Is it really that serious?

In an article in the Corpus Christi Caller Times, dated October 16^th, 2015, titled “Keep Austin Where our State Officials reside” the issue of Proposition 3, which is due to be on the November 3^rd ballot, is discussed.  From the sounds of it, it seems as though the editor can’t make up their minds on being for it or against it as they give arguments from both sides of the fence.  For those that don’t know what Prop 3 is, it is in a nutshell to “do away with the requirement that holders of statewide offices reside in the state capital.”  Not too bad when you think of it in terms of “most other states don’t have the state-capital residency requirement” any longer.  However, as the writer of this editorial points out, since when did our great state of Texas care about what other states are and are not doing?  LOL 

So, in speaking for the elimination of the requirement, I would say that a great point was made when it was brought up that technology is definitely an enabler for officeholders to perform the majority of their jobs away from Austin, should they live elsewhere within the state.  Also, I would say that I find it redundant to force officeholders to reside in Austin, when perhaps they aren’t trying to escape “the tyranny of living in Austin" but in fact maybe have family elsewhere or other opportunities for the other members of their family in a different part of Texas, or maybe they just consider a different city their home.  On a more sentimental and deeper note for the positive side of this Proposition, I am a firm believer that if one is happiest, they are able to perform their job with a much better attitude, outlook, and sense of clarity and more to their full potential.  Being forced to live somewhere that one may not be necessarily happy living, can wreak havoc on anyone’s personal lives, thus causing unnecessary distractions, taking their minds away from their job at hand.  

Arguments and or solutions to one of the points from the writer of this:  They mentioned the taxpayer-reimbursed travel expenses are likely to go up if the officeholder doesn’t reside in Austin, and that if he or she doesn’t want to reside in Austin due to the cost of living, then, “what are the chances that the officeholder would pay those expenses out of his or her pocket?”  My response… Have the officeholder pay for those costs if they should choose to move away from Austin.  Now, as for as an officeholder not being able to afford living in Austin?  HAHAHA!  If my husband and myself can support our 3 children on $35,000 or less a year for the past 6 years here, I am positively sure that they can comfortably “make it” here in Austin on their far more significant wages.

One point that I believe this writer was trying to use as a reason against Prop 3, I actually can turn around to a positive FOR Prop 3.  They bring up the point that “Austin is in what's called Central Texas because it's central. “Well, there you go!  If it is in the CENTER of Texas, then what is the problem?  It will take at most 9-10 hours to get to Austin from anywhere else in Texas (and that is given that these officeholders move to somewhere on the outer most part of the Texas border).

Either way, I don’t see the problem in Prop 3 going through.  Regardless the fact that I started off unsure of how I felt, I suppose that I convinced myself more towards Proposition 3 than against it.  Let me know what you think on this matter.