Proposed Constitutional Amendments do NOT authorize a statewide property tax

Email messages are traveling the Internet suggesting that proposed constitutional amendments on the November 3rd ballot will authorize a statewide property tax. This is not true. The message claims that Proposition 2 and Proposition 3 would authorize the state to levy a property tax on residences. Article VIII, Section 1-e of the Texas Constitution prohibits a statewide property tax. It unequivocal language it reads:

“Sec.1-e.ABOLITION OF AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES. No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State. “

The proposed constitutional amendments on the November 3rd ballot do not change this section of the constitution and do not override this provision.

Propositions 2 and 3 are actually pro-taxpayer amendments. Proposition 2 restricts appraisal districts to appraising residential property to its use as a residence, prohibiting those districts from appraising a residence at a highest and best use value if the owner still occupies the residence.

Proposition 3 allows establishment of consistent property appraisal standards throughout the state. The enabling legislation has assigned that task to the State Comptroller.

In addition to property taxes, the constitutional amendments include the issuance of state bonds, benefits for veterans, changes to the tier 1 university funds, and limits to eminent domain. Back in August we provided a link to the Texas Legislative Council’s 65-page tome Analysis of Proposed Constitutional Amendments (PDF).

If you're not that interested, perhaps this link to the Secretary of State’s 22-paragraph Explanatory Statements for the Nov. 3rd , 2009 Constitutional Amendment Election will suffice.

Comments

[Daniel Reynolds]

To describe the proposed amendment 2 as "pro-taxpayer" is misleading and wrong. The proposed amendment 2 favors certain taxpayers (homeowners with property that has highest and best use value more than residential value) at the expense of everyone else (who will have to make up for the lost tax revenue due to the favored status granted to certain taxpayers).

[Bob Owen]

You are correct that proposition 2 only benefits certain taxpayers. However, without the amendment, high property taxes can make home ownership too expensive for some residents, forcing them to sell their homes before they wish to do so.

[Ken Durham]

... and it is limited to those with homestead exemptions, meaning that houses that are held on speculation, rented out, etc. still can be appraised at the highest and best use.

But to Daniels deeper point, it certainly feels oxymoronic to speak of a tax policy that is pro-taxpayer.

[Steve Lyons]

If it is a "tax" it isn't pro taxpayer. An increased homestead exemption would be "pro-taxpayer". I would strongly move that we propose a homestead exemption amount that is equal to the medial home value on a county by county basis. If the median home is valued at $200,000 and your homestead is valued at $300,000 then you are only taxed on the $100,000 excess. If your homestead is less than $200,000 then you are exempt from ALL taxes. This helps low income and retirees retain ownership of their homes. THAT is a pro-taxpayer amendment.