Legislative Blog
J.B. Williams, J.D.
Proposition 14 - Vote NO
A Blog about Parks and Wildlife
A Bit of Background
The following backgrounds help summarize the author's views on both the general topic: Texas and more specifically Parks and Wildlife as it relates to that topic.
Brief Summary of Texas
Texas is truly a Republic. There are a multitude of items that to modify the state constitution must be modified. So there are times when Constitutional amendments are on the voting ballots. While I sometimes abhor the wording, the concept that all of those legally able to vote in Texas must vote on the change is a good one. And bills in Texas are generally short, making it easier for everyone to understand.
Summary of Parks and Wildlife
The creation of yet another fund outside the General Revenue fund which will cause less transparency for how tax dollars are spent. And could lead to raises in fees in other areas that assist in its support.
Blog Summary
Moving money out of the general revenue fund so it's less transparent, and harder to see if the budget is balanced. Our legislature must balance the budget, this gives them leeway to not see or control what is occurring and claim no fault.
Proposition 14 - Vote NO
Published: 2023-10-20
This would create a centennial parks conservation fund outside the general treasury, and it could be used for the creation and improvement of state parks. Not sure why the word centennial is in the name of the fund since it can be used for any state park. Centennial means of or relating to the age or period of 100 years. It makes the fund sound like it is preserving history but the park could be a newly created park.
The funding would consist of :
- money appropriated by the legislature;
- gifts, grants, and donations received by the Parks and Wildlife Department; and
- investment earnings and interest earned on amounts credited to the fund.
The reasonable expenses of managing the fund and its assets shall be paid by the fund.
Again we are creating a fund outside the general revenue fund which means there is less transparency to the taxpayers on how the money is spent. It makes it easier for the fund management to spend the funds, and harder for people to determine if funds are being wasted. This can lead to wasting of funds and requests for more funds to be allocated. It could also lead to future requests to shift a revenue stream from going into the general revenue fund and instead go directly into this fund. If they ask in the future for voters to approve funds for a Centennial Parks Conservation Fund it will sound like a preservation of history. The name of it is heinous as it implies something that is just not true.
I say vote NO.
Webpage created by and for J.B. Williams, J.D. - all rights reserved