Tag: Texas

To please silly people, The first Texas Right-To-Farm Act (RTF) was passed in 1981.

Legislators proposed the act “to reduce the state’s loss of agricultural resources.”   Silly people believed it was needed. 

Since then, the number of operators in the state has grown by 27 percent, while the number of acres in farmland has dropped by 8 percent (largely due to the growing number of wind and solar fields, lakes, and the expanding population centers).

Basically, it was sold as a way to protect certain agricultural operations from nuisance suits when they impact a neighboring property, such as through noise or pollution. (Texas defines nuisance as actions that cause (1) physical harm to a property; (2) physical harm to persons on their property by assaulting their senses or other personal injury; or (3) emotional harm to persons from the deprivation of the enjoyment of their property through fear, apprehension, or loss of peace of mind.)

“Loss of mind” is not mentioned.

 

The 1981 Act…

…supposedly was centered on protecting certain types of operations from such lawsuits if they are engaged in soil cultivation, crop production, floriculture, fviticulture, horticulture, silviculture, wildlife management, raising or keeping livestock or poultry, or other agricultural land set aside in compliance with governmental conservation program. (That was the kicker.)

It was, voters were told, a way of providing agricultural operations broad immunity and limit a neighbors’ ability to sue by protecting an operation from nuisance suits (if it has lawfully existed for one year). It also was to “protect” agricultural improvements that are not prohibited by law at time of construction or restricts the flow of water, light, or air onto other land.

The law required that agricultural operations adhere to federal, state, and local laws in order to receive protection from nuisance suits. (More kickers!)

Additionally, the law required facilities to comply with local governmental regulations that protect the health and safety of residents. (Keep adding those kickers!!)

In practice, it’s obvious that (1) the 1981 Act demonstrates that “the right to farm” took away the owner’s basic right to control and manage their farm or ranch land, and (2) that government takes care of government.*

Isn’t it amazing that legislation often achieves exactly what it is designed to avoid?

 

42-Years later, on November 7, 2023 …

...Texas voters approved HJR 126, changing the landowner’s right to farm and / or ranch to a “privilege” – whereby, the state’s governmental units allow a landowner to “engage” in farming or ranching. By voter approval, the amendment allows the state to create future administrative agencies to control and manage farm, ranch and other agricultural endeavors – operating on some currently-unknown “generally accepted” practices – to “assure public health and public safety” unknown issues based on yet unknown rules and regulations. (Nothing in it, but kickers!!!)

The Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce warned property owners not to approve this horrendous legislation, as it opened the doors to more government control and management of private property.

We were ignored.

But if your neighbor can control and manage your property, what good is your ownership of it? You get to pay the taxes and the costs of maintenance, but they reap the the benefits of ownership – if any remains after the next 42-years . . .

We won’t be around then; however, if you are one of those who voted to approve the change, and are, remember you were warned ––

We’re supposed to be a nation of limited government based on self-responsibility with accountability for wrong-doing. But today, Texas, and the nation, are in a mess because too many silly people want the government to take care of them. They see themselves as a victim or being incapable of taking care of themselves.

Silly people take a great deal of pride in being stupid; believing everything that government tells them, while ignoring the fact they cannot name three problems that government has solved over the last three-quarters of a century, while creating the mess we’re in . . .

Please, stop being one of the silly people voting for silly people.

 

* 20-years later, the Texas Legislature created the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (in 2001);  while supposedly eliminating the Natural Resources Department. In 2019, the Athens, Texas Daily Review newspaper, followed the TCEQ’s charge and investigation into Sanderson Farms as being in violation of nuisance statutes due to odors, noise, emissions, and runoff. In October 2020, the paper reported that a court ordered Sanderson Farms to pay plaintiffs $6 million in damages from nuisances related to its sixteen poultry barns. This despite the 1981 Right To Farm Act, which was sold to “protect from lawsuits in regard to such nuisances.” (In reality, the 1981 Act, like HJR 126, encourages government’s growth, which adds additional burdens to farming and ranching.)

 

                        return to   

Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

In the world-famous Red River Valley, Paris Texas is an economic sinkhole – and that’s being kind. Thousands of historically-obsolete houses and other buildings – unpainted clapboard, weathered, streaked with age; termite-havens with patchy, wild grasses and a variety of weed-greenery outlining vehicles parked in front yards, and not in clearly defined parking areas, in block after block of narrow, grubby chuck-holed strips of streets – are plain clues to its status as a failed community.

In its core, Paris looks older than its age, rickety and ugly, with a few amenities of polish and glitter.

Another fact is that those in Paris who try and speak the truth are condemned as “mean people”.

Its dangerous to dissent on what the leadership claims – or decides to do or not do. There is a dark heart that can be detected beneath the denials and the claims of progress.

Consider our friends at the visitors and convention council or whatever it or they may call it, who say, publicly, and with a straight face, “Welcome to Paris, a city graced by dozens of beautiful old homes and unique public architecture, creating a charming backdrop for a thriving economy and a contemporary lifestyle.”

Considering the handicaps they work under (some of their own making), they do a very good job of filling visitor spaces for events they sponsor, if not for Paris. They likely see their job as selling Paris, regardless of what they’re saying:

  • Do they actually believe that a few dozens of “beautiful old homes” negate the thousands of ugly old homes?
  • What town is bragging about not having any “unique public architecture”?
  • Three decades of in-city declining population is a “thriving economy”?
  • a “contemporary lifestyle” in a small city that will not consider pursuing a modern public WiFi or MiFi system to benefit all citizens, but will give some real estate developer millions in cash and incentives to build instant slums?

The Paris Texas Chamber is merely using the visitor’s group to point out that, as a community, we can only fool ourselves for so long before being forced to face reality.

Industry will not save us; neither will more subsidized retailers, apartments or residential subdivisions, or outside consultants long on promises but short on results.

A few amenities of polish and glitter only draws attention to the unpainted and falling down.

Community leadership created an economic sinkhole that eats whatever make-up we slap on it. Only by accepting reality can Paris change the future.

We’re burying diamonds in expensive, but cancerous, trash.

Return to the Paris Texas Chamber of Commerce

 

At its core, identity is ideology . . . 

Too often, local governments – those we elect – end up listening to and carrying out the recommendations of staff bureaucrats, which raises some interesting observations:

For decades we’ve been “educated” to believe that local elections are not partisan, so no party affiliations are disclosed, as party labels might sway voters.

So the potential for local government officials to sway elections in their party’s favor seems obvious.

Special interest groups that put government interests ahead of taxpayers have long held sway over local elections. They want them to be officially declared nonpartisan – because party labels will sway voters.

Any faux outrage over partisanship entering local elections is hilariously hypocritical.

Some of the indignation comes from those who routinely accuse others of being partisan because of their policy beliefs. But they insist that their positions are not partisan.

Partisanship may most often be associated with party identity but, at its very core, it’s ideology

We all have an ideology – a collection of beliefs and ideas – but some people criticize someone with whom they disagree as an “ideologue ’… just as they apply a negative connotation to ‘partisan’ while extolling their own partisan ideology by claiming that they ‘just follow the science/experts.’

But cooperation between elected officials belonging to different parties is more likely to assure more transparency and better government.

The absence of party labels confuses voters; a voter who must choose from among a group of candidates whom he or she knows nothing about will have no meaningful basis in casting a ballot.

 

Today, local government is political.

Affable, cheerful, sincere, political-partisans that we elect are given the authority and responsibility to spend our dollars wisely, to make decisions that benefit each citizen equally, and to assure that our schools are teaching the values of limited government and equal economic opportunity in a society that requires personal accountability.

Unfortunately, those we elected have failed us for decades.

They’ve listen to and allowed the “good government” professionals – the city managers, school administrators and the political opportunistic – those who benefit personally and professionally – to lead the process of setting the policies and making key decisions they want . . .

The reason we elect so many of the partisans is because they’re nice people; they mean well. Some just fail to understand, however, that the first part of their job is to ride herd on those whom we pay to carry out the policies to meet goals that benefit all of the community.

Too many of these seats are conceded to those who are part of the crowd who believe government is good and there should be more of it. It’s why Texas has the second-highest local debt nationally, and the 4th highest property tax rates in the nation.

Governmental staffs and the professional educationalists want these problems ignored.

When its for “the children” and “community” or “economic” development, there is no end that these partisans see to the use of taxpayer’s money.

When most of us think of government, we think of civil government with its various laws and controls.

But in the most basic of terms, there are essentially two kinds of government – internal and external. Internal government or self-government is the most important and always shapes the nature of external government.

Self-government comes from the heart and the conscience, one’s character, motives, affections, and convictions of life. Self-government affects everything in a person’s life – the way one relates to his fellowman – his speech – his aspirations – his conduct – his hopes – his future.

 

Every sphere of civil local government is a reflection of this internal sphere.

Shouldn’t we ask ourselves why government keeps expanding?

In fact, the more self-government the people possess, the less external forms of government are actually needed.

No government can be good – or just – unless its citizenry and rulers have learned to govern themselves.

Paris Texas seems to fear what kind of town it needs to be . . .

 

return to the Paris Texas Chamber