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!
Monday, August 3, 2015
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)