Property Owner Responsibilities

In your post, Texas Civil Code Needs a Little TLC, I understand your frustration with feeling safe in temporary housing. I agree that landlords should be required by some sort of code that would protect their tenants. Safety should be paramount, particularly in this college town. And apartments are seemingly not motivated to please their tenants since, as you stated, they could have someone else in your unit in no time.

I wish there was more information in the news story about what the complex did or did not do after the first and second incident. Perhaps they were not even notified, although I find that hard to believe. Perhaps this man was just that good of a thief and the prior thefts hadn't been noticed.

Regardless, property owners should be required to ensure their tenants feel safe. There should be certain guidelines with regard to lighting, access, etc. Although they should not be expected to provide 100% safety, that would be impossible. Tenants must still be diligent and observant. There is no substitution for an effective community looking out for each other. Property owners could help connecting tenants with social events or even just introducing new tenants to existing ones. When everyone knows the people around, they are more likely to note suspicious behavior.

Crime is still a part of all of our lives, as it has been from the beginning of society. There will always be people that take what doesn't belong to them. But I agree that property owners need to do what they can to keep their property as safe as they can without penalizing their tenants.

Lobbyists Honor System

A Dallas News story from February 2015 discussed the rules and loopholes between legislators and lobbyists.  Staff Writer James Drew indicated, “Texas’ lobby law has significant loopholes and weaknesses that make it difficult for the public to track the powerful alliance between lobbyists and lawmakers.”   

Lobbyists are defined as those who are paid to influence state legislation.  They are able to provide the legislators with meals, travel, transportation, gifts and entertainment, such as sports events and concerts.  Because of scandals, lobbyists are required to limit how much they spend on gifts and entertainment, but there is no limit to the amount they can spend of food, drinks, transportation and lodging.  The only limitation they are instructed to follow is to provide a detailed report of expenditures over $90.  This reporting is to illustrate which legislators are “in the pocket” of which lobbyists.   The purpose was to provide some transparency to the constituents that elect those legislators.

However, lobbyists have found a way to circumvent this limitation.  Several lobbyists would get together for an expensive dinner with a legislator and will split the bill, which then takes their contribution below the reporting requirement.   This is only for those who even divulge that they paid for the dinner.  It is an honor system with no true monitoring.  It would be easy for a lobbyist to pay for the entire dinner outright and just not report anything.  Who would tell?

Being labeled as a consultant is another way that “lobbyists” can work outside of the rules.  These consultants can be active in campaigns and lobby at the same time.  Again, there is no real monitoring of these participants.  Some states are already examining whether political consultants doubling as lobbyists represents a conflict of interest. 

These are just two examples of how lobbyists in Texas circumvent a complex system of rules governing their behavior.  There is no real motivation from legislators or lobbyists to change the rules.  Even if one lobbyist wanted to operate in a completely ethical and transparent manner, his opposition may not be so forthcoming.  He would run the risk of losing his influence over the issues he is working to pass (or not pass).    So why take the chance if that is the way the game is played by everyone?

Other states have developed disclosure rules and penalties for lobbyists that violate those laws.  Clearly, it can be done.  But since the players are the ones that create the rules, it would require a great deal of public pressure to actually promote change.   There probably wouldn't be many lobbyists pushing for that bill to pass.

Certainly, these legislators and lobbyists have a symbiotic relationship that benefits both parties.  However, when legislation becomes more about a good steak dinner instead of what is truly right for Texas, there is a problem.  Even if you consider a good steak dinner as the cost of doing business, it should be clear to the constituents why the legislator may have voted a certain way.  Clear and proper disclosure is the key.  Sometimes the fear of getting caught is all that keeps people in line.

Distemper Tantrum

On the blog Texas My Texas, Hallie Lane discussed the recent euthanization of more than 40 dogs due to an outbreak of distemper in Bastrop, Texas.  The shelter was forced to close for a period of time and could not accept more animals.  The Bastrop County Animal Shelter certainly did a commendable job when discovering distemper at their shelter.  Although it truly is sad that so many animals had to be euthanized, it certainly prevented a more significant crisis in the area. 

The saddest part to me is the fact that this issue could have been avoided entirely if people took better care of their animals.  Bastrop County Animal Services Director Erica Thompson indicated that this type of outbreak will happen again if the community doesn’t do its part.  In a Time Warner Cable News story, Director Thompson stated “Whoever owns these animals out in the community are not taking care of them properly.  They need to keep them on their property, they need to get them vaccinated and keep their vaccinations current and get them spayed and neutered so they're not wandering around; otherwise, shelters will always be facing these issues.”

It is undeniable that health care for humans can be expensive, and even more so for the care of their animals.  However, one of the responsibilities for owning a pet is caring for their health and protecting the community from animal-borne diseases such as rabies and distemper.  Additionally, animals that are at not spayed/neutered intensify the problem by increasing the population of unwanted or feral animals. 

My dog, Charlie

Often, veterinary clinics and even pet stores offer lower priced vaccinations to prevent outbreaks of diseases.  Dogs and cats can also be spayed or neutered at a discounted rate at some clinics.  People should take the time to ensure that their animals are protected.  Many programs have been developed to make the basic care of pets more accessible and more affordable.  People just are not always doing the responsible thing and actually taking care of their pets. 

Dallas to Houston at 205 mph? Maybe...

As reported in a recent article in the Dallas Morning News, a privately funded project for a high speed train gains traction.  Texas Central Railway is a private group pushing forward with the project, which will connect the two major metropolitan cities of Dallas and Houston.  These cities are about a six-hour drive from each other.  Texas Central indicates the train would travel 205 miles per hour and could make that same journey in under 90 minutes.  An estimated 50,000 business commuters travel to and from each of these cities more than once per week, which would presumably be the main target audience for this project. 



The project is currently being reviewed by federal and state environmental committees and is being steered towards the 2017 legislative session.   Texas Central Railway has already determined a preferred route.  However, the train’s course would require the purchase of rural land between the two cities.  The group anticipates a good deal of resistance to the purchase of the rural land needed.    They claim to strive to minimize landowner impacts for the project.   In order to fully construct the train line and acquire the necessary land, they may have to resort to eminent domain, which is the power to take private property for public use. 

                                     

A state proponent to the project indicated the “win-win” of the endeavor since private funds would benefit the public.   However, the private property owners that will be directly affected by the train would probably disagree. 

                                

The group, Texas Central Railway, reports on their site numerous benefits to the project.  They include a potential 10,000 jobs and $10 billion economic output during the construction.   Ongoing, they anticipate 750 jobs and $120 million annually during the operation once they train is underway. 



I feel that public transportation is one of those pills that can be hard to swallow, no matter the need.  We are a state that is notorious for building and improving roads in a reactive mode instead of being proactive.  Texas is a growing state that is not getting any smaller.  Our highway systems simply cannot keep up. 



Having a high-speed train connecting Houston and Dallas, and presumably future connections to Austin or San Antonio and beyond, would certainly help draw even more businesses to Texas.  Businesses could rely on being where they need to be in person with less time and money to expend on travel, including airfare, hotel or gasoline.



Additionally, I think we can look at Japan's bullet train or Europe’s example of a successful train system that helps commuters, both business and leisure, get from one place to another in an efficient manner.  For example, on an existing train system in Europe, you can travel from London to Paris in just over two hours.  That same trip would take approximately six hours to drive. 



I can foresee a future that would include high-speed travel to many major cities in Texas and beyond.  Can you imagine one day getting on a train in Austin and being able to be in New Orleans in three hours?  Of course, airlines would still be the primary choice for long-distance travel.  High-speed rail certainly deserves an opportunity to succeed with shorter commutes.  And this is an excellent opportunity for Texas to show the rest of the US how it can be done successfully.

Born in the USA

On July 20, the Burnt Orange published Texas is Illegally Denying Birth Certificates to Citizens with Immigrant Parents.  This article highlights a problem with illegal immigrants coming to the US and giving birth to their children, which automatically makes the children legal US citizens.  It is the belief that many of these parent immigrants are doing this with the strategic intention of gaining legal documentation.  The legal citizen child can help their illegal parents gain documentation through Immediate Relative Immigrant Visas.  However, the process apparently cannot begin until the child turns twenty-one.

The illegal immigrant parents are applying for a copy of their child's birth certificate and are being denied due to their identification being a Mexican-issued ID or foreign passport without a current visa.
  The Hidalgo and and Cameron County Texas Department of State Health Services offices, which issues certified copies of birth certificates, have refused to issue these birth certificates.  Without the birth certificate, these legal US citizens will not have access to basic services, such as a public school. 

Although I agree that it is necessary for us to protect our citizens, I can see why someone would want to discourage illegal immigrants giving birth to their children here simply as a way to circumvent the system.  However, since the law as it is currently written says that any person born in the USA is considered a citizen, these children cannot be overlooked due to their circumstances.  Based on the definition of discrimination, these children are being treated unfairly.  If these counties really believe that this law should be changed, they should work to change the law - not just how they do business.  Disregarding that law makes them the illegal ones.

Detective on Waco Grand Jury for Biker Indictments

On July 14, Dallas News published an editorial regarding a Waco detective serving on a grand jury (click here for full article).    This article raises concerns about an active-duty detective from the Waco police department being selected for the grand jury in McLennan County.   James Head has been a member of the Waco police force for 26 years and will now serve as foreman of the local grand jury.

The reason this appointment is questioned is the fact that the case involving the recent shootout with two rival motorcycle gangs outside the Twin Peaks restaurant may be coming before the grand jury.  On May 17, 177 bikers were arrested for their involvement in the incident.  Nine people were killed.  It can be presumed that many of those that were arrested were simply present and not involved in the actual shooting.  Perhaps they were doing what “normal people would do during a shootout - ducking for cover and getting out of the way.”   

The author’s audience is the local population interested in fair and justified prosecution.  There is an appearance of bias on the part of the grand jury based on the named foreman’s likely personal and professional interactions due to his job.  It is reasonable to presume that Detective Head knows many of those involved in the prosecution of this well-publicized incident.  The author is raising the possibility that these 177 bikers that are being prosecuted may not be able to receive a fair trial. 

I believe that the author has brought up a very good point.  Although I can see the value in having a person with law enforcement knowledge typically being beneficial on a grand jury, I can see the possibility of a conflict of interest.  However, I must disagree that this is just now becoming a concern with this high-profile case.  If having an active-duty member of the police force is a conflict in this case, it should also be a conflict in other cases that have not garnered media attention.   I agree that fairness “at every stage” of the legal process should be paramount to “ensure justice is properly served.”   But I also believe those standards should be for every citizen facing the legal process, not just this high-profile case.  If police officers and the like are not excluded with every case, they should not be excluded from this one.  

Texas Counties Holding Out on Marriage Equality in Texas

Recently posted on the Austin Chronicle site, Mary Tuna authored an article entitled Local Advocates Fight for Marriage Equality in Texas.  In this article, she illustrates that not all counties in Texas have fully adopted their requirement to issue marriage licenses to same-sex unions. 

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling was historical and quite clear.  All citizens in the United States will not be prohibited from marriage in all fifty states.  However, since marriage licenses are issued by county clerks, there are individuals involved that are allowing their personal bias influence to influence this process. 
                                                                
For example, Hood County Clerk Katie Lang refused to issue a license to a same-sex couple applying.  They were told they did not have the proper documentation despite having a revised application.  The office refused to accept their application and instructed them to leave the office.  Furthermore, the clerk's office had local law enforcement "stand guard" to presumably prevent similar couples from entering.  When attorneys became involved, the clerks' office was terribly offensive to the couple and still refused to issue their license to marry.   Eventually, despite the County Clerk Lang's personal objections, the same-sex couple was finally issued their license after filing a federal lawsuit. 

Other counties that are currently not compliant with this new law, according to this article, include Irion, Hamilton, Loving, Roberts and Hartley counties.   There are 254 counties in the State of Texas.  Most counties have been - or are currently working on - issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.    It is great to see that Texas has shown overall success in this historical change in this arena.  However, it is shameful to see that there are still some people in public office that believe that upholding the law is a personal decision instead of a job requirement.