Klineberg: A mature Houston is a Houston that embraces planning
Today's Outlook section runs an op-ed by Rice University's Stephen Klineberg about how his annual Houston Area Survey shows that experts and residents agree that the health of Houston's future depends on higher taxes and urban planning:
The emerging consensus is echoed by the goals articulated in the Greater Houston Partnership's "2005-2015 Strategic Plan," in speeches by Mayor Bill White, and in virtually all the communitywide envisioning efforts undertaken in recent years. Just about everyone now recognizes that if Houston's prosperity is to be sustained in the 21st century economy, we will need to make far more substantial public and private investments both in the region's aesthetic and environmental qualities, and in education and other forms of "human capital."
Part of what makes this consensus so impressive is how different it is from Houston's traditional conception of the "good business climate." The city was built almost entirely by developer decisions, by a business community seeking above all else to maximize its short-term, firm-level profits. As Robert Fisher, then a professor of social work at the University of Houston observed in 1990, "the ideological thrust in Houston in the 20th century has been anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-planning, anti-taxes, anti-anything that seemed to represent, in fact or fantasy, an expansion of the public sector or a limitation on the economic prerogatives and activities of the city's business community." Houston has benefited tremendously from the vision and generosity of the civic and business leaders who built this city, but today's challenges call for a decisive maturation of such a narrowly conceived "pro-business" agenda.
Did you catch that? Klineberg says the "pro-business" agenda, which has made Houston as successful and wonderful as it is today, is immature. The mature agenda is the urban planner's vision, which, according to Klineberg, is what Houston needs now, along with substantial public investments -- taxes! And to back up his assertion, he cites the results of his 2007 Houston Area Survey:
• By 59 percent to 36 percent, area residents said they were in favor of "raising taxes to make major improvements in the Houston area's quality of life, such as pollution control and park improvements."
• Fifty-four percent said that the best way to spend the region's transportation dollars would be "to improve rail and buses." Only 37 percent called for more spending "to expand existing highways."
• When asked about the impact of an additional million residents on the area's living conditions, fully 50 percent said that such growth would make things worse. Just 20 percent thought conditions would improve.
• The concerns about unfettered growth translate into strong support for some form of planning: 70 percent agreed that, "We need better land-use planning to guide development in the Houston area." Only 22 percent believed instead that, "People or businesses should be free to build wherever they want."
• Finally, among all area residents in this famously "unplanned city," 83 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor of "creating a general plan to guide Houston's future growth." Just 11 percent were opposed.
Just like the previous post, something's missing from this piece -- a link to the actual survey! As we know from experience, anyone can make a poll say what they want it to say, just by framing the questions a certain way. So how did Klineberg pose the questions?
Well, we can visit the Houston Area Survey website and see previous years' questions (2007's don't seem to be included in all categories) to get an idea of how the questions were framed. Take for example, taxes. Klineberg says 59 percent support increasing taxes in order to fund quality of life improvements. This looks to be one of the categories where 2007's questions aren't listed (if I overlooked where the question is, please let me know), but on this page we can see what tax-type questions were asked in previous years, along with the results. Last year, this question was asked:
In today's economy, local government may be faced with the choice of either increasing taxes or reducing services. Would you personally be willing to pay higher taxes in order to maintain the current level of public services, or would you prefer to reduce the level of services in order to avoid a tax increase? If that were the only choice, which would you prefer: raise taxes or reduce services?
That's fairly loaded. The results (of 765 asked) were 53 percent in favor of raising taxes, and 36 percent in favor of reducing services.
Not included was the suggestion that the city could reprioritize some of the fluff that is in every budget -- you know, kind of like we all have to do with our personal finances. Most of us can't walk up to our boss and demand a raise just because the finances are a little tight.
As an aside, I love this question asked in previous years:
Agree/Disagree: Houston city government has plenty of tax money to pay for all the needed services.
The last time this question was asked was in 1997. The results? Sixty-three percent agreed that the city had plenty of tax money to pay for all needed services. It hasn't been asked since!
The point here is it would have been helpful if Klineberg and the Chronicle had included a link to this year's questions and methodology, instead of just expecting (hoping for?) readers to accept Klineberg's interpretation of the results. Isn't that one of the great benefits of having these things on the web?
BLOGVERSATION: Lose an Eye, It's a Sport.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 08/12/07 03:16 PM | Houston Miscellany | Print | Comments (8)
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.