Interesting Insight from Lone Star Straight

A classmate of mine recently posted an article entitled "Lobbyists Honor System" that really made me think of how messed up and broken parts of our system  truly are.

Once I realized that "holy cow, there IS a lot that a steak dinner can do for political issues in Texas!" I was absolutely terrified. I had never given it much thought, but I completely see her point. Especially how she points out that it is a "symbiotic relationship" and that things are not likely to change without public pressure because of that.

It's really interesting to me that they are required to limit how much they spend on gifts and entertainment, but there is no real limit on what they throw out for transportation, lodging, food and drinks. Man. I feel like the "paltry income" of state legislators doesn't look so bad now!

Texas Civil Code needs a little TLC

A 20-year-old man has been charged after allegedly robbing a woman in North Austin this past Saturday, August 1.
            The story goes that the woman was in her apartment when she heard a knock on her door. Upon going to open it, she found no one there and retreated back inside her home. Roughly thirty minutes later, the locked front door was forced open and the suspect ordered the woman to give him all of her money. She had no cash on her, so the suspect took her iPhone, some jewelry and two laptops before fleeing out the door. The man was later identified as Miguel Bonilla-Cardona. Patrol officers at the complex saw Bonilla-Cardona walking out of another apartment in the same building after the incident, and were able to match him to the victim’s description. He was taken into custody after the victim positively identified him and police found some of the stolen possessions on him.
            According to KVUE, “Bonilla-Cardona told police that he broke into the victim's apartment because he owed a drug debt to someone. He also admitted to committing three other burglaries in the same apartment complex that week.”

            As a young woman living alone in Austin, stories like this terrify me. Thank God nothing more serious happened to the woman in that apartment last weekend, like so easily could have. I even had a minor incident at my apartment complex with one of the maintenance workers entering the premises without a work order while I was not home. When I went to the apartment managers to complain and demand that they change my locks, they told me that it would cost me $40 to have that done. I pointed out to them again that I live alone and that it is unacceptable for their hired staff to make me feel uncomfortable in my own home and that it certainly is not right to have ME pay THEM even $1 to change my locks because of an incident with one of their employees. When it was all said and done, I decided it made the most sense to swallow my pride and bite the bullet by begrudgingly shelling out $40 for my own safety and slight peace of mind, but I still think that that was absurd. I think that to a certain degree, the apartment complex should be accountable for their resident’s safety.
            The part about this story from North Austin that concerns me the most is that he had admitted to breaking into THREE OTHER RESIDENCIES THAT SAME WEEK. I want to know what complex this happened at and what they did after the FIRST burglary to increase the safety of their tenants. I’m not saying that every complex needs to run out and install security cameras on the side of every building, but they should be held to a certain standard for the safety of their tenants. By being required to provide better outdoor lighting at night, reasonably reducing large shrubbery/hiding spots and ensuring that the residents only have doors and windows that actually lock, I think that we could make great strides.

             I am coming here from California (I know, I’m sorry.) where the tenants tend to hold more power because of the way that the California Civil Code is constructed. When we had an incident with a stranger just strolling into my neighbor’s house, the landlord immediately came and put in a higher fence for the backyard at no cost to us. He ensured that our garage lock was functional. He made sure that he never sent a maintenance man to our home without informing us first.
            My experience here in Texas has been exactly the opposite. The landlords have too much power and know that if we move out, they can up the rent and slap someone else in there tomorrow, easy peasy. They are unresponsive in general, and have dollar signs in their eyes. We have enormous, sprawling complexes with a few maintenance workers on staff and they get to things as they can, whether it’s a broken toilet or a tenant not feeling safe because of one of their employees. Nothing is urgent, everything will cost you more money. We need to take a long look at how Californians treat the landlord/tenant relationship and see where we went wrong.

Speed Train: At What Cost?

When I initially read the post “Dallas to Houston at 205mph? Maybe…” on the Lone Star Straight blog, I was completely on board. After all, the author makes several very good points in regards to the potential the project has to boost Texas’ economy with an estimated “$10 billion economic output during the construction,” and an ongoing “750 jobs and $120 million annually during the operation once they train is underway.” These numbers are huge and difficult to ignore, but I feel that we need to be looking at more than just the money.
            The part of all of this that gives me pause is the paragraph about people who own property on the proposed route of the speed train and the use of eminent domain. I, myself, own no property so perhaps it is impossible for me to truly identify with these people, but the “eminent domain” part of that is fairly ominous to me. As I did a little further research on what, exactly, that phrase means in Texas, I encountered a lot of confusing legal jargon. One other blog, the TexasAgriculture Law Blog, has a great post clarifying exactly what it means and what the steps on eminent domain are. The author of that blog states “there are three elements of eminent domain under Texas law:  (1) The actor must be the state or a private entity authorized to condemn; (2) the property must be taken for public use; and (3) the landowner must receive adequate compensation for the condemned property.”
            The FAQ portion of Dawson & Sodd, LLP goes on to say generally considered to be the difference between the market value of the property before and after the taking, considering the property and rights taken and any damages to remaining land not taken. “Market value” is the price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller. Adequate compensation for lost property or damages to remaining land after the taking is influenced by the type of “taking” that occurs. When an entire property is condemned, the landowner is entitled to receive the market value for the entire property. But if only a portion of the property is condemned, the landowner is compensated for the difference between (1) the market value of the whole property before the taking and (2) the market value of the remaining property after the taking. This allows the landowner to be compensated for both the value of the property and rights taken and also any damage to the value of the landowner’s remaining property after the taking.
            I feel that the land owners should be offered the market value of their land or piece of land, plus some additional incentive or annual interest. These people aren’t standing up and saying “hm, I think I want to move. Now I need to list the house.” The government is coming in and saying “hey, dude, out of my way. I’ll take this. Here’s a check for what it’s worth. Don’t worry about the associated pains of packing, finding a new home and moving, nor the memories you have tied to this land. We will just take it off your hands and probably bulldoze it for you.” That just doesn’t sit quite right with me.

            In short, I am on-board with the speed train, but I believe that we need to take better care of the people who are losing their land to accommodate this dream.

Calling all dog lovers!!

As a dog owner and pet lover myself, I was initially appalled when I learned of the outbreak of distemper at the Bastrop County Animal Shelter that led to the closing of the pound and the euthanization of over 40 dogs since mid-June. The more I mulled it over, though, I realize that the actions taken by staff there were highly thought-out and completely unavoidable.

“They were extreme circumstances, they were doing horrible, they were having neurological problems, breathing problems, respiratory and they had to be put down,” said Erica Thompson, director of animal services in Bastrop County. “Everyone needs to be aware, whatever this is, it did not start at this animal shelter. An animal came in with it.” Thompson also noted that those who were euthanized had fevers of 103 degrees.

According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (more commonly known as the ASPCA), “canine distemper is a virus that affects a dog’s respiratory, gastrointestinal and central nervous systems, as well as the conjunctival membranes of the eye…There is currently no available medication that can destroy the virus that causes canine distemper. Rather, supportive care is the mainstay of treatment. Some dogs are able to survive the infection, while for others canine distemper can be fatal.”

I am thrilled to hear that the animal shelter will be opening its doors again to the public beginning tomorrow, July 29th. I would also like to take this time to praise the clinic for being so proactive in their avoidance of a widespread outbreak. The distemper virus is spread between dogs, skunks, foxes and other animals through direct contact with fresh urine, blood or saliva. This means that a sneezing pup at the dog park or a sick dog sharing a water bowl with your fur-baby could have detrimental effects on your pets’ health. I commend their swift action—from the testing done with the Texas A&M Veterinary Clinic to confirm the diagnosis to the heart-wrenching decision to shut the doors and put any sick animals to sleep, not only was the shelter able to save the lives of 262 dogs, but they may have prevented such a catastrophic event from happening on a much wider scale. Just imagine if the staff there had not been as diligent in their observations or as knowledgeable as to dangers of distemper. Even one infected animal getting adopted out could have led to a canine epidemic.

The Bastrop County Animal Shelter may well have kept your four-legged friends protected, as I feel they did mine. By ringing the alarm and shutting the doors so early, I believe that they performed exceptionally well in a time of crisis. It is difficult to think about those 40 dogs that had to be put to sleep, but at the end of the day, I know that many will rest more soundly knowing that their pets are safe and that the Bastrop County Animal Shelter did what they had to for the greater good.

According to KXAN “the shelter is currently at maximum capacity, so they’re holding a special adoption event on Saturday, August 1 from 11 a.m.-7:30 p.m. Adult pets over one year will be $25. Cats less than one-year-old will be $45 and dogs less than one-year-old will be $75.” Spread the word, and let’s get those animals into some good homes and the Bastrop County Animal Shelter back on their feet!

Former Governor Rick Perry spends big bills on legal defense

Patrick Svitek of the Texas Tribune posted an article on Sunday, July 16, 2015 titled “Perry spends $2 million in state campaign cash onlegal defense”, in which he gives a general update as to the financial consequences of former Texas Governor Rick Perry after he threatened to veto state funding for Public Integrity Unit. Perry announced last year that unless Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg stepped down after a drunken-driving arrest, he would not approve the program’s request for funding. The Public Integrity Unit is a state-funded division of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office that investigates public corruption, insurance fraud, and motor fuels tax fraud. The Travis County DA holds the chief responsibility for enforcing the government and election code statewide.

In Svitek’s article, he points out just how badly Perry’s action has affected his bank account. “The steady stream of legal fees has left Perry with roughly $1.3 million in the account, a fraction of the $4.4 million he had stockpiled a year ago. And with Perry no longer holding statewide office, little money is flowing into the account — $685 from January through June.”

The author no doubtedly paints a dire picture for his readers, and with good reason. He points out that Perry has buzzed through half of his cash for his campaign to get this abuse-of-power indictment put behind him. Now left with far less funding, Perry will obviously have fewer resources for campaigning, and I believe that it has been proven that the old saying “no press is bad press” does not always hold true.

The article was published in both The Texas Tribune and in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, both of which are mainstream Texas news sources.

Regardless of how this all turns out, Perry still has his sights set on the White House. He insists that the case is “politically motivated and will fade away.”

Texas for or against texting?

Tom Benning’s article in the Dallas Morning News, titled “Is Texas Right for Not Banning Texting-While-Driving Statewide”, one can expect to feel a little overwhelmed, a tad bored, and a bit of confusion. The paper is a metropolitan Texas newspaper based out of the Dallas area. With an enormous reader-base, one can expect that this platform to reach so many would incite more organization and a clear and concise argument. I wish that he had taken the time to define the differences between a “text ban” and “hands-free requirement” and made that more forward and cut and dry. Obviously, a text ban is going to aim to stop people from texting behind the wheel, but I would like to see the author really break it down more than that. I wanted him to go into the data between the different types of bans and show me evidence either supporting or dismissing the claim that banning texting while driving is making our roads safe. Instead, he slinks around, talking in circles, and claiming that the data is unmoving and unreliable because we are basically waiting for people to get into car wrecks and then tell the officer “I’m sorry, sir, but I was talking on the phone to my cousin Stacey about the difference between jelly and jam”. While I definitely understand that it is very difficult to enforce text bans and hands-free legislature, he could have gone back and looked at statistics as to how many car wrecks there were before cell-phones, like in the 1970’s. He could have compared many years leading up to now to show a definite increase or decrease, or possibly even a plateau in the number of collisions per year, while still being sure to make allowances in the data here and there for the ever-changing and infinite number of variables such as improvements of mechanics on the cars to help up stop more quickly or avoid a wreck easier, the increase in population, the technology used in the reflective paint used to paint stripes; anything! It would not have been very cut and dry, but it at least would have shown some insight and reflection. Common sense tells me that, yes, car + phone = bad idea, but I feel like you shouldn’t write an article about that including data as a persuasive argument if you don’t seem too eager to interpret the data yourself.
At one point in the article Bennings points out “the new ordinance resulted in 551 tickets in February alone. In all of last year, Austin police wrote 688 citations for the texting ban.” I feel like he could have easily taken the position of “upping citations is an action that may or may not actually have numbers proving that safety has also increased, but it definitely increases revenue for the city. We can put in more bike lanes/crosswalks/pedestrian bridges/stoplights/etc. with that money to further ensure the safety of our people”. That is an idea that is more easily expressed than a spreadsheet and shows more forethought. People are more likely to support something like the hands-free restriction if they see the good that it could potentially bring to the community than they are by seeing conflicting data pertaining to the topic.

Blog Post #1: Trump vs Perry SMACKDOWN!!!!

What we have here is an article published on KVUE regarding former Texas Governor Rick Perry and presidential hopeful Donald Trump. Trump recently found himself in hot water after he made the statement "when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists, and some I assume are good people." Perry was quick to defend Mexican immigrants, and attempted to shoot down Trump's suggestion...or lack thereof. Perry feels that "Sanctuary Cities" are the best places to initiate a change. These so-called "Sanctuary Cities" are where, by Perry's definition, the governments "choose to openly defy U.S. immigration law". He states that they are generally larger, more liberal metropolitan areas like San Francisco. Perry proposes that we create some criteria to determine what cities may be considered "Sanctuary Cities" and cut their federal funding. "Federal taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the irresponsible behavior of these governments."
My concern in this is that neither side seems to have a good grasp on what is really happening here. Trumps comments were completely inappropriate and ignorant, but by cutting grants to Perry's "sanctuary cities", we will only be hurting the people of the cities. By having less cash flow for police to properly address concerns and hold those being charged with crime, we are letting more potentially dangerous people roam free. In this way, you run the definite risk of these cities becoming a lawless land, of sorts. From what I understand, lack of funding will likely lead to a decrease in police force and resources. From there, the kids who are committing petty crimes like vandalism probably won't be punished accordingly, and therefore lose out on an opportunity for rehabilitating that individual back into society. From unpunished petty theft, these same people are more likely to become involved in more consequential activities--and then not be met with consequences. From stealing a pack of gum to distributing marijuana, to forced entry and assaults, this just seems like we would only be perpetuating the cycle of crime.

The original article is posted here. Check it out and let me know what you think!