can someone confirm for me that austin doesnt have any elections? (tax, road)

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by cBach

I was about to say that. He seems so much attached to this failed bond that I can't help but think he may be one of those trial lawyers, especially with his salary.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't get a salary. And, while you're agreeing with the Horse Lady, see if YOU can answer the charge that poor renters get no tax break from an increased HOMESTEAD exemption. She blew right by that little fact.

Originally Posted by Novacek

Come on, everyone agrees we need a new courthouse.

I'm angry at the county for only giving us this bad choice.

He's angry at the people who voted against this choice. That doesn't necessarily mean he has a personal stake in it.

Let's restrict things to the facts of the matter.

Thank you, this sums it up. But, as I've stated before: there was no choice on the table. Voting against the bond was voting against a new courthouse anytime soon. Which some people wanted you to do although they were cagey enough not to spell it out.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Or, you can be like me, and not be angry, just confused as to how the process really works - why some parameters (specifically in this case, location) seem to be assumed as immutable. It seems to me that there is an assumed starting point that the government buildings MUST be the center of the local community, around which the rest of society orbits. I don't think the location was chosen for its convenience so much as for its symbolism. I don't even think it is necessarily a conscious decision, but elected officials don't seem to understand that they are not the center of the universe.

I think putting the courthouse somewhere outside the center of downtown (not necessarily far away, but not in the economic ground zero) reflects my personal belief that it is a service provided to the population, not a central operator.

Just my two cents....

This raises an interesting point. To which I would add, what's wrong with a little civic symbolism? Justice, self-rule and fair play are the cornerstones of our civic "religion," the glue that unites a lot of different peoples on the North American continent. In the U.S, a courthouse is sort of our "cathedral" and replaces the cathedral at the center of almost every European city. Symbolism isn't always a bad thing, especially in a society now heavily weighted toward consumerism and economic determinism. There needs to be more that holds us together than where we shop.

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Most working poor work part time. The primary difference between poor and middle income class is jobs.

The best "movement to raise wages" is to get some skills and a full time job.

This is plain wrong and also stupid.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by pop251808

I'm not a lawyer and I don't get a salary. And, while you're agreeing with the Horse Lady, see if YOU can answer the charge that poor renters get no tax break from an increased HOMESTEAD exemption. She blew right by that little fact.

Thank you, this sums it up. But, as I've stated before: there was no choice on the table. Voting against the bond was voting against a new courthouse anytime soon. Which some people wanted you to do although they were cagey enough not to spell it out.

This raises an interesting point. To which I would add, what's wrong with a little civic symbolism? Justice, self-rule and fair play are the cornerstones of our civic "religion," the glue that unites a lot of different peoples on the North American continent. In the U.S, a courthouse is sort of our "cathedral" and replaces the cathedral at the center of almost every European city. Symbolism isn't always a bad thing, especially in a society now heavily weighted toward consumerism and economic determinism. There needs to be more that holds us together than where we shop.

This is plain wrong and also stupid.

You want symbolism? Put the courthouse near where a shopping mall has been replaced by an educational institution, with access for all. Now, THAT's symbolism, not an imitating of the symbolism of another place and time.

Okay, you're not one of the lawyers and you don't get a salary. So, developer with an eye at profiting financially from the courthouse being built downtown? Architect that designs it and gets his name on it and thinks it has more "cache" if it's downtown?

You really do sound like you have a personal dog in this fight.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

You want symbolism? Put the courthouse near where a shopping mall has been replaced by an educational institution, with access for all. Now, THAT's symbolism, not an imitating of the symbolism of another place and time.

Okay, you're not one of the lawyers and you don't get a salary. So, developer with an eye at profiting financially from the courthouse being built downtown? Architect that designs it and gets his name on it and thinks it has more "cache" if it's downtown?

You really do sound like you have a personal dog in this fight.

Believe it or not, there really ARE people who, at least some of the time, do or say things out of conviction, not out of economic self-interest. On this topic (the courthouse), I'm one of those people.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Believe it or not, there really ARE people who, at least some of the time, do or say things out of conviction, not out of economic self-interest. On this topic (the courthouse), I'm one of those people.

I see what you did there. Of what were you convicted?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

I see what you did there. Of what were you convicted?

You've been on fire lately huh 10scoachrick!

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

I see what you did there. Of what were you convicted?

Ah yes, you see right through me! Good 'un.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by pop251808

I'm not a lawyer and I don't get a salary. And, while you're agreeing with the Horse Lady, see if YOU can answer the charge that poor renters get no tax break from an increased HOMESTEAD exemption. She blew right by that little fact.

I went back and reread the previous posts regarding property taxes and I'm still not clear on what you are saying here. But I wanted to clarify that landlords are not allowed any HOMESTEAD exemption on rental property. So they pay the full tax amount and that cost is rolled into the rent they charge. I was a landlord for 12 years, up until last year.

I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons for the creation of the Homestead Exemption was to encourage home ownership. If the politicians in our state wanted to assist renters they could allow that exemption for all residential property.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I went back and reread the previous posts regarding property taxes and I'm still not clear on what you are saying here. But I wanted to clarify that landlords are not allowed any HOMESTEAD exemption on rental property. So they pay the full tax amount and that cost is rolled into the rent they charge. I was a landlord for 12 years, up until last year.

I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons for the creation of the Homestead Exemption was to encourage home ownership. If the politicians in our state wanted to assist renters they could allow that exemption for all residential property.

It looks to me that you know the situation. Some here wanted to say (I think) that a "tax cut" would help poorer folks. I said, not so much, because the tax cut that just passed was only on homesteads. And, as you know, a piece of real estate not occupied by its owner is not a homestead; by definition, nothing that anyone rents is a homestead. And, seeing as many, probably a majority of poor people rent, they didn't benefit one bit from the recent constitutional amendment. In fact, a case could be made to say that they took a hit, because if the various government authorities that use our tax dollars continue to fund what they fund, and we just voted to cut homeowners' taxes, we just dumped an increased load on the rest of the tax paying public.
This amendment was misunderstood or ignored by many, was designed to pander to homeowning voters, and passed to the detriment of many Texas poor folks; it did not help them (unless they own the house they live in).

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by pop251808

It looks to me that you know the situation. Some here wanted to say (I think) that a "tax cut" would help poorer folks. I said, not so much, because the tax cut that just passed was only on homesteads. And, as you know, a piece of real estate not occupied by its owner is not a homestead; by definition, nothing that anyone rents is a homestead. And, seeing as many, probably a majority of poor people rent, they didn't benefit one bit from the recent constitutional amendment. In fact, a case could be made to say that they took a hit, because if the various government authorities that use our tax dollars continue to fund what they fund, and we just voted to cut homeowners' taxes, we just dumped an increased load on the rest of the tax paying public.
This amendment was misunderstood or ignored by many, was designed to pander to homeowning voters, and passed to the detriment of many Texas poor folks; it did not help them (unless they own the house they live in).

Agreed, I voted against 1,2,3,4 and for 5,6,7

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by pop251808

It looks to me that you know the situation. Some here wanted to say (I think) that a "tax cut" would help poorer folks. I said, not so much, because the tax cut that just passed was only on homesteads. And, as you know, a piece of real estate not occupied by its owner is not a homestead; by definition, nothing that anyone rents is a homestead. And, seeing as many, probably a majority of poor people rent, they didn't benefit one bit from the recent constitutional amendment. In fact, a case could be made to say that they took a hit, because if the various government authorities that use our tax dollars continue to fund what they fund, and we just voted to cut homeowners' taxes, we just dumped an increased load on the rest of the tax paying public.
This amendment was misunderstood or ignored by many, was designed to pander to homeowning voters, and passed to the detriment of many Texas poor folks; it did not help them (unless they own the house they live in).

I agree that a tax cut for one group is necessarily a tax increase for anyone not in that group.