Posted by tx on October 2, 2009 under Home Page, Uncategorized | 
From Texas Insider, an online newsletter
By Representative Rob Orr
Texas House of Representatives, District 58
On Nov. 3, Texans will have the opportunity to vote on 11 amendments to the state’s Constitution. To assist the voters of District 58 in becoming more knowledgeable about the various issues I have prepared the following review of each amendment. I hope it will help as you prepare for the upcoming election.
Giving Military Bases Some Breathing Room
The military is a central part of Texas’s culture and economy, and the state is fortunate to have several of the nation’s largest and best military bases. But, a military base has needs and performs functions that are often not easily compatible with its neighbors. A good example is airplane noise. Clearly a military airbase will have a lot of planes taking off and landing at all times of the day and night and at different speeds, approaches, etc., because that is a part of the training our pilots need to become and remain proficient. However, homes and businesses near that airbase can view those military exercises as a huge disruption to the enjoyment and use of their property. As a consequence we have a dilemma; how to balance the needs of the military base with the needs of the surrounding community.
Amendment 1 is designed to give local communities more tools to better accommodate their needs and those of the military bases that serve that Military Combatcommunity and the nation. The amendment will allow local governments to use financing methods such as bonds and tax increment financing zones to purchase land to serve as a buffer near a military base. Such a buffer would prohibit non-compatible uses and activities from butting right up to the boundary of a base.
This amendment does not require any government to do anything but merely gives local entities the authority to use various methods to purchase land around bases. An interesting outcome of creating such buffer areas is that the need to use eminent domain to condemn land for the base could be reduced since local governments could purchase land voluntarily before the problem of encroachment on military activities becomes so severe that more drastic steps must be taken. Because our district has no military base in it, this amendment is not that relevant to us, but it is to those communities that do have bases.
Making Property Tax Appraisals Better
Whenever the annual property tax appraisals are mailed out, I tell my staff to expect an increase in calls and emails. It always seems like the appraisal districts have a generous view of what your property is worth. The appraisal is only half the story with property taxes; the tax rate itself is the other half. In 2006, the legislature addressed the rates side of the equation by lowering the rate school districts set for their operations. This past spring, the legislature made changes to the appraisal side of the equation, and three of the changes require constitutional amendments to implement them.
Amendment 2 will allow the legislature to require that all residence homesteads be valued only as a residence for tax appraisal purposes. Currently, the standard used in valuing property is its “highest and best use,” homeowner-salewhich is what the property could be used for rather than what the property is being used for. The problem of residential value versus market value is when a home is near commercial property and could be sold and turned into commercial rather than a residential property. This measure will protect residential homesteads from large and unexpected increases in tax appraisals and will work in conjunction with the current appraisal increase cap and various homestead exemptions.
Amendment 3 will allow the state comptroller to create uniform standards and procedures that appraisal districts must use when valuing property. Currently, each appraisal district essentially decides for itself what approaches to use in determining appraised values. This has created a situation where the same type of property is valued by different methods based on its location.
Sometimes that might work out better for a landowner, but sometimes it just as likely works out for the worse. This hap-hazard approach also creates imbalances in the school finance system since the state is required to provide equitable funding, and inconsistent appraisal methods make that more difficult.
Finally, Amendment 5 will allow adjoining appraisal districts to create a joint, or consolidated, appraisal review board (though the ballot language will say “board of equalization” which is just the technical term for an appraisal review board.) Already, appraisal districts can consolidate, and this amendment will allow for a consolidated review board. It would still be at the discretion of the local districts as to whether to consolidate. Such an action could allow the districts to have lower costs overall, which could be passed down to taxpayers indirectly, and to also have more resources and expertise in the review process than might be available to a single, stand alone review board. This could result in better appraisal reviews and a less expensive, time-consuming, and more fair process for property owners.
Bringing More Texas Colleges to the Top
The United States has the best colleges and universities in the world, but Texas lags behind other states in having our share. In fact, our state is home to only three top-rated, or so-called Tier One, research universities (the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University in College Station, and Rice University in Houston). Amendment 4 will create a fund, called the National Research University Fund, which will be used to raise more universities in Texas up to the first tier status.
If approved by the voters, the program will create the national research university fund. The fund will provide a dedicated, independent, and equitable source of funding (i.e. grants and other resources) for seven emerging state kids-book-school-libraryresearch universities (UT-San Antonio, UT-Arlington, UT- Dallas, UT-El Paso, University of Houston, Texas Tech and the University of North Texas) to attain Tier One status and national prominence as major research entities.
Area universities such as the University of Texas at Arlington, the University of Texas at Dallas, and the University of North Texas will be in very good positions to compete for funds through the program.
The United States and Texas must have outstanding research and higher education centers to compete in the global economy, especially against rising economic countries such as China and India. This amendment creates a system that will incentivize more of our state colleges to improve their programs, produce better educated graduates and serve as incubators of high-level research that should create economic opportunity and growth to keep Texas at the cutting edge of the world’s sciences and technologies.
Serving Those Who Served Us
There is a story I like about a teacher who came up with a compelling way to teach her students about the role sacrifice plays in preserving America’s freedom and liberty. She had all the desks in her classroom removed and as the students stood, a bit bewildered, she had service men and women and veterans each bring in a desk and set it in front of each student. The lesson she wanted to teach: the reason those students have the opportunities they have is in large part a result of the service and sacrifice of veterans to preserve our freedoms. I believe our veterans deserve not only our respect and gratitude but also some actual support. In fact, I believe this so much; I hired a veteran to be my legislative director down in Austin! This November, there will be two measures on the ballot that will assist veterans in our state.
Amendment 6 would allow the Veterans Land Board to issue bonds to finance its operations. Since 1946, voters in Texas have approved bonds for the Veterans Land Board to allow veterans to purchase land and homes in Texas. doe-militaryThe last such bond issue was approved by voters in 2001. While the bonds do count as a legal obligation of the state, the bonds are paid off solely by the participants, i.e. veterans, in the loan program. When the vets pay their mortgages, the bonds are paid off. As the bonds are paid off, new proceeds will be able to be used to secure new bonds issued as the process becomes a self-sustaining, closed-loop operation. No state tax revenues are or have ever recently been a part of the program. The Veterans Land Board is one of the state’s most popular programs, especially since Texas is home to almost 2 million veterans. Even in the current mortgage crisis, the default rate for these loans is less than one-half of one percent. This is an example of a government program that works well. I believe it deserves our continued support.
Amendment 8 would allow the state of Texas to contribute money, property, and other resources to establish, maintain and operate veteran’s hospitals. Essentially, it would allow the state to help create and fund VA hospitals where they currently exist or in areas where people would like a VA hospital to be created. This issue has largely been driven by the Rio Grande Valley where a large number of veterans live but the closest VA hospital is in San Antonio, though the amendment is not limited in scope or impact to just the Valley. Some dispute exists as to whether the state needs a constitutional amendment to appropriate money to another governmental entity (the VA), and the bill to change state law (HB 2217) has already passed and does not need a constitutional amendment to go into effect. Nevertheless, the amendment will be on the November ballot and gives the voters of the state an opportunity to decide directly whether they believe state government should fund veteran’s hospitals.
Supporting the Texas State Guard
Most people are familiar with the National Guard but fewer people know that Texas also has the Texas State Guard. The State Guard is an all-volunteer force that may be called upon by the governor in emergencies and largely serves as a supplement to the Texas National Guard. These individuals are trained and equipped to support community relief efforts and have become more important recently due to the extensive use of National Guard personnel in gitmo2Iraq and Afghanistan. State Guard members can fill in the gaps when National Guard members are deployed or otherwise unavailable for state service.
However, there is a little wrinkle in the state constitution that has been addressed for many other types of civil service but not for members of the State Guard. The constitution prohibits people from holding two paid civil offices concurrently unless explicitly exempted from the prohibition. As an example, a person could not be state representative and a member of the State Guard at the same time. Currently, members of the Reserves, National Guard, and various other offices are already exempted from the dual office prohibition. Amendment 7 would add members of the Texas State Guard to that list.
Open Beaches
Texas has had the Open Beaches Act since 1959. That law provides that all people can access public beaches in the state and that the public beach is defined as the land between the water and the line of vegetation bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Basically, the beaches in Texas are open to everyone and no one person can control, limit access to, or build upon the beach because that would deny the public its right of access. Audj at Port A 2007Amendment 9 seeks to put into the constitution laws and practices that have been in state statutes for decades.
What constitutes a beach has long been controversial because beaches in Texas are constantly shifting and moving. Land that was at one time not beach can become beach and vice-versa. Once an area clearly ceases to be land and becomes beach, the public has a right to access it. This constant ebb and flow was dramatically illustrated after Hurricane Ike last year when huge numbers of homes were washed away or are now sitting on beaches. Legally, that land is now public beach with full access by the public. This has been a source of frustration for private land owners that can see their land grow or shrink based entirely on natural forces.
4-year Terms for ESD Board Members
Amendment 10 is the result of the peculiar way we use our state Constitution. For more than 100 years, we have placed a myriad of provisions in the Constitution covering a vast range of subjects. To make any change, no matter how slight, to any of those provisions, a constitutional amendment is required. In the case of Amendment 10, the change being made will allow the state to set the term of office for emergency services district board members at up to four years.
Eminent Domain and Public Use
Eminent domain is the fancy word for when your property is taken to be used for some public purpose like a road, pipeline, or school. Reforming the way eminent domain is used in Texas has been a central part of my legislative efforts since I was first elected. Amendment 11 is one more step in the right direction.
The amendment covers some important areas of eminent domain that have been easily exploited and abused. The bulk of the amendment ensures that eminent domain will only be used for a genuine public purpose and that economic development and transferring land to another private party would not be allowed. Also, the constitution would be changed to require that any entity seeking the right of eminent domain power must receive a two-thirds approval from each chamber of the legislature. Somewhat overlooked by many and probably the most significant change in the amendment deals with the right of government to condemn a property based on the property being blighted. The amendment would limit blight designations to a single property in question rather than allowing an entire area or neighborhood to be declared blighted.
This is a significant change to current standards and will go a long way toward ensuring that eminent domain is used only in those situations when the public use is truly valid.
Posted by tx on September 2, 2009 under Home Page, Texas candidates, Uncategorized |
Larry Kilgore has been removed from the Gold List of candidates. He is no longer affiliated with 912candidates.
Posted by tx on August 25, 2009 under Uncategorized |
Excerpted from Texas Insider, an online newsletter
By Congressman John Carter
There was an old country judge that had the highest criminal conviction rate in the state. When a reporter from the state capital came down investigate this judicial phenomenon, the judge explained that he simply instructed the jury to listen very carefully to what the prosecutor had to say, then make their decision. The reporter cried indignantly, “don’t you also tell them to listen to the defense?” The judge replied, “well, I used to, but it just confused ‘em.”
20 years as a Texas judge taught me a few things about listening to both sides of an argument. In most cases, both sides truly think they’re right. Then they start presenting arguments and evidence to try to prove their case. Naturally, neither side will present anything remotely supportive of their opponent, even if they know it’s true. So as a judge, you sit there and weigh the evidence presented by all with a grain of salt, knowing that either side is capable of stretching the limits of veracity and withholding relevant information if not in their favor.
That’s precisely the kind of case that all Americans are having to judge right now concerning the healthcare reform proposals being pushed by Democrats in Washington.
We hear it everyday in the press – the President says anybody who likes their current health insurance will get to keep it, while opponents say all private health insurance will be gone by 2013. Democrats in the House say their plans will control rising healthcare costs, while opponents say it will drive costs even higher. Opponents say the new system will eventually start denying care to elderly, and encourage euthanasia, while supporters say it won’t.
Who’s right? With our very lives at stake, along with 19% of our gross domestic product, being wrong could be deadly for us personally as well as our free market economy.
Let’s examine the evidence together. In looking at the both sides of this case, let’s leave out the emotion and political rhetoric, and try to look at just the facts on each major point.
To begin, we can only examine the bill passed by Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee in late August, HR 3200. That will not be the final bill, if there is a final bill. The current House version would first be voted on by the entire House, where changes would be made, then reconciled with whatever the Senate passes, changed again, then brought to a final vote in both Chambers. But this Committee version is all we have in writing, so that’s what we must judge.
1. Can You Keep Your Current Health Plan?
The bill contains no provision that would specifically abolish any health plan. But it would require all individuals and employers to purchase health plans approved by a new federal agency starting in 4 years, or pay a heavy tax penalty. It is not enough to require a health plan be purchased – it must be a federally approved plan to avoid paying an 8% payroll penalty by employers or a 2% income tax penalty by individuals. The bill allows the new federal agency to set any requirements they like on what constitutes an “approved” plan. Whether a current individual plan could survive and be approved by this new bureaucracy is suspect, as is whether an employer will continue to offer any current plan under these circumstances.
Verdict: PROBABLY Not
2. Will This Help Control Health Care Costs?
This issue is one of the most clear. After extensive research, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is currently overseen by the Democrat majority, officially reported to Congress that not only would it not hold down health costs, it would push them even higher than doing nothing. The number one problem with American health care is high cost, and this bill would make it worse.
Verdict: No
3. Does The Bill Encourage Denial of Care and Euthanasia for the Elderly?
There is no language specifically calling for denial of care or euthanasia. But language was added requiring Medicare to pay for “end of life counseling” that will include educating senior citizens on the option of pre-authorizing the cessation of life-sustaining care, and in states which allow physician-assisted suicide, education on that option as well. President Obama has made repeated references to avoiding costly treatments for elderly patients, and other nations that have adopted this same style health system do in fact limit medical treatments and encourage euthanasia for elderly patients. These facts, coupled with the creation of a new federal agency that will unilaterally determine what benefits are included in “approved” health plans AFTER the bill passes, is heavy evidence that the bill may encourage denial of care and euthanasia. But in this issue there is even more – a proverbial “smoking gun.” The very advocacy groups like the now-defunct Hemlock Society that have historically lobbied for legalized suicide were instrumental in adding the “end-of-life” counseling section to the legislation.
Verdict: Yes
4. Does the Bill Use Federal Funds to Pay for Abortions?
There is nothing specific in the bill to fund abortions. However, the yet unspecified new rules for all “approved” health plans – rules that will be written by Obama Administration appointees AFTER the bill passes – could include abortion coverage. Over concerns on this issue, an amendment prohibiting abortion funding was submitted in the House, and subsequently voted down by Democrat members of the Committee. This provides substantial evidence that the new federal health plan rules could require abortion coverage by all health plans in the country, while the final decision remains unknown.
Verdict: Likely
5. Is This the Beginning of Single-Payer Healthcare?
Like most issues concerning this bill, there is no specific provision that would mandate single-payer socialized medicine and the shutdown of private sector healthcare. But as early as 2003 then-Senator Barack Obama was advocating single-payer healthcare publicly, and has recently stated along with key House Democrats that this bill would lead eventually to single-payer healthcare, over a period of 10-20 years. All of these comments are on tape and available to the public.
Verdict: Likely Over Time
6. Will the Bill Increase the Federal Deficit and Federal Taxes?
No argument here from either side. The bill will cost $1.28 trillion in the first 10 years according to CBO, and raise taxes $818 billion on those who cannot afford to buy insurance, not counting surcharges on small business income.
Verdict: Yes
7. Will the Bill Cost American Jobs?
No argument here either. The Obama Administration’s own White House Council of Economic Advisors has estimated 4.7 million Americans will lose their jobs if the bill passes, as employers who cannot afford health insurance or the 8% payroll tax penalty will have to fire their employees, move overseas, or go out of business.
Verdict: Yes
There are many more issues to this bill than seven, but in my opinion the answers to just these are enough to reach a final judgment on HR 3200: NO.
HR 3200 is fatally flawed, does not provide the health reforms we truly do need in this country, and should be buried. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have examined since being elected to the House. It would destroy the finest quality health care system in the world, undermine the free market, throw Americans out of work, and violate the moral principles of the majority of this country in the process.
Examining all the evidence is not just important in determining action on legislation, but in writing that legislation to begin with. Like the story of the old judge who only listened to one side of a case, this bill was written without any consideration of opinions from anyone other than the liberal Democrat faithful, with a resulting faulty outcome.
We can do better. We don’t need the federal government to take over the healthcare industry, we just need some commonsense bipartisan reforms.
First, we are already in bipartisan agreement to make affordable health insurance available to folks with pre-existing health conditions who are presently barred from buying a health plan.
We can let small businesses and organizations join together to purchase group insurance at the same affordable rates as big business, allowing more small employers to offer coverage.
We can remove restrictions on buying health insurance across state lines, letting families in prohibitively high-cost states purchase affordable plans in other states.
To pass these reforms will require a simple concession from the Democrat majority. That is to agree to work with Republicans in a bipartisan effort, and listen to both sides of the case before reaching a verdict.
Posted by tx on August 18, 2009 under Uncategorized |
Begins: Wednesday, August 19 2009 at 5:00 PM
Ends: Wednesday, August 19 2009 at 8:30 PM
Location: Ranchview High School
Address: 8401 Valley Ranch Pkwy, Irving, Texas 75063
PLEASE NOTE: The venue for this event has changed, and we’ve received word that MoveOn.org
is specifically targeting this event.
Knowing that we have the majority on our side, MoveOn.org and their allies in ACORN and OFA have adopted a NEW TACTIC : show up extra-early and invite the news cameras to show up early. They hope to generate news footage of lots of Administration supporters and only a few (if any) Administration opponents speaking out against the health care ‘reform’ bill.
They rolled this tactic out on Monday with some success. If we don’t step it up, they may have even more success this time.
I say we step it up.
The MoveOn.org folks are likely to be there in significant numbers by 5:00 pm, likely with friendly news cameras standing by to document the ‘growing public support’ for the Administration’s health care plan. If you want to counter MoveOn.org while the news cameras are rolling, you should be there by 5:00 pm yourself.
Here are the details for the Town Hall event:
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Ranchview High School
8401 Valley Ranch Pkwy
Irving, Texas 75063
Let’s go get ‘em!
- K
Posted by tx on August 5, 2009 under Uncategorized |
From the Heritage Foundation to those of us who will be attending local town hall meetings with our Congressional representative.
This country deserves a respectful, honest debate about health care. And the hundreds of townhall’s Members of Congress will be hosting across the country this August are just the place for that conversation to happen. Here are just five questions Americans should be pressing their elected leaders on over the coming month:
Can you promise me that I will not lose my current plan and doctor?President Obama says it is “not legitimate” to claim the “public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.” But Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman have all admitted that the public option will inevitably lead to government-run health care. The independent and non-partisan Lewin Group estimates that about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance if Obamacare became law.
Can you promise that you and your family will enroll in the public plan? Members of Congress and their families currently receive health care through the popular, and completely public-option-free, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) which allows members of Congress to choose between 283 private health insurance plans. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment that would require all members of Congress and their staffs to enroll in the newly-created public health insurance plan. His amendment passed by just one vote in the Senate Health Committee. In the House, Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) offered a similar amendment and all 21 Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee voted it down. If the public plan is so great, then Members of Congress should by willing to forfeit their private coverage and join the millions of Americans who would be moved into the public plan.
Can you promise that Obamacare will not lead to higher deficits in the long-term? President Obama said that he would not support health care legislation that would add to the national deficit. But Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf has stated that the House health care legislation would “generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” To help Obama keep his promise, Rep. Patrick Tiberi (R-OH) offered an amendment that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit an annual report to the President and Congress, comparing the expected revenue and spending under the bill’s provisions for the upcoming 10-year period. In the event that projected spending under the bill outpaced revenue, the Secretary would have to reduce spending so that it would not exceed revenue. Democrats defeated Tiberi’s amendment.
Can you promise that government bureaucrats will not ration health care for patients on the public plan? President Obama promised on July 22 that health care reform would keep the government out of health care decisions, but both the House and Senate bills call for an increased role of comparative effectiveness research (CER). More information on health care effectiveness is good as long as doctor’s and patients are the ones empowered to use that information. Conservatives in both the House and Senate offered amendments prohibiting the use of CER by government to mandate, deny, or ration care. These anti-rationing amendments were defeated in both the House and Senate.
Can you promise me that my tax dollars will not fund abortions? The House bill, as currently drafted, allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to outline the minimum benefits that must be included in any health plan. There is no specific provision in the bill that would require insurance coverage of abortion. However, since the decisions over benefits are left to the Secretary of HHS, with recommendations from a newly created Health Care Benefits Advisory Committee, there is nothing to prevent the current or future Secretary from including abortion coverage in Americans’ health insurance. Conservatives in both the House and Senate offered amendments that would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. The tax payer funded abortion bans were defeated in both the House and Senate.
Posted by tx on July 25, 2009 under Uncategorized |
Thank you North Texas Tea Party! Americans are letting their voices be heard across this nation.
Notice the difference in the hand held signs — those for socialized medicine had professionally printed signs – who paid for those? Our grassroots protesters held hand made signs. Were the “for” protesters being paid, perhaps by Acorn?
“With about 36 hours to organize and no paid staff (unlike the other side), we dominated in front of Sen. Cornyn’s office today (July 23rd); about 200 conservatives opposing maybe 20 MoveOn people; it was fantastic! Everyone was polite; we always are. As for the other side, if you were outnumbered 10 to 1 by believers in the 2nd Amendment, wouldn’t you be? 
. Channel 5 was there, along with other press; they’ll try to slant things more evenly, but it will be hard to do.
Many thanks for the great work of Que Colman and Jim Bright to make this happen, plus Ken Emmanual for the callout of the troops from the Dallas Tea Party. Others too numerous to mention to thank for their efforts, so THANK YOU ALL for giving us this public victory over government HealthUNCare.”
Posted by tx on July 24, 2009 under New American Revolution, US Constitution, Uncategorized |
From Having an Austin Tea Party -
This message came to us via friends in the non-partisan group Americans for Prosperity. We believe the information will be of use to Travis County Republicans and friends.
This Saturday in Austin, proponents of a government-run health care system are planning a huge publicity stunt to raise support for the $1 trillion health care plan in Congress.
This misguided rally is being headed up by Texans for Obama, and in attendance will be none other than Congressman Lloyd Doggett. Last week, more than 150 Central Texans protested the proposed health care plan outside of Rep. Doggett’s office – apparently, he missed the message.
We need to counter this with a HUGE showing! Doggett needs to know that a vote for government-run healthcare is a vote AGAINST our ability to direct our own healthcare.
We don’t want bureaucrats between us and our doctor!
Plans are to meet at the AFL-CIO Hall on 11th Street & Lavaca and at 1 p.m. The government-run health care supporters will march to a nearby park (about a block away) to form a “Human Texas Shape” to represent 5.5 million uninsured Texans. We need to outnumber them!
Time: 1 to 3 p.m.
Date: Saturday, July 25
Place: AFL-CIO Hall, 1106 Lavaca St # 200, Austin, TX 78701
Posted by tx on under Texas patriots, US Constitution, Uncategorized |
Join us for a “Stand Up For Texas” Tea Party
on the south steps of the Texas Capitol in Austin!
On September 5th, patriots and lovers of freedom will gather at the Capitol building in Austin to encourage our elected officials to Stand Up For Texas! We’ll address the federal government’s power grabs regarding Cap and Trade, Health Care, stimulus packages and bailouts, and ask our elected officials to sign a pledge to Stand Up for Texas with their votes, whether in the local councils, state legislatures or the US Congress.
All Texans who are concerned about runaway government spending and the trashing of our Constitution can join us to make a loud noise that will be heard in Washington! All elected officials at every level should be invited to hear our concerns and sign the pledge, so make sure to extend an invitation to YOUR elected officials!
Date: Saturday, September 5th, 2009 (Labor Day Weekend)
Time: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Place: South steps of the Texas State Capitol
1100 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
If you are joining the March on Washington D.C. on September 12th,
be sure to join us in Austin to connect with others who will be going as well!
We’ll send you off in style!
Transportation – Groups are organizing charter buses from different areas of Houston (and, if demand exists, other parts of the state) to make the trip together. Jennifer Heiden (Katy Tea website www.katytea.com and email address tea.katy@yahoo.com) is offering to assist you in ordering and organizing charter buses for the Houston area (with other information to come if there is statewide demand), with the goal of synchronizing a caravan which will arrive at the Capitol at the same time. We are planning to have all buses meet at a central staging point and then travel together up Congress Avenue to the Capitol! There will be more details to come.
If instead you prefer to handle your own bus charters, here are a couple of links that might be helpful:
Parking: http://www.tspb.state.tx.us/SPB/Plan/Map.htm
Hotels
A. intercontinental Stephen F Austin Hotel
- www.austin.intercontinental.com - (512) 457-8800 – 406 reviews
B. The Driskill Hotel
- www.driskillhotel.com - (800) 252-9367 – 271 reviews
C. Omni Hotels: Austin Southpark
- www.omnihotels.com - (512) 448-2222 – 358 reviews
D. Omni Hotels: Downtown Austin
- www.omnihotels.com - (512) 476-3700 – 803 reviews
E. Hotel San Jose
- www.sanjosehotel.com - (512) 852-2350 – 115 reviews
F. Radisson Hotel & Suites Austin
- www.radisson.com - (512) 478-9611 – 202 reviews
G. Four Seasons Austin: A Luxury Hotel in TX –
www.fourseasons.com - (512) 478-4500 – 146 reviews
H. Sheraton Austin Hotel
- specialoffers.starwoodhotels.com - (866) 716-8134 – 260 reviews
I. Embassy Suites Hotel Austin-Downtown/Town Lake
- www.embassysuites.com - (512) 469-9000 – 65 reviews
J. Mansion at Judges Hill Austin Texas Hotel – Hotels in Austin TX
- www.mansionatjudgeshill.com - (512) 495-1800 – 112 reviews
Hotels in surrounding areas
A. Renaissance Austin Hotel
– marriott.com - (512) 343-2626 – 150 reviews
B. Super 8 Austin/ Airport Area
- www.super8.com - (512) 334-4130 – 82 reviews
C. Hyatt Regency Austin
- austin.hyatt.com - (512) 477-1234 – 680 reviews
D. Radisson Austin North
- www.radisson.com - (512) 451-5757 – 255 reviews
E. Sheraton Austin Hotel
- specialoffers.starwoodhotels.com - (866) 716-8134 – 260 reviews
F. Embassy Suites Hotel Austin-Downtown/Town Lake
- www.embassysuites.com - (512) 469-9000 – 65 reviews
G. Omni Hotels: Austin Southpark
- www.omnihotels.com - (512) 448-2222 – 358 reviews
H. Staybridge Suites Austin Arboretum Extended Stay Hotel
- www.staybridge.com - (888) 299-2208 – 77 reviews
I. Econo Lodge Austin
- www.econolodge.com - (512) 835-7070 – 26 reviews
J. Doubletree Guest Suites Austin
- www.doubletree.com - (512) 478-7000 – 239 revie
