, soft land (Galveston Island is nothing but a sand dune). The Gulf can advance 100 feet in one day, as it did in some places after Ike. The state needs a rational way to deal with structures that formerly were on dry land and now are halfway in the water.

FWIW, the current Land Commissioner, Jerry Patterson, fully supports TOBA and supported Prop. 9. He is a libertarian conservative and also as strong a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms as anyone in Texas government.

- Jim

Proposition 9 effectively made the Texas Open Beaches Act part of the Constitution, so a future legislature cannot change it by a simple majority.

The TOBA has been law for 40 years and survived challenges in the Texas Supreme Court.

It is based on Spanish-Mexican common law, which made access to beaches a right.

People who own beachfront property can still own the beach (and pay taxes on it), but they cannot build a structure or limit public access to it.

I have mixed feelings about it myself, but if the majority of Texans accepted it for 25 years before I moved here, I can't complain.

- Jim

ChuckW wrote:Do any of these amendments ever fail? It seems that they often are offered for vote during very low turnout elections.

Two failed in 2005. None has failed since then. You can see the data here: http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Usually they pass by remarkable margins, like 85-15.

I tend to vote in favor of them, figuring that the Legislature knows what it is doing; and the Texas Constitution is so detailed and restrictive that it does require frequent amendment.

I vote against one only when someone convinces me that it is a bad idea. For example, Proposition 6 this year would have allowed the Texas Veterans Land Board to issue bonds without voter approval. I think public debt should always be subject to direct voter approval.

The timing is an accident. Amendments are put to a vote the November after the legislative session ends, and state representatives and the governor are elected the November before the legislative session. Our legislative sessions are in odd-numbered years, so they are out of sync with the national elections.

- Jim

Purplehood wrote:... "So you are saying that I have a chance".

If you get a nominating petition for a school board position signed, then put a modest effort into campaigning, and get your entire extended family to vote for you, yeah.

It helps to have a recognizable name, but as last year's election showed, that's not an absolute requirement.

- Jim

ELB wrote:All of Texas voters decided. Most, through inattention or apathy, just decided to let someone else decide.

IMHO, "I don't care" is not a morally acceptable choice.

A non-voter may never feel the effects of some of these obscure amendments, but low turnout has resulted in some kooks and incompetents being elected.

- Jim

Purplehood wrote:Why am I beating a dead-horse?

It seems to give a certain grim satisfaction. Sports fans are still arguing about some century-ago World Series games.

The measure passed, so presumably San Antonio can now do what it wants.

- Jim

All the propositions passed with wide margins, but voter turnout was under 10%:

http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/ ... _state.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This means that 1% of the population of Texas -- about 200,000 voters -- decides on a constitutional amendment.

- Jim

There may be towns that rely on economic activity from military bases, but I've observed several examples where closing bases was a net win. The former site of Fort Crockett in Galveston is now the site of some of the most productive businesses (San Luis complex). The base in Glenview, Illinois, used to be surrounded by bars and houses of ill repute. Now it's an upscale residential neighborhood. San Antonio does not seem to have suffered from the scaling down of bases there.

- Jim

I'd like to know for sure what is intended.

This proposition could affect me directly. Galveston Island has a Coast Guard base that is currently surrounded by undeveloped land controlled by the feds. The future of that land is a very contentious issue.

We have an unusually high volume of land that is owned by entities that can't be taxed (federal, state, local government, and non-profits), which drives up the tax rate for the rest of us. We need more private homes and businesses.

The establishment and closing of military bases is extremely political. IMHO, it's more of a pork thing than valid national defense needs. For instance, there was a naval air base in Glenview, Illinois, north of Chicago, for decades. What was that supposed to protect us from? Canada? Wisconsin? (Those cheese-heads can become vicious during football season.)

- Jim

Article I, Section 8, which defines the powers of Congress:

To raise and support Armies,...
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,...

I really don't understand what would be accomplished by that proposition.

- Jim

I don't understand where Prop. 1, allowing municipalities to borrow money to create buffer zones around military bases, comes from.

Let the feds do it. The U.S. Constitution puts that responsibility on them.

- Jim

Early voting begins today. Every voter in Texas can make a choice on the proposed constitutional amendments that the legislature sent to us.

Here is a guide that seems reliable, IMHO: http://www.lwvtexas.org/2009VG/2009CAVG%5BFINAL%5D.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have opinions on the following proposition:

• Proposition 2 will require homesteads to be appraised for taxation based only on the value of the property as a residence. This means that the appraisal district cannot decide that your home would be worth more as a gas station and set the value accordingly.
• Proposition 11 solidifies the prevention of abuse of eminent domain.

- Jim