Thoughtful Citizenship

• Evaluating trade-offs
• Anticipating unintended consequences
• Recognizing rights of others
• Considering more than narrow self-interest

Vigilant Citizenship

• Monitoring for government failure
• Guarding against government overreach

Meaningful Action

• Voting as merely the starting line
• Sustained local engagement

Houston Budget and Public Safety

• Context: FY2026 Budget
• Policy: 1.5 billion dollar settlement with firefighters union
• Terms: 36 percent pay increase over five years
• Consequence: 174 million dollar structural deficit
• Trade-off: Depleting general fund versus cutting important city services

Discussion

Handling structural deficits without compromising vital services

    - How does the eight-year delay in settling the firefighter contract represent government failure, and how should a vigilant citizen respond to this type of financial mismanagement? How does it represent a failure of citizen vigilance?
    - When a city faces a massive structural deficit due to public safety contracts, what specific trade-offs must a thoughtful citizen consider regarding the funding of non-coercive city services?
    - If voting for a mayor is the least useful action, what specific steps can residents take to influence how the city council handles the impending general fund depletion?
    

Application and Discussion

• Thoughtful: Balancing taxpayer burden with public servant compensation
• Vigilant: Eight year contract delay as government failure
• Action: Budget workshops and financial report analysis

Revenue Caps and Justice Costs

• Policy: Senate Bill 2 property tax revenue caps (3.5 percent limit)
• Mandate: County funding for jail, courts, and District Attorney
• Consequence: 180 million dollar projected county deficit
• Conflict: State tax relief colliding with local justice mandates

Discussion

Navigating overlapping jurisdictional mandates

    - How does the clash between state tax caps and county justice mandates demonstrate the unintended consequences of well-intentioned tax relief?
    - In what ways must a vigilant citizen monitor both state overreach and county-level government failure in this scenario?
    - What forms of meaningful action can a citizen take to address a structural problem that is caused by the state legislature but impacts the local county budget?

Application and Discussion

• Thoughtful: Unintended consequences of state tax relief
• Vigilant: State overreach restricting local control
• Vigilant: Potential county failure regarding unsafe understaffed jails
• Action: Testifying at state committees and local commissioner courts

US Bill of Rights

• 3rd Amendment

    - No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4th Amendment

    - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
    

5th Amendment

    - No person shall be be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    

Texas Bill of Rights

• Article I, Sec 25

    - QUARTERING SOLDIERS IN HOUSES. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in the house of any citizen without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law. (Feb. 15, 1876.)

Article I, Sec 9

    - The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place... (Feb. 15, 1876)
    

Article I, Sec 19

    - DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC. BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land. (Feb. 15, 1876.)
    

Eminent Domain

Suzette Kelo’s little pink house

Source: The VOlokh Conspiracy

Texas Bill of Rights (2)

• Section 17

    - TAKING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. (a) No person ’s property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking,
    damage, or destruction is for: (1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:(A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or (B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or (2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.
    - (b) In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
    - (c) On or after January 1, 2010, the legislature may enact a general, local, or special law granting the power of eminent domain to an entity only on a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.
    - (d) When a person ’s property is taken under Subsection (a) of this section, except for the use of the State, compensation as described by Subsection (a) shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.
    - (Feb. 15, 1876. Amended Nov. 3, 2009.)

Flood Control and Property Rights

• Policy: Coercive mitigation tools (mandatory buyouts and detention basins)
• Conflict: Individual property rights versus collective public safety
• Evasion: 6,500 affluent homes appealing FEMA floodplain maps
• Mechanism: Utilizing fill dirt to escape regulatory zones

Discussion

Balancing private property rights with regional infrastructure

    - How does the practice of wealthy homeowners using fill dirt to escape flood maps illustrate the danger of prioritizing narrow self-interest over the rights of others?
    - Why is it a form of government failure when a regulatory appeals process is effectively only accessible to those with significant financial resources?
    - Is the failure here that wealthier people were able to protect their property or that less wealthy people could not? What role could government play in the latter? 
    - Beyond voting for county officials, what specific meaningful actions can a neighborhood take to ensure their flood risks are not worsened by adjacent commercial or residential development?

Application and Discussion

• Thoughtful: Preserving homes (financial and personal value) versus increasing neighbor flood risk
• Vigilant: Regulatory loopholes favoring wealthy residents as government failure; lack of action to protect the less wealthy
• Action: Tracking watershed development permits
• Discussion: Balancing private property rights with regional infrastructure

Conclusion: The Work of a Citizen

• Considering complexity like policy costs, trade-offs, the effects on others, the appropriateness of coercive force for a problem
• Maintaining continuous oversight of public funds and government services
• Holding officials accountable beyond election day

Authorship and License

• Author: Tom Hanna

• Website: tomhanna.me

• License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.