07 April 2005
Shut down the Sports Authority and save $40 million
The Chronicle's editorial board would like to see the Houston Sports Authority stay in business:
Shuttering the agency sounds simple but overlooks the complexities of servicing more than a billion dollars in stadium bonds and seeing that the public's property is well-maintained. There are also sports projects that could use the expertise of Sports Authority staff, including efforts to build community centers where young people can swim and play sports.
The Sports Authority should stay intact to build community centers? The editorial also says the the Authority has a "continuing role to play in attracting premiere events such as the Super Bowl and new teams, including soccer and ice hockey." Well, I don't see that in its mission statement; and anyway, we already have the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau. Put Jordy Tollett to work handling sports promotion, in addition to his other promotion duties.
Tom Kirkendall addressed the Sports Authority issue the other day:
After spending a total of $1.036 billion to build all three stadiums, the Authority voted to sell another $37 million in bonds last summer to induce the investment rating agencies not to downgrade the bonds from investment grade to junk. The additional bond revenue was needed to make up for lagging hotel and car rental tax revenues that are dedicated to pay the bond debt.
The sports authority has about a $3 million operating budget, about half of which is dedicated to contractual obligations and professional fees that either the city or county would have to pay even if the authority were dissolved. However, the bonds are amortized over 30 years, so saving $1.5 million a year over that period is not chump change.
I'd trust Kirkendall's opinion ANY day over the opinion of the Chronicle's editorial board.
Here's what Paul Bettencourt said this afternoon on KSEV-700: the money that could be saved by dissolving the Sports Authority -- over the course of 30 years -- would cover the revenue shortage that forced the Sports Authority to sell more bonds last year. That should be reason enough to end the Authority. He also pointed out that we have a problem getting rid of government entities that have fulfilled their missions.
The Sports Authority's mission has been fulfilled; the three venues are completed. It's time to dissolve it.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 04/07/05 04:59 PM |
Fire the mean city employees and save $85,000
Mayor White wants Continental Airlines to teach City of Houston employees some customer service skills:
Before you build in Houston, you need a building permit. But getting your plans approved can get frustrating.
Rick Tolliver tried to call the mayor, after waiting in line for hours.
"And I hate working in the city of Houston because of this," he says. "You know, I was pulling permits for a job in Meyerland. Took me 39 days to go through the crap to get my permits."
But people waiting in line aren't the only people getting angry.
"My goodness, if people didn't build stuff within the city of Houston, where would our economy go?" asked Mayor Bill White. "And yet, there's this casual and often bureaucratic attitude with the way people are treated. So we want to change that."
Now the mayor wants to teach the people who hand out building permits and inspect buildings a lesson in customer service. And so, he wants to give a contract to one of the biggest businesses in Houston.
Continental Airlines would receive an $85,000 contract from Mayor Bill White's administration to teach some city bureaucrats about customer service.
But the idea is raising questions around City Hall.
"I question the need, again, of spending that much money to teach people to be nice," says city council member Toni Lawrence. "If people don't know how to be nice, maybe they shouldn't be working for the City of Houston."
I'm at a loss. The city has found a spare $85,000 lying around and is going to teach its employees how to be nice. I think Councilwoman Lawrence is onto something when she questions why not-nice people are working for the city. Firing the mean people would save $85,000.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 04/07/05 03:44 PM |
06 April 2005
When will he get around to new police officers?
HPD Chief Hurtt wants new police badges:
More than a half a million dollars could be spent by the Houston Police Department to get new badges.t's a symbol of authority, and every Houston police officer has earned the right to wear one. While the shiny silver badges are marked with an identification number, the gold ones worn by higher-ranking officers are not.
"So there's no means of identification. When a citizen asks, 'Officer, I need your badge number.' And the supervisor says, 'Well, I don't have a badge number.' Apparently that's caused some problems for some folks," explained Hans Marticuic of the Houston Police Officer's Union.
The chief is said to be looking at replacing all badges with shield identification numbers, similar to what law enforcement in other large cities have. Marticuic says the money would be better spent elsewhere.
"You know, we would have about a $700,000 bill to go along with this," he said. "We're in a little bit of a budget crunch. I think there's other issues and other things to be spending money on at this point."
Chief Hurtt didn't want to talk on camera, but says he'll pitch the idea to the rank and file before a final decision is made.
Let's take a teensy trip down memory lane:
By year's end, the Houston Police Department will have lost an estimated 740 officers — as many as the city of Orlando employs — to retirement in a two-year period.
For comparison purposes, in 2003 the department lost 138 officers through retirement, resignation, termination or death.
And there may not be enough money available in the next two fiscal years to train replacements for even half the officers the department is losing. Or to hire the 1,000-plus civilians the department is missing.
[snip]
Mayor Bill White said through an aide Friday that it is possible more money will be found for additional classes during that period.
As we have learned time and again, when MayorWhiteChiefHurtt wants something, the money will magically turn up.
Except for more police officers.
But the remaining officers WILL have new badges and Tasers. And that will be very reassuring as we all watch the never ending crime report on the 10 p.m. news.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 04/06/05 06:44 PM |
05 April 2005
Propositions 1 and 2 battle in court
The Proposition 1 vs. Proposition 2 battle is now in court and Ron Nissimov has the details:
A three-judge panel today skeptically questioned the city's claim that it does not have to enact Proposition 2, a city revenue cap initiative approved by voters in November.
"I can't imagine that the Legislature said, 'If a City Council doesn't like it, it doesn't have to become law,'" Justice Laura Carter Higley told Scott Atlas, a private lawyer representing the city in the case.
[snip]
Atlas claimed that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to order the city to enact Proposition 2 because state law does not require the city to enact the amendment.
Andy Taylor, a lawyer representing the backers of Proposition 2, said such a policy would give any city a "pocket veto" over voter-approved initiatives.
The city also contends that backers of Proposition 2 don't have standing to sue after the election, because the legal dispute no longer involves the election itself.
"Who would have standing to sue?" Chief Justice Sherry Radack asked Atlas, who replied that the Texas Attorney General would have standing.
And here's a refresher bit of background:
Mayor Bill White contends that according to state law, the city cannot enact Proposition 2 because it would contradict Proposition 1, a charter amendment backed by White that was approved by a larger number of voters in November. Under the city's charter, if voters approve two charter amendments in the same election that have conflicting policies, the city must enact only the amendment that garners the most votes.
Backers of Proposition 2 contend that the two amendments can coexist.
This will be VERY interesting to watch play out.
RELATED: The Prop. 2 tall tale that won't go away (blogHOUSTON)
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 04/05/05 03:55 PM |
04 April 2005
Friendswood ISD property tax pressure?
Last week Lone Star Times reported on an astounding memo and related documents it obtained through an open records request, that seemingly showed two Friendswood ISD officials "manipulating the appraisal process, issuing legal threats, and deploying unprecedented pressure on the Galveston County Appraisal District."
KHOU-11 also reported on this story:
In the Friendswood School District, property values have historically risen 7 to 11 percent per year.
But last year, the school district got the word that the hike would amount to about 6 percent.
When Friendswood school district officials learned their property valuations weren't rising nearly as quickly as they had in the past, they got concerned. And so, the superintendent and a number of school board members held a face-to-face meeting with Galveston County's chief appraiser.
After that meeting, the appraiser sent the superintendent a letter saying in part, "I am disappointed that we could not meet your expectation with regard to value increases, but assure you ... that we are making every effort to maintain an equitable and uniform appraisal roll."
The appraiser then reviewed home valuations in a half-dozen subdivisions and raised them an average of 6.5 percent.
When Dan Patrick (KSEV-700) first discussed this story last week, I was floored. At the very least this is highly questionable behavior on the part of the Friendswood ISD officials. LST believes that Attorney General Greg Abbott is reviewing the matter. I would certainly hope so!
How often does this go on, in our local governments? I'm almost afraid to ask, but I'm glad it's being looked into.
Unfortunately, this story hasn't received much play in local media outlets, other than LST and KHOU. I suppose it's not a very sexy story (not everyone appreciates "property tax" radio like I do), but it should raise huge red flags for homeowners, when property tax appraisals in Texas often increase ten percent every year.
According to LST, Galveston County Chief Appraiser Ken Wright will be on air with Patrick today at 4 p.m. to discuss what happened.
UPDATE: Ken Wright, to his credit, was on with Dan Patrick for most of the two hour show, and I am really amazed at how out of whack the Texas property tax appraisal system is. I don't quite grasp how appraisals are determined, but what I do understand is how punitive the process is, in that the homeowner has to go out of his or her way to fight the appraisal. The onus is on the homeowner to gather data to prove that the appraisal is unjust, the homeowner must take time off to protest it and there is very little recourse if the Appraisal Review Board says no. One caller said she was humiliated before the ARB. Really! She said two of the board members humiliated her for protesting her appraisal. This system seems to be completely backwards. Frankly, I don't understand why the onus isn't on the government to make ITS case that the appraisal increases it is sending out, are justified.
Something is very, very wrong.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 04/04/05 02:34 PM |
Two examples of local government at its "best"
Tom Kirkendall, at Houston's Clear Thinkers, is reacting to a couple of today's interesting local stories.
First, Kirkendall comments on the completed audit of Houston's Housing and Community Development Department:
[...] essentially concludes that the Authority has been run as the personal fiefdom of some of its directors for over a decade.
[snip]
Probably only the department's system for setting up directors' travel arrangements worked without a hitch.
The findings in the report are no surprise to anyone who has attempted to deal with the City of Houston Housing Department in an honest and businesslike manner. Tip to Mayor White: Clean house.
This is the same department that issued $40 million worth of loans, some for hotel redevelopment, that have not been repaid.
The second story he tackles is the call by some to end the Houston Sports Authority:
Seems as if a few local legislators are questioning whether the $3 million annual overhead for the Sports Authority is really worth it when it appears that all the Authority is doing is writing checks on bonds issued to build the stadiums.
[snip]
The sports authority has about a $3 million operating budget, about half of which is dedicated to contractual obligations and professional fees that either the city or county would have to pay even if the authority were dissolved. However, the bonds are amortized over 30 years, so saving $1.5 million a year over that period is not chump change.
Curiously, the Sports Authority is attempting to justify its existence by proposing the construction of yet another sports venue.
That would be for Major League Soccer.
The only thing I would add is the study that came out about a week ago showing that the taxes Houston adds to cars rented from Bush Intercontinental (which help pay for Houston's sports stadiums) end up leaving customers with a much higher bill, compared to a rental's base price, than any other airport in the nation:
After first revealing major discrepancies from total versus quoted rental car prices in 2003, an updated Travelocity study examining added rental car taxes (which, for the purposes of the study, include government imposed fees such as facility charges, stadium initiatives, etc.) has discovered that sticker shock on the whole has slightly worsened and that consumers can save on the amount of extra taxes they pay by renting at a local outlet rather than at the airport.
[snip]
Houston's Bush Intercontinental continues to lead not only Texas, but the nation overall in airport taxes, adding 66.1 percent to the base rate of the rental car[...]
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 04/04/05 09:35 AM |
31 March 2005
What's Jon Lindsay up to now?
Houston Architecture Info Forum has posted a bill that state Sen. Jon Lindsay (I'm suspicious already) has filed "relating to the planning, construction, and operation of toll road projects by certain counties."
Since Sen. Lindsay is doing his darndest to get the Grand Parkway segment built through Spring, I am concerned that his proposed amendments are to facilitate that construction through the Harris County Toll Road Authority.
It looks like some of the HAIF folks are trying to decipher the intent of Lindsay's bill. If any of our readers have legislative-speak deciphering abilities, I would appreciate your thoughts on what Lindsay is trying to do.
Thanks goes to the blogHOUSTON reader who alerted me to the thread at HAIF, and for also pointing out that the Trans-Texas Corridor Committee has been selected. If you scroll down to the thirteenth entry in the thread, you'll see the names of people selected to the committee.
UPDATE: In the forum, Bill F has translated the bill and it's not good.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/31/05 07:27 PM |
Councilwoman calls for SAFEclear audit
KPRC-2 is reporting that Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is requesting an audit of the SAFEclear program:
Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs asked the city controller for a thorough accounting of the controversial program.
"It's important to know not only things about the efficiencies of the program, but it's also important to know the price tag of the program," she said.
Sekula-Gibbs is concerned that taxpayers are not getting their money's worth for the program.
"What resources are going to be cut? Is it going to be from the health department? Is it going to be from the police department? Where are we going to take the money in order to pay for Safe Clear?" she said.
On Tuesday, the mayor touted the program as a success story. It began on Jan. 1.
"This is one of the most cost-effective programs," Houston Mayor Bill White said.
The mayor confirmed that the price tag has risen to nearly $900,000, mainly due to the city offering free tows to some motorists.
"I'm very comfortable with $900,000 going to this program because 2 million people or 3 million people are benefiting by less congestion and fewer accidents and lives saved," Houston City Council member Michael Berry said.
The audit of Safe Clear is expected to take six months.
We would certainly appreciate the unfiltered facts.
I've decided the mayor has a SAFEclear motto: "less congestion, fewer accidents and lives saved." Lather, rinse, repeat.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/31/05 06:55 PM |
30 March 2005
Houston's tricky water billing method
I'd call this a creative way to increase water revenues:
Let's say your March bill says you used 3,000 gallons, but unknown to you, you actually used 3,800 gallons.
The additional 800 gallons are rolled over to the next month, even though the bill doesn't explain this.
In April, let's say you used 3,600 gallons. With the rollover, it adds up to 4,400 gallons. The cost then rises to the higher rate of $27.
Then the remaining 400 gallons roll over to the next month.
I saw the original KHOU-11 story last week and was absolutely floored by this method of water billing. It sounds like some councilmembers were surprised, too:
The leaders at City Council made it clear that they were unaware of this billing practice.
"Your presentation on the television was very interesting. I am glad you brought this to our attention," said councilmember Shelly Sekula-Gibbs.
[snip]
"Mr. Miller you shouldn't be mad at the water department that has to execute. That's our fault that we put in place a system that works this way, and I will tell you, it's the first news to me. OK, it's a big city. I will be the first to admit that I did not realize that that is the way it works," said Councilmember Michael Berry.
Here's the water rate chart on the city's website. If you use KHOU's example of 3,600 gallons rolling over to 4,400, you can see what a jump in rate it is.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by something like this, but it makes me wonder what other unknown surprises like this are out there.
UPDATE: KHOU-11 now has a story about water rates going up.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/30/05 12:20 PM |
Filling city coffers
Here's a letter to the editor in today's Chronicle:
A tax to fill coffers
If the city of Houston is broke, then why not just say so and stop coming up with all these ways to collect additional revenue for the city?
Mayor Bill White ran on the campaign promise that he would not raise taxes — and he hasn't, but he has found ways to raise revenue for the city at the expense of taxpayers. Why not just tell everyone that the city is broke and raise the city sales tax? That way, everyone would pay their fair share.
MARTHA HERNANDEZ
Houston
We agree. Mayor White should come out and sell Houstonians on the need to raise revenue. Stealth taxes are unfair and often, I would argue, disproportionately affect those least able to afford them.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/30/05 08:18 AM |
29 March 2005
Houston is #1 in rental car sticker shock
The disparity between the base rate for a rental car and the final bill is higher at Bush Intercontinental than at any other airport:
Rental car customers experience more severe sticker shock at Bush Intercontinental Airport than any other airport in the country when it comes to the final bill, according to a study released Tuesday.
A study conducted by online travel agent Travelocity.com found that the difference between the base rate and the actual price paid by car renters at the Houston airport is 66.1 percent -- the highest discrepancy in the country.
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport swept in second behind Houston, Austin Bergstrom International Airport flew in at fourth, and San Antonio International Airport landed at sixth on the list of top 10 airports with the largest difference in price between daily rental car base rates and the total amount due at airport locations.
Other cities in highly taxed states like California and New York include taxes in their base rates, which study administrators say kept them off the list.
That last paragraph is interesting. So, either Houston needs to change its base rate (it actually sounds deceptive to have a big difference like that), or else it will stay atop the discrepancy list. I hope all those tax dollars are being put to good use.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/29/05 04:52 PM |
SAFEclear success?
This morning the Chronicle ran a story that said Mayor White was going to announce some SAFEclear statistics.
Matt Bramanti at Lone Star Times has some thoughts on the story that was running earlier this morning.
Now the Chronicle's story includes the details of the mayor's announcement:
Collisions on Houston freeways dropped 12 percent in the first two months of this year compared with the same period in 2003 and 2004, Mayor Bill White announced today, attributing the improvement at least partly to a mandatory towing program that took effect Jan. 1.
The mayor reported 2,177 freeway crashes in January and February of this year, down from 2,489 in the first two months of 2003 and 2,469 last year.
Um, okay. That's our SAFEclear success? I was hoping for more. Can a reduction in collisions really be attributed to SAFEclear? Apparently so.
And there's this:
"It's easier to get around Houston," said White, who previewed his announcement last week in a meeting with the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board. "Every day people come up to me and other members of council ... and say, 'I notice a difference.' "
Does that seem odd to anyone else? The statistics are what they are -- why did he need to preview them for the Chronicle's editorial board? I find that really strange.
Of course, if the Chronicle took one of our suggestions and put editorial meetings on the record, we'd know the answer to those questions. But as it stands now, it was an exclusive meeting between some very influential people in Houston.
What was it the Chronicle was touting recently? Oh yes -- Sunshine Week for open government.
Let's cut to the chase: Mayor White desperately needs to sell SAFEclear as a successful program. We know that other cities are looking at SAFEclear as a model for their own traffic problems, and the mayor may have further political aspirations. He needs to be able to point to SAFEclear as an example of his innovative and bold thinking, in order to get things done.
I hope the Chronicle won't blindly accept the mayor's announcement without asking some hard questions and doing some thorough checking. Sunshine Week should also extend to city government.
UPDATE: I've had some time to ponder this and I am completely underwhelmed with the mayor's announcement. Well, guess what? I'm not the only one. Matt Bramanti dissects it:
The Mayor’s office has unveiled statistics "proving" that the Safe Clear program has been an unbridled success. The lack of consistency and detail in these numbers is simply stunning
Follow the link to see his full take.
Also, Chris Baker is talking about the mayor's announcement and he's doing some "redneck math." He sounds underwhelmed, too.
RELATED COVERAGE: KPRC-2, KHOU-11, KTRK-13
UPDATE (03-30-2005) Don't miss commenter Bill F's analysis of the mayor's numbers.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/29/05 12:25 PM |
25 March 2005
Houston's lobbying team isn't wowing Austin
Kristen Mack has a story today about the efforts of Houston's lobbying team:
With the session half over and the bill-filing deadline long passed, White and his new in-house lobby team are struggling to get the city's priorities passed, legislators say.
"Under this new administration, so far the city has limped a little bit at the beginning of the session, in understanding how Austin works and traversing that system," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.
Rep. Gary Elkins, R-Houston, said he was optimistic early on that the city would keep the delegation informed, but that has not materialized.
"I don't know what their priorities are," Elkins said. "Their lobbying team has not informed us of what the issues are."
It's interesting to contrast this with a column Mack wrote back in January, where she reported that the city had retained the services of a 13-member lobbying team for $520,000 +:
Mayor Bill White's administration says it saved money, since lobbying teams in the past have had as many as 18 members and cost $1 million. The 2003 contract was for $840,000.
Whether it's a bargain, though, will depend upon the team's effectiveness in pushing the mayor's agenda, and that could be trying.
Time will soon tell us how that bargain worked out:
Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, said most city issues have not resonated beyond the committee level yet. "April and May will be bigger months for the city," he said.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/25/05 03:04 PM |
Old, outdated equipment to blame for 911 call center failures
The audit of Houston's troubled 911 call center has been completed and recommendations have been made. It appears the technical problems stem from old equipment:
The $53 million Houston Emergency Center, which has experienced 17 computer shutdowns since it started taking calls in September 2003, is more than 99.7 percent reliable, according to independent auditors.
MITRE Corp., hired by the city for $192,000, blamed most of the shutdowns on outdated equipment outside the HEC facility, located at 5320 N. Shepherd. Most of the problems have been fixed and are not are expected to occur again, while several are still being addressed.
[snip]
Dennis Storemski, director of the Mayor's Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security, said that Northrop Grumman, the Los Angeles-based contractor that provided the dispatching software wasn't at fault.
[snip]
The auditors made several recommendations that the city has already implemented, or plans to implement soon. They include:
•Establishing staff positions to manage some technical aspects of the dispatching system;
•Increasing maintenance and testing;
•Replacing old equipment and software;
•And developing better ways to ensure data is not lost.
On a KTRH news break yesterday, I heard a recommendation that the city should also consolidate and upgrade the emergency radio system used by Houston police and fire personnel. KHOU-11 covered the story of Houston's inadequate emergency radio system in February, and at that time Mayor White said this:
"It's not a problem that's going to be solved in one day. It will be over a period of years," said Mayor Bill White.
Maybe now Houston's emergency system infrastructure will become a priority for city officials.
RELATED: Fixing HEC (blogHOUSTON), Can the Houston Emergency Center be fixed? (blogHOUSTON), Public safety priorities (blogHOUSTON)
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/25/05 08:45 AM |
Smoking ban fever is spreading
Kemah is considering a smoking ban similar to the one Houston recently passed:
Mayor William King will present the ordinance to ban smoking in certain public places to the City Council Thursday.
The proposed ban is very similar to the ordinance recently adopted by the city of Houston.
"I personally would like to see a stronger restriction, but I think the other cities in the area follow Houston's lead on this issue. It is important that the restaurant owners do not have different rules in different jurisdictions and that no one can claim a competitive advantage from differing restrictions," King said in a news release.
That strikes me as a strange bit of reasoning.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/25/05 08:15 AM |
24 March 2005
Better late than never?
On March 21, the Chronicle's Mike Glenn reported that HPD is considering the use of reserve officers.
That same day, we commented that the move was, at best, an inadequate solution to HPD's manpower shortage.
Today, the Chronicle editorial board finally weighed in on this local issue, criticizing the potential use of reserve officers because of concerns over training. The editorial offers no suggestions for Mayor White and Council regarding their priorities (or lack thereof) for funding new HPD hiring.
One supposes incomplete and a little slow on local issues is better than never on the Chronicle editorial page. Perhaps the idealists were distracted by the death of Bobby Short.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 03/24/05 11:23 PM |
Trying to figure out what White and Hurtt are really upset about
Mayor White and Chief Hurtt are upset that a federal drug enforcement program might see some cuts in funding:
Houston Mayor Bill White and Police Chief Harold Hurtt have vowed to fight President Bush's proposal to slash 60 percent of funding for a federal drug-enforcement program that has been more successful in Houston than in many other parts of the country.
The Houston Police Department receives about $3 million a year from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, and the 16-county Houston region from Beaumont to Corpus Christi receives an additional $7 million a year.
HPD has been receiving $3 million from the HIDTA program. That's a big chunk of change!
I actually had to read the story a couple of times to grasp what is going on here, but the other side of the story (and the reporter, Ron Nissimov, did include both sides of the story) is that Houston will most likely NOT lose HIDTA funding, and there is a possibility that Houston will see an INCREASE in funding, with the proposed changes:
Federal officials have said the Houston area might receive more than $3 million in HIDTA funds because Bush wants to refocus the program on high-trafficking areas.
[snip]
Steve Katsurinis, a native Houstonian who is Walters' chief of staff, said Houston could end up getting more than $3 million even if the cuts are approved because of the proposed change in focus. He said unlike many other HIDTA programs, the Houston program has shown positive results.
That's right -- Houston could get MORE money. So what are Hurtt and White complaining about?
Oversight of the program would be taken away from local groups and given to the U.S. Department of Justice.
There you go: losing local control of HIDTA money is probably what this is all about.
Hurtt claimed that HPD would lose 14 "positions" from the proposed cuts, the sheriff's department would lose 15 positions, and Sam Houston State University would lose 12.
Stan Furce, director of the Houston HIDTA, said the 41 employees Hurtt cited are civilian analysts.
Furce, who is opposed to Bush's proposal, said funds allocated to the Houston HIDTA are typically used to pay overtime for task forces composed of federal and local law enforcement agents, and their vehicles.
Would the Department of Justice say that HIDTA money has to be used differently from how Houston is currently using it? That could be, and it would explain why Hurtt is so vehement in denouncing cuts that probably won't even happen, as far as Houston is concerned.
All we have to do is look at what has happened with Homeland Security funding to see why it can be a good idea to put some controls on federal money. We have seen plenty of stories of Homeland Security money being used by local governments in unique, and some might even say questionable, ways. The federal government has a right to say how federal funding is spent.
There is one more quote in the story that I found interesting:
"Most people are not as concerned about planes running into our buildings as somebody breaking into our houses," said White, citing Bush's emphasis on homeland security and claiming that many home burglaries are drug-related.
Instead of wasting energy fighting a proposal that may give Houston MORE federal money, maybe White could work on some full-time, permanent Houston police officers.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/24/05 04:20 PM |
21 March 2005
HPD wants to use unpaid, reserve officers to fill the gaps
Here's an eye-opening story in the Chronicle:
Reserve officers — part-timers who work without pay but have full arrest powers — could return to the ranks at the Houston Police Department under a plan senior department officials are evaluating.
THIS is how HPD is going to address its manpower shortage, with part-time officers who aren't paid but have full powers to arrest?!
Officials want to know if adding reserve officers could help address the department's manpower troubles, including the effects of having large numbers of officers retiring at once.
"We have definitely talked about it," Chief Harold Hurtt said recently. "I had some of my staff research the required training for reserve officers, (but) we have not made a decision."
Thankfully, not everyone thinks it's a good idea:
Any plan that uses reserves would require approval from city leaders and, perhaps more challenging, from the Houston Police Officers' Union.
"We're absolutely against reserves," said Mark Clark, the union's executive director and an HPD officer for more than 20 years. "I don't think anybody inside the department would be in favor of that."
And what would be the benefit of using reserves?
Some agencies see reserve programs as a way to cut expenses. Officials with the Harris County Sheriff's Department said the agency saves about $2 million a year.
"They are a tremendous asset," Sheriff Tommy Thomas said. "They are supplementing our manpower. There's no question about that."
Hurtt didn't know what kind of financial benefits the department could reap if reserves are brought on board. An initial cost for training and providing weapons and equipment for the part-time officers is expected, he added.
I seriously doubt that Hurtt doesn't know what kind of financial benefits HPD would see by using reserves, since the story points out that Phoenix, where Hurtt was chief, has used reserves before. Hurtt also says there is an initial cost to train and equip the part-time officers. Why not use that money to actually work on some permanent, full-time officers?
Houston officials need to stop viewing HPD in terms of revenue. It is not the mission of HPD to be a revenue generator or a revenue saver. We have HPD babysitting SAFEclear, pushing for red light cameras and even speed radar cameras, and now wanting to use reserves to avoid dealing with a shortage of police officers and save some money at the same time. How long would Chief Hurtt like to use reserve officers to fill the gaps? Will HPD EVER deal with its manpower shortage?
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: Let me take a glib stab at Anne's last question -- HPD will deal with the manpower shortage once it becomes so acute that the Mayor and his Council are held accountable by citizens who are irate by skyrocketing crime. We aren't quite to that point just yet, but since Mayor White and the current council seem unwilling to tackle this problem head on (because it involves spending money, and they seem to have other priorities), we will reach that point.
Sadly, it will probably come after this current crew is gone, and after Mayor White has successfully run for his next office. Then, our local newspaper will probably be wondering why he didn't tackle HPD's manpower issues when he was mayor! Citizens and taxpayers, as usual, will have to deal with the problem (just like we are now dealing with various problems left over from Mayor Brown's administration).
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/21/05 10:46 AM |
17 March 2005
Shouldn't Metro staff be using public transportation?
The Chronicle has an amazing story this morning. Apparently the (financially strapped) city of Houston gave $100,000 to relocate a group of homeless people from under the Pierce Elevated, AND gave Metro permission to use that space for parking:
Last month, the city and Metro signed an agreement giving the transit agency permission to use two blocks of the space, from Fannin to Travis, for parking. In exchange, the transit agency agreed to install lighting, clean up litter, paint concrete columns and make other improvements to a six-block area between Caroline and Louisiana.
[snip]
Before it could fence off its new parking area, Metro had to find a humane way to remove the homeless encampment that had developed under the Pierce Elevated over the past year.
The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County Inc. obtained $100,000 from the city and $90,000 from other donors to pay for rooms in motels or other facilities for a month. The coalition's president, Anthony Love, said the homeless people readily accepted the offer when outreach workers approached them Monday morning.
So, what happens after one month if the homeless people aren't rehabilitated?
Another question, apparently, is if this whole arrangement is even legal:
A lawsuit claims the agreement violates a 1968 contract between the city and the Texas Department of Transportation, which owns the property. The contract calls for the land under the freeway to be used for public parking.
Noel Cowart, the president of the condominium association at 2016 Main, said the metered spaces under the Pierce Elevated provide the only convenient parking for visitors or patrons of the building's retailers.
Metro's deal with the city is a "power grab" necessitated by the agency's failure to plan for adequate parking when it built its new headquarters building, Cowart said.
That would be Metro's new Lee P. Brown Administration building.
If it's true that the land under the Pierce is TXDoT property, then it appears Houston has developed quite a fondness for parceling out TXDoT land.
And then there's this:
Metro spokesman Ken Connaughton said the agency intends to use the Pierce Elevated space primarily for its fleet vehicles and senior staff. Most employees park in pay lots near the building, he said.
Senior staff will get spaces under the Pierce Elevated, but other employees must pay in other parking lots!
Which leads to a BIG question: why, oh why, aren't Metro's senior employees taking Metro transportation to work? Shouldn't they be setting an example? The fact that Metro's own senior staff (and other employees) don't use the buses, trolleys or light rail, pretty much says it all.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/17/05 11:34 AM |
16 March 2005
Mayor: demolish abandoned buildings faster
Mayor White is anxious to pick up the pace on demolishing abandoned buildings, according to the Houston Business Journal:
Mayor Bill White said Wednesday he wants to ramp up the city's efforts in demolishing abandoned buildings to 100 buildings per month.
The city demolished a total of 700 buildings in 2004, a number White says is unacceptably low. So far in 2005, the city has demolished 225 buildings, 500 behind its goal for the fiscal year that ends in July.
"There is a new sense of urgency and priority concerning the demolition of abandoned buildings," White told Houston City Councilmembers during a special hearing March 16 on the city's future demolition strategy.
[snip]
There are about 2,000 buildings in the city that are beyond repair, according to Houston Police Department Assistant Chief Brian Lumpkin.
HPD is currently building a database of all buildings identified for demolition. That project is expected to be completed in June, according to Lumpkin.
There is no talk in this article of tax-delinquent properties, so I assume these are strictly abandoned buildings, that are beyond repair. I do hope someone in local media is keeping an eye on what is being demolished, since the mayor has also made it clear (in his State of the City address) that he's going after tax-delinquent properties, in order to facilitate more affordable housing. A watchdog media helps keep people -- and governments -- honest, you know.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/16/05 07:34 PM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]