Hardin County Overspent – Now Firing Employees
Remember earlier this year when I was running for county commissioner? I told the people of Lumberton that Hardin County has been overspending and overtaxing the people and that it could not be sustained.
Well what do you know? Hardin County has just come out and said they are not going to be able to cover all of their bills next year. All of their enormous tax and spending increases over the last couple of years could not be sustained anymore in this weakened economy. I told them that but they didn’t listen. So next year Hardin County will be $500,000 in the hole and who knows how much in the hole the next year.
Years ago Hardin County should have recognized that America was in a recession and stopped expanding their spending year after year. Now they are faced with the weakened economy catching up to them and they will have to fire employees. The funny thing is, the $500,000 they are in the hole is exactly how much the county splurged when they built the replica dome at the courthouse. Yes the replica dome looks nice, but it should not have been built when the county knew we were going into a recession and would need that money down the road. Well now we are down the road and need the money.
Judge Caraway suggested he would give up his $7,500 pay raise for next year. I am glad he is suggesting that as a way to help balance the budget. But this nice gesture from the Judge has actually backfired because when people heard that the Judge was giving up his $7,500 pay raise for next year the thought in everyone’s mind was WHAT IS HE GETTING A $7,500 PAY RAISE FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE. We are in a weakened economy and the tax burden on the people has skyrocketed and here we have the county judge of this small county getting a $7,500 pay raise in one year!? That is half of someone’s minimum wage yearly salary.
The County Judge is right though. The average worker is most likely not getting a pay raise this year so they need to cut back on their pay raises too. But the judge is not thinking into the future. The cut in pay raises will help in the short term, but the county also needs to do something to balance the budget for the future. The county needs to cut their budget back.
Commissioner Ken Pelt has suggested cutting some county employees that they hired in their spending spree a couple years ago. Ken Pelt is actually thinking right and trying to fix the budget for the long term. But the fact is that these people will now be out of a job. The county should have never hired them in the first place and these people would have gone out and found a more secure job somewhere else. Instead they were hired by the county in a spending spree and now are getting fired. Mr. Pelt is right. It needs to be done. The county has to scale back their spending and that includes cutting employees. But the county was wrong in the first place for hiring them in a spending spree and now instead of these people having a secure job somewhere else, they are getting sent packing without much warning.
Sincerely,
David Bellow
www.DavidBellow.com
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Criminal Complaint Filed Against Lumberton Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings
State Republican Executive Committeeman, David Bellow, has filed a criminal complaint with the Secretary of State – Elections Division, and the Hardin County Attorney.
The Complaint is against Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings and the complaint alleges that Mr. Cummings violated several laws, mainly that he illegally coerced Channel 4 Weatherman Dana Melancon into dropping out of running against him and also for threatening others with physical harm.
Below is the full text of the complaint that was sent to the Hardin County Attorney:
July 6, 2010
TO: District/County Attorney of Hardin County
300 Monroe Street
Kountze, TX 77625
FROM: David Bellow
Texas State Republican Executive Committeeman SD
P.O. Box 8253, Lumberton, TX 77657
ATTENTION: David Sheffield District Attorney/Rebecca Walton County Attorney (whomever applicable)
SUBJECT: I initially sent this complaint to the Secretary of State’s office and they are investigating this election violation and will be sending their investigation to the Texas Attorney General for action to be taken in regards to the election. The Secretary of State’s office further instructed me to also send this complaint to the district/county attorney for prosecution of the violations of the law that have occurred.
VIOLATIONS: Criminal Conduct in Violation of Section 2.054 of the Texas Election Code by intimidating or coercing a potential candidate not to file an application for a place on the ballot or to withdraw as a candidate, and other violations of the Texas Penal Code listed below.
SUMMARY OF VIOLATION:
Here are the facts as gathered from multiple firsthand accounts of people directly involved in this situation, all of whom will testify that this information is true. These sources include audio tapes of some of the conversations that provide indisputable evidence that this criminal activity has occurred.
Dana Melancon is a weatherman for Channel 4 News in Beaumont, TX. He was also a candidate in the March 2, 2010 Republican Primary and was running for Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX.
Butch Cummings is the Justice of the Peace for Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX. He was the incumbent candidate in the March 2, 2010 Republican Primary and was running for reelection as Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX.
On January 8, 2010, incumbent Butch Cummings called Dana Melancon’s Channel 4 bosses to have a private meeting at Mr. Cummings Justice of the Peace office. This meeting was initiated by Butch Cummings. Those in attendance were Mr. Cummings (incumbent JP), Angel San Juan (News Director of Channel 4, the local Fox News affiliate in Beaumont, TX), and Chris Pruitt (the interim General Manager of Channel 4). Mr. Melancon was not invited.
During this meeting, Mr. Cummings told Mr. Melancon’s bosses that if Mr. Melancon did not drop out of the race for Justice of the Peace, then Mr. Cummings would go public with information that Mr. Melancon had received more than one speeding ticket during the last several years and these speeding tickets had caused Dana Melancon to be issued a warrant for his arrest to pay some unpaid fines (which Mr. Melancon did go down and pay upon hearing that a warrant had been issued). It is not certain whether Mr. Cummings issued this warrant himself, and if he did issue them, it is unclear whether the warrant was issued in an appropriate manner or if he issued the warrant unjustly and brought it to Mr. Melancon’s bosses as an abuse of power.
After this initial meeting, there was a candidate forum at the Lumberton Texas High School. Over a dozen candidates were there from state and local races. Dana Melancon did not participate in the forum. Mr. Melancon simply showed up for a few minutes and sat in the back to watch the forum. Butch Cummings called Angel San Juan and was very irate about Mr. Melancon being at the forum. Mr. Cummings call was laced with profanity and threats. Mr. Cummings demanded that Channel 4 give him airtime on tv. Angel San Juan tried to calm Mr. Cummings down and did not bow to Mr. Cummings threats for airtime.
On February 2, 2010, another meeting took place at Mr. Cummings JP office between Mr. Cummings, Angel San Juan(channel 4), Chris Pruitt (channel 4), Butch Cumming’s son (backing Mr Cummings actions), Melissa Minton (backing Mr Cummings actions), and this time they called in Dana Melancon so he was there too. Again, Mr. Cummings reiterated that Dana Melancon must drop out of the race for JP or else Mr. Cummings would damage the image of the news station by spreading info to the public about Dana Melancon’s lead foot. Mr. Cummings had printed out flyers about Dana Melancon that he had personally started to spread around and would continue to unless Dana dropped out.
Dana Melancon dropped out of the race and Channel 4 made multiple announcements on their newscast that Dana Melancon would not be running anymore and would not accept any nomination for JP, even if he were to win the primary election. Mr. Melancon still got a large portion of the votes on election day.
Furthermore, the editor of the Silsbee Bee spoke to Mr. Cummings and Mr. Cummings stated that since Mr. Melancon went after “his job” as Justice of the Peace, then he was justified to go after Mr. Melancon’s job at Channel 4. In past dealings with the Silsbee Bee, It is standard that the Silsbee Bee records their conversations for future reference so this conversation would have been recorded, and/or the Editor and one or more of their reporters has firsthand knowledge of this conversation and would testify to the truth of this.
Furthermore, When I, David Bellow, approached Butch Cummings about his “blackmailing” Dana Melancon to drop out of the race, Butch Cummings responded with a threat of bodily harm by saying he would “kick my ass if I told anyone” and when asked if that was a threat Mr. Cummings replied “you mark it down.” This is a violation of Texas Penal Code 22.01 (Assault by Verbal Threat of bodily injury of another person), and it is also a violation of Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 by using abusive/indecent/profane/vulgar language in a public place and in front of children.
There are several reliable witnesses who will testify to the truth of these allegations, including election judges and other officials in the Republican Party of Hardin County. Being that there is sufficient evidence to the claim that Butch Cummings coerced Dana Melancon into dropping out of running for office, it is requested that the District/County Attorney prosecute these charges.
Lastly, it is not my desire to defend any speeding tickets that Mr. Melancon had received. Instead, it is my wish, as the State Republican Executive Committeeman for Senate District 3, to ensure that the integrity of our democratic system is kept intact by allowing individuals to run and allowing the people to weigh their options (including the people being able to take into consideration any of the candidate’s past speeding tickets) and then decide who they want to be Justice of the Peace. Instead, the people did not have a chance to weigh their options and decide because of the criminal actions, and abuse of his public office of Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings by him meeting with Mr. Melancon’s bosses and trying to get him fired unless he dropped out of the race, which would ensure another term in office for Mr. Cummings.
Also, it does not seem that Channel 4 took any part in this coercion nor does it appear that they threatened to fire Mr. Melancon if he did not drop out. Instead it appears that Mr. Melancon stepped down from the coercion of Mr. Cummings and not coercion from his bosses.
Respectfully,
David Bellow
State Republican Executive Committeeman
The Complaint is against Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings and the complaint alleges that Mr. Cummings violated several laws, mainly that he illegally coerced Channel 4 Weatherman Dana Melancon into dropping out of running against him and also for threatening others with physical harm.
Below is the full text of the complaint that was sent to the Hardin County Attorney:
July 6, 2010
TO: District/County Attorney of Hardin County
300 Monroe Street
Kountze, TX 77625
FROM: David Bellow
Texas State Republican Executive Committeeman SD
P.O. Box 8253, Lumberton, TX 77657
ATTENTION: David Sheffield District Attorney/Rebecca Walton County Attorney (whomever applicable)
SUBJECT: I initially sent this complaint to the Secretary of State’s office and they are investigating this election violation and will be sending their investigation to the Texas Attorney General for action to be taken in regards to the election. The Secretary of State’s office further instructed me to also send this complaint to the district/county attorney for prosecution of the violations of the law that have occurred.
VIOLATIONS: Criminal Conduct in Violation of Section 2.054 of the Texas Election Code by intimidating or coercing a potential candidate not to file an application for a place on the ballot or to withdraw as a candidate, and other violations of the Texas Penal Code listed below.
SUMMARY OF VIOLATION:
Here are the facts as gathered from multiple firsthand accounts of people directly involved in this situation, all of whom will testify that this information is true. These sources include audio tapes of some of the conversations that provide indisputable evidence that this criminal activity has occurred.
Dana Melancon is a weatherman for Channel 4 News in Beaumont, TX. He was also a candidate in the March 2, 2010 Republican Primary and was running for Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX.
Butch Cummings is the Justice of the Peace for Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX. He was the incumbent candidate in the March 2, 2010 Republican Primary and was running for reelection as Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX.
On January 8, 2010, incumbent Butch Cummings called Dana Melancon’s Channel 4 bosses to have a private meeting at Mr. Cummings Justice of the Peace office. This meeting was initiated by Butch Cummings. Those in attendance were Mr. Cummings (incumbent JP), Angel San Juan (News Director of Channel 4, the local Fox News affiliate in Beaumont, TX), and Chris Pruitt (the interim General Manager of Channel 4). Mr. Melancon was not invited.
During this meeting, Mr. Cummings told Mr. Melancon’s bosses that if Mr. Melancon did not drop out of the race for Justice of the Peace, then Mr. Cummings would go public with information that Mr. Melancon had received more than one speeding ticket during the last several years and these speeding tickets had caused Dana Melancon to be issued a warrant for his arrest to pay some unpaid fines (which Mr. Melancon did go down and pay upon hearing that a warrant had been issued). It is not certain whether Mr. Cummings issued this warrant himself, and if he did issue them, it is unclear whether the warrant was issued in an appropriate manner or if he issued the warrant unjustly and brought it to Mr. Melancon’s bosses as an abuse of power.
After this initial meeting, there was a candidate forum at the Lumberton Texas High School. Over a dozen candidates were there from state and local races. Dana Melancon did not participate in the forum. Mr. Melancon simply showed up for a few minutes and sat in the back to watch the forum. Butch Cummings called Angel San Juan and was very irate about Mr. Melancon being at the forum. Mr. Cummings call was laced with profanity and threats. Mr. Cummings demanded that Channel 4 give him airtime on tv. Angel San Juan tried to calm Mr. Cummings down and did not bow to Mr. Cummings threats for airtime.
On February 2, 2010, another meeting took place at Mr. Cummings JP office between Mr. Cummings, Angel San Juan(channel 4), Chris Pruitt (channel 4), Butch Cumming’s son (backing Mr Cummings actions), Melissa Minton (backing Mr Cummings actions), and this time they called in Dana Melancon so he was there too. Again, Mr. Cummings reiterated that Dana Melancon must drop out of the race for JP or else Mr. Cummings would damage the image of the news station by spreading info to the public about Dana Melancon’s lead foot. Mr. Cummings had printed out flyers about Dana Melancon that he had personally started to spread around and would continue to unless Dana dropped out.
Dana Melancon dropped out of the race and Channel 4 made multiple announcements on their newscast that Dana Melancon would not be running anymore and would not accept any nomination for JP, even if he were to win the primary election. Mr. Melancon still got a large portion of the votes on election day.
Furthermore, the editor of the Silsbee Bee spoke to Mr. Cummings and Mr. Cummings stated that since Mr. Melancon went after “his job” as Justice of the Peace, then he was justified to go after Mr. Melancon’s job at Channel 4. In past dealings with the Silsbee Bee, It is standard that the Silsbee Bee records their conversations for future reference so this conversation would have been recorded, and/or the Editor and one or more of their reporters has firsthand knowledge of this conversation and would testify to the truth of this.
Furthermore, When I, David Bellow, approached Butch Cummings about his “blackmailing” Dana Melancon to drop out of the race, Butch Cummings responded with a threat of bodily harm by saying he would “kick my ass if I told anyone” and when asked if that was a threat Mr. Cummings replied “you mark it down.” This is a violation of Texas Penal Code 22.01 (Assault by Verbal Threat of bodily injury of another person), and it is also a violation of Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 by using abusive/indecent/profane/vulgar language in a public place and in front of children.
There are several reliable witnesses who will testify to the truth of these allegations, including election judges and other officials in the Republican Party of Hardin County. Being that there is sufficient evidence to the claim that Butch Cummings coerced Dana Melancon into dropping out of running for office, it is requested that the District/County Attorney prosecute these charges.
Lastly, it is not my desire to defend any speeding tickets that Mr. Melancon had received. Instead, it is my wish, as the State Republican Executive Committeeman for Senate District 3, to ensure that the integrity of our democratic system is kept intact by allowing individuals to run and allowing the people to weigh their options (including the people being able to take into consideration any of the candidate’s past speeding tickets) and then decide who they want to be Justice of the Peace. Instead, the people did not have a chance to weigh their options and decide because of the criminal actions, and abuse of his public office of Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings by him meeting with Mr. Melancon’s bosses and trying to get him fired unless he dropped out of the race, which would ensure another term in office for Mr. Cummings.
Also, it does not seem that Channel 4 took any part in this coercion nor does it appear that they threatened to fire Mr. Melancon if he did not drop out. Instead it appears that Mr. Melancon stepped down from the coercion of Mr. Cummings and not coercion from his bosses.
Respectfully,
David Bellow
State Republican Executive Committeeman
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
TABC Giving Lumberton Alcohol Case Back to Hardin County Judge to Make Final Decision to Revoke Alcohol Permit
ALL CONSERVATIVES PLEASE UNDERSTAND. NO ONE IN LUMBERTON HAS A DESIRE TO STOP PEOPLE FROM DRINKING. WE IN LUMBERTON JUST FEEL THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE LOCAL CONTROL AND HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE ON THEIR OWN WHAT TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY LIVE IN, INSTEAD OF HAVING ONE PERSON OR GOVERNMENT CONTROL THE PEOPLE. THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF BEING CONSERVATIVE AND BELIEVING IN LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND MORE LOCAL CONTROL. THE PEOPLE OF LUMBERTON HAVE VOTED AGAINST ALCOHOL SALES IN THEIR COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT IS A SAFE, QUIET COMMUNITY AND THEY WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEVER TRY TO CONTROL A COMMUNITY BUT A COMMUNITY CAN VOTE AND DECIDE THINGS FOR THEIR OWN COMMUNITY AS WAS INTENDED IN THE FOUNDING OF AMERICA. FOR THIS REASON WE BELIEVE THAT THE WISHES OF lUMBERTON SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND THE COUNTY SHOULD CORRECT THEIR WRONG BY REVOKING THE ALCOHOL PERMIT THAT THEY WRONGLY ISSUED. IF THE PEOPLE WERE TO VOTE TO ALLOW ALCOHOL SALES THEN WE WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT BECUASE IT IS THE PEOPLE'S DECISION. BUT AS IT STANDS, THE PEOPLE OF LUMBERTON ARE AGAINST ALCOHOL SALES AND NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
Please Contact County Judge THIS WEEK and send him a complaint telling him to do the right thing and REVOKE this gas station's alcohol permit that they wrongly issued in a dry area.
Judge Caraway # 409-246-5120
complaint form to send to the Judge http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/forms/legal/LEG-01.doc
As you all know, there is a gas station in Lumberton that is in a dry precinct but is selling alcohol because Hardin County wrongly issued them a permit. The county had previously officially contacted to TABC requesting that the TABC revoke the permit for the gas station. The TABC process is very long and the TABC would not even have been able to hear the case until later this year.
The TABC just recently came up with a better idea. The gas station permit is currently up for renewal. The Hardin County Judge is the person who has the complete authority to renew this alcohol permit. He also has the complete authority to NOT renew this alcohol permit if there is reason not to.
As long as the TABC has a case pending with this gas station, the gas station’s alcohol permit cannot go up for renewal (at which time the County Judge would deny the renewal and correct their mistake)
So instead of waiting half a year for a TABC judge to hear the case, the TABC has officially dropped the case. This will allow the gas station’s alcohol permit to go up for renewal right away and at that time the County Judge can choose not to renew the permit.
This option not only allows the County to correct their mistake internally without the TABC having to go through their process, but it also expedites the process so that this gas station can more quickly have to illegally stop selling in a dry area.
One last thing. For the County Judge to not renew the permit, he must receive a formal complaint from someone with the reason not to renew.
I will submit to the judge the formal letter from the County Clerk and County Attorney in which they officially request the alcohol permit to be revoked.
I encourage all other concerned citizens to submit their own complaint to the County Judge and give reasons to not renew this permit. The main reason of course is that the gas station is selling in a dry area so it is not even legal for them to sell. Other reasons that the Judge can use to not renew the permit are if there are citizens who feel that this gas station selling alcohol would harm the general welfare, health, peace, morals, safety, and sense of decency of the people. Based on previous votes and hearings at the county courthouse, there is sufficient evidence to say that this gas station selling alcohol goes against the wishes of the people of this city and has caused a disturbance of the peace, morals, and sense of decency of the people of Lumberton who have voted overwhelmingly to not allow alcohol sales in their community.
Attached to this email is a copy of the letter from Hardin County Clerk and County Attorney to the TABC in which they request that this gas station have their permit revoked. This letter will be submitted to the County Judge for proof that this gas station is selling in a dry area and it is the wishes of the county clerk and attorney for the Judge not to renew this permit.
Also, at the end of this email is the Texas Law that gives the County Judge the legal ability to deny this alcohol permit based on many other reasons other than the fact that this gas station is selling in a dry area.
If the County chooses not to take this route to revoke this alcohol permit, the county also has the option to file an action against that gas station in district court.
You can Contact the TABC regarding this decision at Emily.Helm@tabc.state.tx.us or Judith.Kennison@tabc.state.tx.us
Sincerely,
David Bellow
409 656 5128
mdbellow@gmail.com
Sec. 61.42. MANDATORY GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL: DISTRIBUTOR OR RETAILER. (a) The county judge shall refuse to approve an application for a license as a distributor or retailer if he has reasonable grounds to believe and finds that:
(1) the applicant is a minor;
(2) the applicant is indebted to the state for any taxes, fees, or penalties imposed by this code or by rule of the commission;
(3) the place or manner in which the applicant for a retail dealer's license may conduct his business warrants a refusal of a license based on the general welfare, health, peace, morals, safety, and sense of decency of the people; (so not only does the county have reason to deny the permit because the gas station is selling in a dry area, this Texas Law also gives the Judge the ability to deny based on the general welfare and sense of decency of the people)
(4) the applicant is in the habit of using alcoholic beverages to excess or is mentally or physically incompetent;
(5) the applicant is not a United States citizen or has not been a citizen of Texas for a period of one year immediately preceding the filing of his application, unless he was issued an original or renewal license on or before September 1, 1948;
(6) the applicant was finally convicted of a felony during the five years immediately preceding the filing of his application;
(7) the applicant is not of good moral character or his reputation for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen in the community where he resides is bad; or
(8) as to a corporation, it is not incorporated under the laws of this state, or at least 51 percent of the corporate stock is not owned at all times by persons who individually are qualified to obtain a license, except that this subdivision does not apply to a holder of any renewal of a distributor's license which was in effect on January 1, 1953, or to an applicant or a beer retailer's on-premise license for a railway car.
(b) The county judge, commission, or administrator shall refuse to approve or issue an original retail dealer's or retail dealer's on-premise license unless the applicant for the license files with the application a certificate issued by the comptroller of public accounts stating that the applicant holds, or has applied for and satisfies all legal requirements for the issuance of, a sales tax permit for the place of business for which the license is sought.
(c) The county judge, commission, or administrator shall refuse to approve or issue for a period of one year a retail dealer's on-premise license or a wine and beer retailer's permit for a premises where a license or permit has been canceled during the preceding 12 months as a result of a shooting, stabbing, or other violent act, or as a result of an offense involving drugs.
Sec. 61.43. DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL: DISTRIBUTOR OR RETAILER. (a) The county judge may refuse to approve an application for a license as a distributor or retailer if the county judge has reasonable grounds to believe and finds that:
(1) the applicant has been finally convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of a provision of this code during the two years immediately preceding the filing of an application;
(2) five years has not elapsed since the termination, by pardon or otherwise, of a sentence imposed for conviction of a felony;
(3) the applicant has violated or caused to be violated a provision of this code or a rule or regulation of the commission, for which a suspension was not imposed, during the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of an application;
(4) the applicant failed to answer or falsely or incorrectly answered a question in an original or renewal application;
(5) the applicant for a retail dealer's license does not have an adequate building available at the address for which the license is sought before conducting any activity authorized by the license;
(6) the applicant or a person with whom the applicant is residentially domiciled had an interest in a license or permit which was cancelled or revoked within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of an application;
(7) the applicant failed or refused to furnish a true copy of the application to the commission's district office in the district in which the premises sought to be licensed are located;
(8) the premises on which beer is to be sold for on-premises consumption does not have:
(A) running water, if it is available; or
(B) separate free toilets for males and females, properly identified, on the premises for which the license is sought or, if the premises is a restaurant that derives less than 50 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of alcohol, is 2,500 square feet or less, and has an occupancy rating of 50 persons or less, at least one toilet, properly identified, on the premises for which the license is sought;
(9) the applicant for a retail dealer's license will conduct business in a manner contrary to law or in a place or manner conducive to a violation of the law; or
(10) the place, building, or premises for which the license is sought was used for selling alcoholic beverages in violation of the law at any time during the six months immediately preceding the filing of the application or was used, operated, or frequented during that time for a purpose or in a manner which was lewd, immoral, offensive to public decency, or contrary to this code.
(b) Subsection (a)(8) does not apply to an application under this section if the premises for which the application is submitted is part of a larger business complex with multiple tenant or commercial spaces, including a mall, that is open to the public and that offers the facilities required by Subsection (a)(8).
Please Contact County Judge THIS WEEK and send him a complaint telling him to do the right thing and REVOKE this gas station's alcohol permit that they wrongly issued in a dry area.
Judge Caraway # 409-246-5120
complaint form to send to the Judge http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/forms/legal/LEG-01.doc
As you all know, there is a gas station in Lumberton that is in a dry precinct but is selling alcohol because Hardin County wrongly issued them a permit. The county had previously officially contacted to TABC requesting that the TABC revoke the permit for the gas station. The TABC process is very long and the TABC would not even have been able to hear the case until later this year.
The TABC just recently came up with a better idea. The gas station permit is currently up for renewal. The Hardin County Judge is the person who has the complete authority to renew this alcohol permit. He also has the complete authority to NOT renew this alcohol permit if there is reason not to.
As long as the TABC has a case pending with this gas station, the gas station’s alcohol permit cannot go up for renewal (at which time the County Judge would deny the renewal and correct their mistake)
So instead of waiting half a year for a TABC judge to hear the case, the TABC has officially dropped the case. This will allow the gas station’s alcohol permit to go up for renewal right away and at that time the County Judge can choose not to renew the permit.
This option not only allows the County to correct their mistake internally without the TABC having to go through their process, but it also expedites the process so that this gas station can more quickly have to illegally stop selling in a dry area.
One last thing. For the County Judge to not renew the permit, he must receive a formal complaint from someone with the reason not to renew.
I will submit to the judge the formal letter from the County Clerk and County Attorney in which they officially request the alcohol permit to be revoked.
I encourage all other concerned citizens to submit their own complaint to the County Judge and give reasons to not renew this permit. The main reason of course is that the gas station is selling in a dry area so it is not even legal for them to sell. Other reasons that the Judge can use to not renew the permit are if there are citizens who feel that this gas station selling alcohol would harm the general welfare, health, peace, morals, safety, and sense of decency of the people. Based on previous votes and hearings at the county courthouse, there is sufficient evidence to say that this gas station selling alcohol goes against the wishes of the people of this city and has caused a disturbance of the peace, morals, and sense of decency of the people of Lumberton who have voted overwhelmingly to not allow alcohol sales in their community.
Attached to this email is a copy of the letter from Hardin County Clerk and County Attorney to the TABC in which they request that this gas station have their permit revoked. This letter will be submitted to the County Judge for proof that this gas station is selling in a dry area and it is the wishes of the county clerk and attorney for the Judge not to renew this permit.
Also, at the end of this email is the Texas Law that gives the County Judge the legal ability to deny this alcohol permit based on many other reasons other than the fact that this gas station is selling in a dry area.
If the County chooses not to take this route to revoke this alcohol permit, the county also has the option to file an action against that gas station in district court.
You can Contact the TABC regarding this decision at Emily.Helm@tabc.state.tx.us or Judith.Kennison@tabc.state.tx.us
Sincerely,
David Bellow
409 656 5128
mdbellow@gmail.com
Sec. 61.42. MANDATORY GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL: DISTRIBUTOR OR RETAILER. (a) The county judge shall refuse to approve an application for a license as a distributor or retailer if he has reasonable grounds to believe and finds that:
(1) the applicant is a minor;
(2) the applicant is indebted to the state for any taxes, fees, or penalties imposed by this code or by rule of the commission;
(3) the place or manner in which the applicant for a retail dealer's license may conduct his business warrants a refusal of a license based on the general welfare, health, peace, morals, safety, and sense of decency of the people; (so not only does the county have reason to deny the permit because the gas station is selling in a dry area, this Texas Law also gives the Judge the ability to deny based on the general welfare and sense of decency of the people)
(4) the applicant is in the habit of using alcoholic beverages to excess or is mentally or physically incompetent;
(5) the applicant is not a United States citizen or has not been a citizen of Texas for a period of one year immediately preceding the filing of his application, unless he was issued an original or renewal license on or before September 1, 1948;
(6) the applicant was finally convicted of a felony during the five years immediately preceding the filing of his application;
(7) the applicant is not of good moral character or his reputation for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen in the community where he resides is bad; or
(8) as to a corporation, it is not incorporated under the laws of this state, or at least 51 percent of the corporate stock is not owned at all times by persons who individually are qualified to obtain a license, except that this subdivision does not apply to a holder of any renewal of a distributor's license which was in effect on January 1, 1953, or to an applicant or a beer retailer's on-premise license for a railway car.
(b) The county judge, commission, or administrator shall refuse to approve or issue an original retail dealer's or retail dealer's on-premise license unless the applicant for the license files with the application a certificate issued by the comptroller of public accounts stating that the applicant holds, or has applied for and satisfies all legal requirements for the issuance of, a sales tax permit for the place of business for which the license is sought.
(c) The county judge, commission, or administrator shall refuse to approve or issue for a period of one year a retail dealer's on-premise license or a wine and beer retailer's permit for a premises where a license or permit has been canceled during the preceding 12 months as a result of a shooting, stabbing, or other violent act, or as a result of an offense involving drugs.
Sec. 61.43. DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL: DISTRIBUTOR OR RETAILER. (a) The county judge may refuse to approve an application for a license as a distributor or retailer if the county judge has reasonable grounds to believe and finds that:
(1) the applicant has been finally convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of a provision of this code during the two years immediately preceding the filing of an application;
(2) five years has not elapsed since the termination, by pardon or otherwise, of a sentence imposed for conviction of a felony;
(3) the applicant has violated or caused to be violated a provision of this code or a rule or regulation of the commission, for which a suspension was not imposed, during the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of an application;
(4) the applicant failed to answer or falsely or incorrectly answered a question in an original or renewal application;
(5) the applicant for a retail dealer's license does not have an adequate building available at the address for which the license is sought before conducting any activity authorized by the license;
(6) the applicant or a person with whom the applicant is residentially domiciled had an interest in a license or permit which was cancelled or revoked within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of an application;
(7) the applicant failed or refused to furnish a true copy of the application to the commission's district office in the district in which the premises sought to be licensed are located;
(8) the premises on which beer is to be sold for on-premises consumption does not have:
(A) running water, if it is available; or
(B) separate free toilets for males and females, properly identified, on the premises for which the license is sought or, if the premises is a restaurant that derives less than 50 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of alcohol, is 2,500 square feet or less, and has an occupancy rating of 50 persons or less, at least one toilet, properly identified, on the premises for which the license is sought;
(9) the applicant for a retail dealer's license will conduct business in a manner contrary to law or in a place or manner conducive to a violation of the law; or
(10) the place, building, or premises for which the license is sought was used for selling alcoholic beverages in violation of the law at any time during the six months immediately preceding the filing of the application or was used, operated, or frequented during that time for a purpose or in a manner which was lewd, immoral, offensive to public decency, or contrary to this code.
(b) Subsection (a)(8) does not apply to an application under this section if the premises for which the application is submitted is part of a larger business complex with multiple tenant or commercial spaces, including a mall, that is open to the public and that offers the facilities required by Subsection (a)(8).
Monday, June 14, 2010
Hardin County Republican, David Bellow, has been Elected to serve on the board that Governs and Manages the Republican Party of Texas
This past weekend at the Texas Republican State Convention in Dallas, Hardin County’s own, David Bellow, was elected to serve as a member on the State Republican Executive Committee. The 62 members of the SREC act as the governing body of the Republican Party of Texas. Over the next 2 years, David Bellow and the other 61 SREC members from around the State of Texas will establish policy for the Party (including placing propositions on the Republican Party Statewide ballot), be responsible for the supervision and management of the Party, and to foster growth in the Party.
On top of the general statewide duties of and SREC member, David Bellow, and his fellow Committeewoman, will serve directly over the 16 counties of State Senate District 3. This area covers from Hardin County up to Tyler and back down to Conroe. Bellow will serve as the liaison between the Republican Party of Texas and the County Chairman of these 16 counties.
Bellow is the youngest Member on the SREC.
From State Senator Robert Nichols:
“Congratulations on your election! You handled yourself very well in your presentation and had everyone excited with your comments. I look forward to working with you in the District as you go about your work. We have a lot of opportunities in SD 3 to convert the remaining primarily Democratic counties to Republican.”
From SREC Member David Bellow:
“I am truly honored to have been elected to serve on the SREC by my fellow Republicans of Senate District 3. I am very excited about this opportunity to re-energize the Texas Republican base in the wake of the election of Liberal President Obama. I will faithfully manage the 16 counties I serve over and will work with the County Republican Chairmen to ensure they have the strategy and resources needed to build the Party within their county and to elect Republicans within their county. Thank You!”
Any Republicans interested helping to build and promote the Republican Party of Texas are welcome to contact David Bellow for further information. You can Be part of the new Republican Revolution as we take back America and restore her to the Christian conservative values she was founded upon!
David Bellow contact info:
409 656 5128
mdbellow@gmail.com
www.DavidBellow.com
On top of the general statewide duties of and SREC member, David Bellow, and his fellow Committeewoman, will serve directly over the 16 counties of State Senate District 3. This area covers from Hardin County up to Tyler and back down to Conroe. Bellow will serve as the liaison between the Republican Party of Texas and the County Chairman of these 16 counties.
Bellow is the youngest Member on the SREC.
From State Senator Robert Nichols:
“Congratulations on your election! You handled yourself very well in your presentation and had everyone excited with your comments. I look forward to working with you in the District as you go about your work. We have a lot of opportunities in SD 3 to convert the remaining primarily Democratic counties to Republican.”
From SREC Member David Bellow:
“I am truly honored to have been elected to serve on the SREC by my fellow Republicans of Senate District 3. I am very excited about this opportunity to re-energize the Texas Republican base in the wake of the election of Liberal President Obama. I will faithfully manage the 16 counties I serve over and will work with the County Republican Chairmen to ensure they have the strategy and resources needed to build the Party within their county and to elect Republicans within their county. Thank You!”
Any Republicans interested helping to build and promote the Republican Party of Texas are welcome to contact David Bellow for further information. You can Be part of the new Republican Revolution as we take back America and restore her to the Christian conservative values she was founded upon!
David Bellow contact info:
409 656 5128
mdbellow@gmail.com
www.DavidBellow.com
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Hardin County Denies Lumberton Man Democratic right to petition government. Facts prove County clearly wrong
Contact:
David Page
409 223 3548
PageDavid62@yahoo.com
450 N. Blanton
Lumberton, TX 77657
June 10th, 2010
Hardin County Wrongfully Denies Lumberton Man the right to collect signatures for a petition to prohibit the sale of alcohol in Lumberton. Facts prove that Hardin County is wrong to deny petition. Democracy and the People’s right to vote are under attack in Hardin County.
David Page, a senior citizen and a long time resident of Lumberton who is not against anyone drinking but just likes Lumberton the way it is as a quiet bedroom community, has submitted an application to circulate a petition to prohibit the sale of alcohol within the city limits of Lumberton so Lumberton can stay dry like it always has been.
The county clerk and the county attorney have flat out denied the application for a petition from David Page. Remember last year when they denied Lumberton the right to vote based on some technical questions about the law. Well the State of Texas changed the law just for Lumberton so they could vote. You would think the county would let Lumberton finally get to vote now right? Wrong!
What was the excuse that Hardin County gave David Page for denying his request for a petition?
County Attorney Rebecca Walton told David Page this week, “You want to get a petition together to dry up Lumberton, but Lumberton is already dry. Lumberton is in JP precinct 5 and it is already dry. Everyone who lives in the city limits of Lumberton is in a double dry area. The city is dry and the JP Precinct 5 is dry. The sale of beer is not legal in Lumberton. Nothing is legal in the city limits of Lumberton”
This is completely and factually false. The county attorney is factually wrong and has wrongly denied this application for a petition. By the County Attorney’s own admission, JP Precinct 3 is wet. It is a fact that parts of the west city limits of Lumberton extend well into JP Precinct 3. This means that there are parts of the city limits of Lumberton that are wet because the western city limits of Lumberton extends into the wet JP precinct 3.
So it is an undisputable fact that there are parts of the Lumberton city limits that it is legal to sale alcohol because it is part of JP Precinct 3. So why did the county lie and say that there is no part of Lumberton that is in wet JP Precinct 3 and therefore there is no part of Lumberton that is wet and so Lumberton cannot vote to be dry. The county denied the petition by lying and saying no part of Lumberton is wet but it is a fact that there are parts of the west Lumberton city limits that alcohol is legal because it is in the wet JP Precinct 3.
Maybe the county did not lie. If the county did not lie, then they are just incompetent and do not know the city boundary lines and they do not know how to read a simple map. Wait, that sounds familiar. Didn’t the county already not know their own county precinct lines? There is a gas station in a dry area of Lumberton that is currently selling alcohol because the county allowed that gas station to sell thinking it was in a wet precinct. The county had to come out later and admit that they made a mistake and that the gas station selling alcohol was actually in a dry area and not allowed to sell. But it was too late and the gas station is still selling. Is this another case of the county not knowing the simple boundary lines of the county?
Commissioner Bobby Franklin lives a stone’s throw away from this gas station that sells alcohol. How could he not know where his own precinct lines end and whether or not the gas station was in his dry precinct? How could Councilman Don Burnett not advise the county that this gas station was in a dry precinct. Burnett was on the committee that decided these precinct lines so he had to know that these gas stations were in a dry precinct and should have never sold alcohol. Furthermore, Don Burnett knows that there is a part of Lumberton city limits that is currently wet and yet this councilman has not informed the county attorney. Instead David Page has informed us that councilman Don Burnett called him last week and tried to get him to not do a petition against alcohol and Don Burnett instead was trying to persuade David Page to do a petition to legalize alcohol.
Something fishy has been going on for quite a while. Now it is finally getting exposed. It is a fact that Lumberton is part of the wet JP Precinct 3. This means it is a fact that part of Lumberton is wet. This means that the county either knows this info and simply lied to David Page, or the County is simply incompetent on more than one occasion when it comes to looking at a simple map to see if the city Limits of Lumberton extends into the wet JP precinct 3. Either way, it is not good for the county that they have wrongfully denied David Page a petition. Even worse they have denied the city residents of Lumberton a chance to vote once again. This mistake is so blatant that the county will not be able to talk themselves out of the big mess they are getting themselves into now.
In the past the county has gotten out of trouble by saying they did not know the boundary lines. Well David Page showed the county attorney the map of Lumberton which clearly shows that the city limits of Lumberton extends in the wet JP precinct 3. Even after seeing the map the county still said Lumberton was all dry and could not vote and they rejected the application for a petition. It is believed that David Page will be getting a lawyer soon to sue the county for wrongfully denying him a petition. The county has no chance of winning because any judge looking at a map would be able to see that the county is wrong. Not only is the county wrong for denying the petition. The county has also stalled long enough to possibly make David Page have to wait until next year to do another vote instead of this year as David Page was going to petition for. So the county’s incompetence is once again keeping the people of Lumberton from voting and there would probably be severe legal repercussions for the county for blatantly wrongfully denying David Page a petition to allow the city to vote.
David Page has provided all of the information contained within this email. David Page can be reached at :
David Page
409 223 3548
450 N. Blanton
Lumberton, TX 77657
David Page
409 223 3548
PageDavid62@yahoo.com
450 N. Blanton
Lumberton, TX 77657
June 10th, 2010
Hardin County Wrongfully Denies Lumberton Man the right to collect signatures for a petition to prohibit the sale of alcohol in Lumberton. Facts prove that Hardin County is wrong to deny petition. Democracy and the People’s right to vote are under attack in Hardin County.
David Page, a senior citizen and a long time resident of Lumberton who is not against anyone drinking but just likes Lumberton the way it is as a quiet bedroom community, has submitted an application to circulate a petition to prohibit the sale of alcohol within the city limits of Lumberton so Lumberton can stay dry like it always has been.
The county clerk and the county attorney have flat out denied the application for a petition from David Page. Remember last year when they denied Lumberton the right to vote based on some technical questions about the law. Well the State of Texas changed the law just for Lumberton so they could vote. You would think the county would let Lumberton finally get to vote now right? Wrong!
What was the excuse that Hardin County gave David Page for denying his request for a petition?
County Attorney Rebecca Walton told David Page this week, “You want to get a petition together to dry up Lumberton, but Lumberton is already dry. Lumberton is in JP precinct 5 and it is already dry. Everyone who lives in the city limits of Lumberton is in a double dry area. The city is dry and the JP Precinct 5 is dry. The sale of beer is not legal in Lumberton. Nothing is legal in the city limits of Lumberton”
This is completely and factually false. The county attorney is factually wrong and has wrongly denied this application for a petition. By the County Attorney’s own admission, JP Precinct 3 is wet. It is a fact that parts of the west city limits of Lumberton extend well into JP Precinct 3. This means that there are parts of the city limits of Lumberton that are wet because the western city limits of Lumberton extends into the wet JP precinct 3.
So it is an undisputable fact that there are parts of the Lumberton city limits that it is legal to sale alcohol because it is part of JP Precinct 3. So why did the county lie and say that there is no part of Lumberton that is in wet JP Precinct 3 and therefore there is no part of Lumberton that is wet and so Lumberton cannot vote to be dry. The county denied the petition by lying and saying no part of Lumberton is wet but it is a fact that there are parts of the west Lumberton city limits that alcohol is legal because it is in the wet JP Precinct 3.
Maybe the county did not lie. If the county did not lie, then they are just incompetent and do not know the city boundary lines and they do not know how to read a simple map. Wait, that sounds familiar. Didn’t the county already not know their own county precinct lines? There is a gas station in a dry area of Lumberton that is currently selling alcohol because the county allowed that gas station to sell thinking it was in a wet precinct. The county had to come out later and admit that they made a mistake and that the gas station selling alcohol was actually in a dry area and not allowed to sell. But it was too late and the gas station is still selling. Is this another case of the county not knowing the simple boundary lines of the county?
Commissioner Bobby Franklin lives a stone’s throw away from this gas station that sells alcohol. How could he not know where his own precinct lines end and whether or not the gas station was in his dry precinct? How could Councilman Don Burnett not advise the county that this gas station was in a dry precinct. Burnett was on the committee that decided these precinct lines so he had to know that these gas stations were in a dry precinct and should have never sold alcohol. Furthermore, Don Burnett knows that there is a part of Lumberton city limits that is currently wet and yet this councilman has not informed the county attorney. Instead David Page has informed us that councilman Don Burnett called him last week and tried to get him to not do a petition against alcohol and Don Burnett instead was trying to persuade David Page to do a petition to legalize alcohol.
Something fishy has been going on for quite a while. Now it is finally getting exposed. It is a fact that Lumberton is part of the wet JP Precinct 3. This means it is a fact that part of Lumberton is wet. This means that the county either knows this info and simply lied to David Page, or the County is simply incompetent on more than one occasion when it comes to looking at a simple map to see if the city Limits of Lumberton extends into the wet JP precinct 3. Either way, it is not good for the county that they have wrongfully denied David Page a petition. Even worse they have denied the city residents of Lumberton a chance to vote once again. This mistake is so blatant that the county will not be able to talk themselves out of the big mess they are getting themselves into now.
In the past the county has gotten out of trouble by saying they did not know the boundary lines. Well David Page showed the county attorney the map of Lumberton which clearly shows that the city limits of Lumberton extends in the wet JP precinct 3. Even after seeing the map the county still said Lumberton was all dry and could not vote and they rejected the application for a petition. It is believed that David Page will be getting a lawyer soon to sue the county for wrongfully denying him a petition. The county has no chance of winning because any judge looking at a map would be able to see that the county is wrong. Not only is the county wrong for denying the petition. The county has also stalled long enough to possibly make David Page have to wait until next year to do another vote instead of this year as David Page was going to petition for. So the county’s incompetence is once again keeping the people of Lumberton from voting and there would probably be severe legal repercussions for the county for blatantly wrongfully denying David Page a petition to allow the city to vote.
David Page has provided all of the information contained within this email. David Page can be reached at :
David Page
409 223 3548
450 N. Blanton
Lumberton, TX 77657
Friday, March 26, 2010
David Bellow Files Lawsuit against United States over Healthcare Bill
Hardin County Texas Resident Files Pro Se Lawsuit against United States over Healthcare Bill
On Wednesday Morning, March 24th, 2010, Lumberton Texas resident, David Bellow, filed a lawsuit against various United States government agencies over the recent healthcare legislation H.R. 3590. This lawsuit was filed within 24 hours of the President signing the bill into law.
Bellow states in the suit that the recent healthcare legislation violates several of his constitutional rights, including an unconstitutional mandate, a direct tax, and 4th Amendment violations.
The full text of the lawsuit, and a statement from David Bellow about the Lawsuit can be read on his website www.DavidBellow.com
"We can no longer just rely on our legislators to do the dirty work. We must get our hands dirty as well. We can no longer just leave it up to the politicians to try to fix this mess. It is too big. We need the people to all stand up and be counted. We need the people of America to get involved and start doing something to save the future of America." - David Bellow
On Wednesday Morning, March 24th, 2010, Lumberton Texas resident, David Bellow, filed a lawsuit against various United States government agencies over the recent healthcare legislation H.R. 3590. This lawsuit was filed within 24 hours of the President signing the bill into law.
Bellow states in the suit that the recent healthcare legislation violates several of his constitutional rights, including an unconstitutional mandate, a direct tax, and 4th Amendment violations.
The full text of the lawsuit, and a statement from David Bellow about the Lawsuit can be read on his website www.DavidBellow.com
"We can no longer just rely on our legislators to do the dirty work. We must get our hands dirty as well. We can no longer just leave it up to the politicians to try to fix this mess. It is too big. We need the people to all stand up and be counted. We need the people of America to get involved and start doing something to save the future of America." - David Bellow
Thursday, February 11, 2010
2010 Hardin County Primary Elections
Hardin County needs to elect conservative leaders who will stand up against the recent tax and budget increases, stop waste spending, and take care what we already have like the Veteran's Memorial in Lumberton.
Early Voting:
February 16th - 26th
Election Day:
March 2nd, 2010
Early Voting:
February 16th - 26th
Election Day:
March 2nd, 2010
Monday, November 2, 2009
Governor Rick Perry in Beaumont tonight
Governor Rick Perry was in Beaumont tonight. He talked about the importance of being a strong conservative, especially right now with what the nation is facing. He was pretty impressive when he talked about how Texas, under his leadership, is doing pretty good right now when most other states are in the tank. I do not know if he is for sure the guy for another term, but I can tell you that Hutchinson is for sure not the person for the job because she supports Roe vs. Wade and I can never support a candidate who supports abortion.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Voter Guide for Tuesday Nov. 3rd Texas Election
www.WallBuilders.com voting Recommendations
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: Currently, residential property is taxed on its "highest and best use," thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, "appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the 'highest and best use' standard." This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."
Recommended Vote: No strong recommendation; weak NO
Reasoning: The Veterans' Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for "public use" (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive "public purpose" measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining "public use"; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: Currently, residential property is taxed on its "highest and best use," thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, "appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the 'highest and best use' standard." This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."
Recommended Vote: No strong recommendation; weak NO
Reasoning: The Veterans' Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for "public use" (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive "public purpose" measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining "public use"; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Hardin County Flooding Possible
Hey Everyone, my unit has called me up for a few days of active duty because they are expecting lots of localized flooding here in East Texas. If you live in an area that tends to flood with lots of heavy rain then be careful and keep an eye on the weather so we don't have to come in and save you from the high water!
David Bellow
David Bellow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)