Skip to content

Amendments create benefits for beaches, veteran care

The State of Texas has seen plenty of change in recent years. According to an article in the Oct. 16 issue of The Austin American Statesman, the number of veterans who apply for specialized care has increased.

Hurricanes on the coast have blurred lines between private and public beach property. Governor Perry’s plans for the Trans Texas Corridor were canceled in the name of private property.

These three issues have taken the form of Texas Constitutional Amendments, and Texans have one more day to make sure the “yes” votes are cast.

Prop 8 calls for Texas’ ability to contribute to federal veterans’ hospitals, and possibly build better facilities. Prop 9 ensures all Texans have access to beaches. Prop. 11 restricts the use of eminent domain claims by the government.

Prop 8 is important for the current veterans living in Texas and those the state will need to provide health care for in the immediate future.
State Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. (Brownsville), wrote in an Oct. 13 article for the Statesman that “in South Texas alone, we have roughly 100,000 veterans, many needing the specialized care only a facility such as the Audie Murphy Veterans Hospital in San Antonio can offer.”

The amount of travel veterans have to go for the proper care only exacerbates their condition. They may not have the resources to make those trips. The Obama administration is questioning troop increases in Afghanistan. Texas needs to create the proper facilities to care for its future veterans.

The language of Prop 11 does not rule out eminent domain entirely, but it clearly defines the term and circumstances of how it can be used.
This will make it more difficult to claim.

The text reads, “taking private property for economic development or to enhance tax revenues would be prohibited by the Texas Constitution, not simply by Texas law.”

The government is required to keep seized property and not sell it to an entity that would pay higher taxes.

Current law also means eminent domain can claim entire neighborhoods, but Prop 11 forces claims to be fought on an individual basis.

Prop 9 would ensure “the public’s unrestricted right to access public beaches (is) a permanent easement.”

Gulf of Mexico beaches stretch for hundreds of miles, and the amendment would prevent them from falling into private ownership. If hurricanes cause beach lines to retreat, Prop 8 would still require them to be public property.

The issue speaks to something more important though. Most of Texas land is “owned” somehow, excluding public parks. Beaches are the only land individuals should not have the right to own, regardless of the circumstances. Not everything belongs to everyone, but beaches should be an exception.

Amending the Texas Constitution would mean the state has to change. Propositions 8, 9 and 11 would only be beneficial.

—Luis Baez is a political science junior

Comments

Liberty for the Rich over Liberty for All.

November 3, 2009 by Jordan (not verified), 2 weeks 4 days ago
Comment id: 1003

Kevin, few people who own homes on Texas shorelines do not own another home. The "liberty" of which you speak is the liberty of the very rich to close off public access to beaches (state property) in order to maintain a 2nd or 3rd home. Someone who can afford to build and rebuild a house on gulf-front property is not the person who is more in danger of "financial ruin". I'm growing tired of the phrase "liberty" being misapplied to policies that would allow the haves to take away the rights of the have-nots. One of those is simply being able to access places that have, and always will be, public spaces. I'm glad that the people of Texas don't all share your narcissistic view of the concept of "liberty" and are voting overwhemlingly to protect the rights of those of us who do not make six-figure incomes (and future generations) to be able to visit the beaches of Texas.

Public Convenience vs. Property Rights

November 3, 2009 by Kevin Crouch (not verified), 2 weeks 5 days ago
Comment id: 1000

As a future Texas State student (Fall 2010), I'm glad to see a campus newspaper.

As far as this proposition is concerned, I actively opposed it, because of the horror stories I heard from the coast after the 2005 hurrican season. Many of the citizens who had land close to the beach ended up a part of the beach, because the beach line (defined as going from the water to the vegetation line) was pushed back by the powerful water surge, and that line went behind their home.

There is already a law in place that this amendment serves to strengthen. Under this law, these property owners were given to options: 1) Move the house, or 2) Leave the home. This is either a major inconvenience or a huge financial loss for these families, as they get no help or compenstation.

I remind you, they didn't move their house, a natural disaster the property owners have no control over (a blessing we saw with the Trans Texas Corridor) did the moving and, under this law and the proposition that will strengthen it, caused tons of problems for Texans along the coast. This proposition adds insult to injury for Texas property owners to provide a convenience to vacationers. I love the beach, but I think we should be realistic as well.

My solution? If we're going to make these property owners leave their home or move an entire house, provide public compensation or help. Yet, even with this solution idea, tax hikes could loom.

We must vote with common sense and liberty in mind, not always convenience. What is a day in the sun for you might be a lost home (in the middle of a major foreclosure crisis!) and financial ruin for someone else. Let's not add insult to injury when a natural force that cannot be prevented does massive damage.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

University Star, 601 University Drive, Trinity Building, San Marcos, Texas 78666 | Phone 512.245.3487 | Fax 512.2453708