06 February 2005
Mayor White's been checking things off his to-do list
Mayor White has been very busy lately, bettering the lives of Houstonians, so we thought it would be fun to work up a laundry list of some of the mayor's proposals and programs that have caught our attention:
Proposition 1 -- because the mayor had to come up with something to counter Proposition 2.
African-American history museum
Zero tolerance for residents who put heavy trash out early
Adding more downtown parking meters, extending parking meter hours to include Saturdays, AND increasing the rates at parking meters
Commercial vehicle parking ordinance
Get Moving, Houston and 21 Days of Fitness
Summit on Flexible Work Schedules
Clean Air Accountability Network
That's a pretty ambitious list. And we can probably agree that some of those are good ideas and some of those are head-scratchers. The less-government part of me isn't thrilled with all that nanny-statism, but Mayor White is a Democrat and I suppose he thinks if there's a problem, government must have a solution. It's also interesting to note how many of those programs involve what we might call stealth taxes.
Please use the forum to let me know if I've missed a mayoral idea you feel is worth mentioning and to talk about your favorites -- good and bad!
UPDATE: In the forum, Kevin asks, "Wasn't there a proposal to require off duty cops to obtain a permit in order to direct traffic for private businesses during times of congestion?" Sure enough there was. Here's a Chronicle story, now in archives, but I'll excerpt a small portion and hope they'll forgive us this once. The story is dated 11-02-2004, the permits cost $100 each, and violators face fines up to $500:
A new city ordinance took effect last month requiring all businesses wishing to continue hiring off -duty officers for traffic control during weekday peak hours to obtain a permit from the Houston Police Department. The application process is now under way, with enforcement beginning in phases.
[snip]
White has been frustrated that off -duty officers paid by private entities sometimes disrupt the flow of traffic, especially in light of his ongoing project to synchronize traffic signals and reduce gridlock.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/06/05 07:14 AM |
04 February 2005
Mayor readies his smoking ban proposal
The mayor will soon ask city council to approve his smoking ban proposal according to KHOU-11:
Houston Mayor Bill White wants to ban smoking at the dinner tables of the city's restaurants. He plans to ask City Council to strengthen the city's smoking ordinance -- probably within the next couple of weeks.
[snip]
"We plan to ban smoking in the dining areas of restaurants," said Mayor White. "That'll be a big step, a step forward in recognizing the rights of non-smokers."
The mayor also wants to ban smoking in Houston taxi cabs and at covered Metro stops for trains and buses.
But Houston's rules would still be less restrictive than the broad bans people see in other cities.
Smoking would still be allowed in bars and in the bar sections of restaurants. And if a bar just happens to sell food, but makes more than half of its revenue on alcohol, smoking would still be allowed in the entire establishment.
RELATED: Chron editors misrepresent unreleased study, Mayor White comes out for smoking ban, Dermatologist-councilwoman won't give up on smoking ban
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/04/05 09:14 AM |
HPD is doing its part to make some money for the city
Is HPD helping generate some revenue for the city? This KHOU-11 story sure makes it appear that way:
Dozens of Houston police officers have contacted 11 News wanting you to know about a new policy they say will hinder their ability to fight crime.
They say the "productivity policy" will force them to bypass calls for help from criminal victims so they can write traffic tickets.
[snip]
Executive Assistant Chief Tim Oettmeir admits the department is close to releasing a productivity standard that he says will be fair but tough. He says if an officer is found to be consistently non-productive, he or she could lose their ability to work extra jobs. Oettmeir says the goal is to make the department more efficient.
But officers believe this is only a money grab -- nothing else.
"If I put a guy in jail for aggravated robbery, the city makes no money for that," said the officer. "If I write a ticket for a seatbelt or inspection sticker, the city makes money off of that.
11 News has obtained documents which show officers' productivity will be based on a point system.
If an officer spends their shift investigating a home invasion, a missing juvenile, an assault and makes an arrest, he might be awarded seven points.
But if the same officer spends all of his time on two traffic stops, his productivity could soar to 15 depending on the number of violations found.
"You're not going to sell me the idea you're trying to make people safe. You're basically telling me you need money," said the officer.
A productivity policy that values writing a speeding ticket over investigating a home invasion or finding a missing child is just bizarre.
Which leads to another story on KHOU last night, this one about radar cameras. (This story isn't posted yet on KHOU; when it is I will add the link) Councilman Michael Berry was on Chris Baker's show Wednesday and he downplayed the idea of installing cameras to issue speeding tickets. On last night's KHOU story, it was made clear that the person who wants those cameras is...Chief Harold Hurtt, who is presumably still unable to wear an HPD uniform.
KHOU's story also talked about red light cameras and pointed out that a study done in San Diego had shown that if you lengthen the yellow light, red light violations decrease dramatically.
Here is an informative look at the "crisis" of red light running. One interesting note is that red light violations have increased as cities have shortened yellow light times, especially at intersections that have red light cameras.
Chief Hurtt's spokesperson wasn't buying the yellow-light-lengthening idea, and she made it clear that the city wants red light cameras. KHOU (I believe the reporter was Dan Lauck) pointed out that lengthening yellow light times would cost the city nothing to implement. But it won't generate any revenue, either.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/04/05 07:44 AM |
03 February 2005
Sen. Whitmire seeks to end $AFEclear
State Sen. John Whitmire has introduced legislation to end $AFEclear, according to a press release issued by his office:
Whitmire Introduces Legislation to End Safe Clear
AUSTIN, Texas--Today, State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston) introduced legislation that will end Houston's "Safe Clear" program. A month after the program's inception, problems still plague the program, and officials have yet to develop a viable solution. "I don't believe it can be fixed," stated Whitmire. After a news story Saturday regarding at least 30 drivers with criminal records, the Senator stated he had enough. “As chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, I am concerned that ‘Safe Clear’ is clearly unsafe in forcing the public to ride with wreckers who may have questionable backgrounds.” Whitmire also views "Safe Clear" as a harsh policy that is not only unsafe but placed a costly burden on working families, students, and senior citizens.
Prior to the legislative proposal, Whitmire urged city officials to place a moratorium on the program until it can be thoroughly considered. Senator Whitmire stated the intended goals of promoting safety and mobility are understood. No one has a right to block the flow of traffic, but common sense dictates that a safe and timely repair on the shoulder should be allowed.
As proposed, Whitmire's bill will prohibit cities from enacting mandatory non-consent tows in its ordinances and codes. It will also prohibit cities from essentially privatizing state roads by leasing sections of state highways to tow companies for mandatory tow purposes. State highways and freeways are paid for and maintained by state gasoline taxes and state general sales taxes paid by the same working people that are subjected to this mandatory tow.
RELATED: KPRC-2 coverage
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/03/05 11:04 AM |
02 February 2005
City Council has revised $AFEclear
City Council has made a $AFEclear decision:
Houston's City Council decided today to give motorists with flat tires and empty gas tanks a break: Instead of paying $75 for mandatory tows, drivers stranded on the shoulder with easy-to-fix problems will be able to get free short-distance tows away from Houston's busy freeways.
The city will pay for tows under a mile by deducting it from the money that tow-truck drivers pay the city to participate in the Safe Clear program. If the city's tab reaches more than $75,000 for three months or $150,000 for six months, the City Council will have to revisit the issue.
[snip]
Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs failed in her bid to completely rescind the Safe Clear program, garnering only the support of Councilwoman Addie Wiseman.
"We can't put a Band-Aid on this situation, and there is no such thing as a free tow," she said at today's council meeting. "It is not a crime to have a flat, and it is not a crime to run out of gas."
Wiseman failed to push though at least a six-month moratorium, calling Safe Clear an "illegal seizure of people's personal property" and an "atrocity."
"We're toying with people's livelihoods," she said. "I'm offended by that."
Saying that the city government is inciting panic among its citizens, Wiseman cited Monday's death of a 77-year-old man killed when he ran across several lanes of traffic as a Safe Clear wrecker pulled up to his disabled vehicle. Police said Lawrence Kahng had run out of fuel on the East Freeway and was getting a can of gasoline when he ran into traffic.
Wiseman especially objected to towing cars not just from moving lanes of traffic but also from the shoulder. The amended ordinance approved today still requires motorists to pay for tows from lanes of moving traffic but allows the free short-distance tows if drivers manage to get their cars on to the shoulder.
RELATED: KPRC-2 coverage
UPDATE: KHOU-11 and KTRK-13 have posted stories on the city council approved changes to $AFEclear. It appears, as best I can decipher, that if your car breaks down in a traffic lane you will be charged $75. If you are involved in an accident, the tow will cost $124. So, get your car over to the shoulder, for that "free" tow! And as Dan Patrick reminds us, if you have a flat tire outside the city limits, be sure to drive on your rim until you get inside the city limits so Houston will pay someone to change your tire for you.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/02/05 02:08 PM |
That's what we need -- another revenue generating idea
As if $AFEclear and red light cameras aren't enough, KPRC-2 reports on yet another revenue-generating idea floating around City Hall:
The city is considering installing radar cameras on Houston city streets to catch speeding drivers.
Several manufacturers are trying to convince City Council to buy the high-tech law enforcement gadgets, which snap a picture of a car traveling faster than the designated speed. A ticket is then sent to the car's owner in the mail.
That is simply stunning. But it gets worse:
Some council members said before they consider photo radar, they want to make sure red light cameras at dangerous intersections are effective.
"I think we make daily choices. You know, I allow the ATM company to take a photo of me when I make a withdrawal, but at some point the photo radar seems to go too far in the privacy invasion," councilman Michael Berry told Local 2.
All right. This is ridiculous. The first reaction of several council members is to say "maybe"? The first reaction should be to say "no"! And knowing how city council has looked out for us during the $AFEclear debacle, and knowing what we know about red light cameras, this is not a good sign. Who in the world is looking out for Houston citizens? Because it doesn't appear to be Houston's elected officials.
Or is this how the city plans on solving its police manpower shortage?
UPDATE: In an interview with Chris Baker, councilman Michael Berry (whose committee would presumably shepherd enabling legislation) says there is no serious move afoot to implement this sort of program in Houston, and that he does not support such a move.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/02/05 02:02 PM |
$AFEclear math = big bucks for city
In today's Chronicle story about current $AFEclear events, reporter Ron Nissimov includes this:
Councilman Michael Berry, another strong supporter of Safe Clear, helped develop the ordinance last year and predicted the council would approve amendments offered by council members Adrian Garcia and Gordon Quan that modify the mayor's proposal.
Under their proposal, the city would identify "safe drop" locations to be used for short free tows, and it would ask the Legislature for permission to charge city residents a $1 registration fee for each car they own to fund the program.
The fees would generate an estimated $1.5 million a year.
Is Councilman Berry supporting the $1 fee to fund $AFEclear? It kind of sounds like it. Maybe it's just the way the story is written.
Anyway, is there any revenue stream (translation: new tax) that City Council WON'T support? $AFEclear started off as a flat-out, no-doubt-about-it tax on vehicle breakdowns (although not big vehicle breakdowns, because buses and 18-wheelers are not included in the program), and when that didn't go over well it was to become a "free" service for Houstonians, and now the idea is to fund $AFEclear with a new fee (tax) that should generate $1.5 million.
So, let's do the math: the city convinced towing companies to pay out an estimated $1 million in freeway rights, then the mayor said the city would pay $300,000 to fund the "free" tows, and now the city is proposing to offset that with a tax that would generate another $1.5 million.
1,000,000 - 300,000 = 700,000 + 1,500,000 = $ 2,200,000
Wow! It seems the longer $AFEclear takes to be perfected, the more revenue it generates for the city. The mayor is really onto something here.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: We know that Chronicle columnist Rick Casey has had problems in the past with representing the ideas and words of others as his own.
However, we didn't even guess that he was representing the ideas of councilmembers Garcia and Green in his column a few Sundays ago. I guess we know now, but it would have been more above board and useful to readers and citizens if he would have identified the councilmembers floating that proposal in his column.
Of course, Anne's post illustrates a point that we've made all along: this program is as much about creating yet another "new revenue stream" for the city as it is about public safety. It's worth reminding readers once again that when politicians claim it's not about the money, it's almost always about the money.
As an interesting aside, it would be interesting to know how much time and money it will cost Houston taxpayers to lobby the state legislature for these changes that Quan and Garcia would like should their proposal be adopted.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/02/05 09:35 AM |
01 February 2005
Eminent domain powers concern local property rights groups
The invaluable Houston Business Journal just ran two articles on development along the rail line and the possible use of eminent domain:
Metro mixes rail and real estate: New initiative raises questions about use of eminent domain, by Jenna Colley
and
First effort calls for mixed-use project over transit center, by Jennifer Dawson.
Metro officials downplay the eminent domain angle, but it's useful to keep this in mind:
The power of eminent domain first granted by the Texas Legislature and approved by local voters in 1978 authorized Metro to seize vacant land, homes and businesses following payment of a "fair market price."
Thirty years later, use of eminent domain in construction of the initial 7.5-mile segment of rail followed the original intent of the state legislation by keeping private property interests from blocking public rail.
Now, Metro is taking a more active role in stimulating real estate development along rail corridors (see related story).
As a result, development activity within the 1,500-foot limit could extend the transit agency's influence far beyond the actual tracks.
Metro's eminent domain reach covers a span of five football fields in any direction. The surroundings of a single urban rail station can encompass several square blocks occupied by scores of buildings.
The potential for more property condemnations not directly related to rail has some local property rights groups concerned.
Given Mayor White's recent mention of eminent domain, local property rights groups probably should be more concerned than usual.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 02/01/05 11:33 PM |
31 January 2005
Define cooperate
Here's an interesting excerpt from Mayor White's State of the City speech:
And I told you last year at my first State of the City Address that we had to get the stalled and wrecked vehicles off of our freeways faster, to relieve congestion and improve safety. And at that time I said that it would be a fight. Boy, was that right! Now our SafeClear Program is unclogging our freeways and making them safer. Drivers already have begun noticing a difference. And we are able to provide additional services at affordable prices, in cooperation with the MAP Program and with more efficient and accountable towing industry. Sure, it's been a fight to bring some order out of chaos, and we will improve the program based on performance, but Houston's future is worth that fight. You know we just can't build ourselves out of gridlock, so we must manage traffic better.
You have to admit he's a fine city cheerleader, but the part that caught my eye was where he says the city is working "in cooperation with the MAP program." I wonder how the mayor defines cooperate? A recent Chronicle story might have a partial answer:
Walter Wainwright, president of the Houston Automobile Dealers Association and one of the organizers of MAP, said Houston police showed no interest when invited to join in the fledgling effort in 1986.
Since then, he said, the city has cooperated with the program but has not helped to staff it or pay for its expansion.
Maybe "cooperation" means the city isn't using $AFEclear wreckers to run MAP trucks off the road.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/31/05 10:16 AM |
We probably need a task force, right?
We certainly can't call Mayor White "Hop on a Flight White," because he is firmly planted in Houston, taking on yet another project to better the lives of city residents -- and I am not talking about his drive to get Houstonians in better physical shape. No, I'm talking about his "Flex Plan":
Could flexible working hours at your job ease the traffic nightmare?
According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Houston is fourth in the nation for the longest delays per person spent in traffic.
Mayor White has long said he wants to get the city moving again and one idea, known as the Flex Plan, may add some muscle to that goal.
[snip]
"The reality is we want to continue to grow as a city. We aren't going to be able to widen and double the size of every major street and thoroughfare in town, so we have to manage the traffic on the existing streets and freeways better," says Mayor White.
The mayor will not talk specifics about how he plans to do that, but says he plans to meet with the major corporations and talk about a flexible work schedule.
Uh oh. If recent events ($AFEclear) are any indicator, we'd like to see some specifics.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/31/05 09:01 AM |
29 January 2005
Chronicle covers $AFEclear loophole
In typical Chronicle fashion, today we get some local "olds":
The city will try to revoke the permits of 30 wrecker drivers licensed under the Safe Clear mandatory towing ordinance after discovering that they have criminal records but will have to strengthen the ordinance to do so, officials said this week.
The city licenses about 250 drivers under the program, which gives 11 towing companies exclusive contracts to tow cars from freeways.
City Councilman Michael Berry said a summary of the 30 drivers' backgrounds by Houston police discovered crimes such as forgeries and drug offenses. Berry said he did not see any "hard-core violent offenders" or sex offenders on the list.
KPRC-2 covered this story last Tuesday, and we posted on it then.
One thing of interest is that the KPRC story said this:
Sources told Local 2 that a preliminary check uncovered drivers with criminal convictions, including a serial rapist and those with a history of other violent crimes. It also found a large number of drivers with convictions for DWI, drugs, fraud and theft, officials said.
And Councilman Berry says he didn't "see any 'hardcore violent offenders' or sex offenders on the list."
Hmmmm.
But to the Chronicle's credit, the reporter did include this important point:
In touting the ordinance, Mayor Bill White has said that by requiring background checks of contract drivers, it would help keep criminals in tow trucks from preying on stranded motorists.
He did not disclose until this week that the ordinance doesn't have the teeth to do that.
White said he recently became aware of a 1994 federal law designed to deregulate the interstate trucking industry that inadvertently weakened the power of cities to regulate the towing industry. Because of this law, White said the city needs an ordinance giving it power to deny permits to tow-truck drivers who don't pass criminal background checks.
It's not clear what "recently became aware of" means. Did the mayor become aware of the loophole last week or last month? I would argue that implementing such a devastatingly heavy-handed program, when some very important facts were not considered or known, doesn't put the mayor or his advisors in a very good light. How many other far-reaching programs (eminent domain, red light cameras, tasers, smoking ban) is the mayor undertaking where he doesn't have all the facts before him?
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/29/05 11:40 AM |
28 January 2005
Where's the $AFEclear wrecker going to leave a stranded driver?
Here are some $AFEclear questions: if a wrecker tows your car, how do you know that the driver is going to leave you in a safe place? What if you are in an unfamiliar part of town? Will you be able to call for help? Well, one Houston business owner is trying to provide answers to some of those questions:
For 25 years now, a family-owned business on the North Freeway has made signs. But of all the signs they've ever made, they've never made one advertising this. Atlas Signs has rolled out the welcome mat for stranded drivers towed off the freeway under the new Safe Clear program.
"We're just trying to give them a safe place. They'll have four hours to fix their car. They don't have to worry about it getting towed or somebody messing with their car," said Chad Foreman, the Sign Store manager. "They can go get gas if they need gas. If they need to borrow a gas can, we'll let them borrow a gas can."
Houston's controversial new freeway towing plan requires wreckers to haul stranded motorists off the road and leave the both the vehicle and its occupants in a safe place.
Now a council member wants police to draw up a list of specific places where wrecker drivers can drop off stranded drivers.
"My goal is to make sure that the spots that they are left at have been cleared by the police as a place that's safe for an individual to be," said Gordon Quan, Houston City Councilmember. "That there's adequate lighting, that there's a telephone so they can call for help, preferably restrooms."
The councilman says he's already found about 350 spots that could be designated as what he calls "safe drop" locations.
Again, can anyone think of a more poorly designed city policy? Goodness, this program is so bad, on so many levels. I still like Kevin's idea of keeping the Motorist Assistance Program's phone number handy, preferably on speed dial.
The very last sentence in this KHOU-11 story made me laugh, though:
Houston councilmembers are scheduled to vote next week on proposed changes to the Safe Clear program.
Right. We're not holding our breath anymore.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/28/05 07:30 PM |
Do red light cameras reduce accidents or generate revenue?
Recently, Mayor Bill White convinced City Council to approve red light traffic cameras, ostensibly to improve safety. However, some of us think it's more likely a new way to generate revenue, kind of like $AFEclear.
With that in mind, here are the results of a study performed by the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Transportation that shows injury accidents actually increased at intersections where red light cameras were installed:
Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible" decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed. Camera proponents explain this away by asserting angle accidents are more serious, but this claim has not been scientifically studied according to this report. The rear end collisions caused by the cameras still produce injuries -- the original promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.
This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina.
If this were truly about safety, the city might try to lengthen yellow light times first, to see if that helps reduce red light violations. Or how about the idea of programming the lights so all lights in an intersection stay red for one to two seconds? Or take some police officers off $AFEclear taxi duty and have them monitor the worst intersections? But, those ideas won't generate revenue.
Also on the subject of red light cameras, a Houston attorney writes that large municipalities are turning traffic tickets into civil cases, which he says is a revenue-generator:
A more recent example is the City of Houston's aggressive attempt to decriminalize red light tickets. Running a red light under Texas State law is a Class C Misdemeanor, a criminal offense. As such, it carries all the protections due an accused in a criminal case. In what many consider an unconstitutional move, the City of Houston passed an ordinance on December 21, 2004 to decriminalize some red light tickets at intersections where the City of Houston will be installing cameras to monitor traffic. The City of Houston, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, has usurped the power of the Texas State Legislature and changed running a red light from a criminal violation to a civil violation.
There will be two different standards in Houston for the same offense. Those accused of running a red light at an intersection without a camera will be charged criminally and those accused of running a red light at an intersection with a camera will be cited civilly. Under Houston's ordinance, the owner of a car cited with running a red light at an intersection monitored by a camera will be presumed guilty and owe a fine of $75 ($150 for a third or subsequent violations). To fight these tickets, the owner of the car will now have to go before an administrative hearing officer, not a judge or jury, and prove that he or she did not run the red light.
That's pretty enlightening, I think.
Mayor White is a shrewd guy. He knows that people are fed up with new taxes, so he masks these revenue-generating ideas in the guise of safety. Some members of the Texas Legislature have promised to deal with Houston's red light camera ordinance so maybe the mayor will get the chance to try out some of those alternative solutions really to reduce the number of red light runners in a safe manner.
KEVIN WHITED (SNARKILY) ADDS: I get the idea Anne purposely avoided using that term favored by those who like to expand government, "new revenue stream." Between the expanded downtown parking meters, red light cameras, and SAFEclear wrecker-oligopoly franchise fees, Mayor White has indeed created "new revenue streams."
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/28/05 08:35 AM |
25 January 2005
$AFEclear loophole allows serial rapist to be tow truck driver
One thing I remember Mayor White saying when he was trying to sell $AFEclear, was that all tow truck drivers in the $AFEclear program would have to pass background checks. You know, since the city was basically forcing anyone with a broken down car to get in a tow truck with a stranger. Well, it sounds like that didn't go according to plan:
Sources told Local 2 that a preliminary check uncovered drivers with criminal convictions, including a serial rapist and those with a history of other violent crimes. It also found a large number of drivers with convictions for DWI, drugs, fraud and theft, officials said.
Wow! But don't worry, city officials are on the job:
Some council members said they still have a lot of unanswered questions about the Safe Clear ordinance. The city leaders also said they want to make sure the public is safe when dealing with the tow truck operators.
"Safe Clear is going to set the standard for what we insist on in tow truck operators," Houston Mayor Bill White said.
White said he will ask City Council next week to pass an ordinance tightening up a possible loophole in the background checks of wrecker drivers.
Why in the world would there be a loophole in these background checks? And now it is being addressed? The mayor says, "$AFEclear is going to set the standard for what we insist on in tow truck operators." I will assume the mayor is aiming for a high standard and not the standard that says a serial rapist is okay, but why didn't we have the high standard in place on January 1st? And next week (next week?) the mayor is going to ask City Council to close the loophole -- the same City Council that has been ignoring him for two weeks on $AFEclear changes.
The city needs to make available some other form of transportation for people subjected to forced towing. This concern was brought up again and again when $AFEclear was first being hashed out. People were very nervous about, for example, women and teenage girls being forced to get into tow trucks with men they didn't know. The mayor repeatedly gave assurances that there was no reason to be concerned, that every driver would have to pass a background check.
This is a big failure on the city's part.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/25/05 07:58 PM |
Is the Toll Road Authority taking control of the Grand Parkway?
Spring residents have lost a battle in the fight over the Grand Parkway:
Despite pleas from a group of Spring residents who oppose the road, Commissioners Court gave the Harris County Toll Road Authority permission today to spend $5.6 million to plot out a 52-mile section of the Grand Parkway in north Houston.
The county has yet to commit to building the section of the Grand Parkway, a 182-mile super loop around Houston that has been planned for decades. The Texas Department of Transportation will make final decisions on expansion of the Grand Parkway, and the county would need TxDot's approval before it could build the section.
The Spring residents say one proposed route for the toll road would divide subdivisions in their town, cut across a high school baseball field and provide no relief to congestion on local roads.
"The more I know, the less I like," said Connie O'Donnell, a member of United to Save Our Spring. "I think it is and always has been a developer's dream of a highway."
Commissioner Jerry Eversole, whose Precinct 4 includes Spring and most of the other areas where the section would be built, said the road is needed to provide solutions to the area's current and future traffic needs.
"It still goes back to I think it's the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with selling homes or building shopping centers," Eversole said. "The solution will be to build the road, to take the consequences and, if it means my defeat, then it means my defeat."
I am suspicious of Eversole's assertion that the Grand Parkway has nothing to do with new developments. (I should also disclose, again, that I live in the area that would be impacted by this segment of the Grand Parkway, and I am opposed to the project. Also, this topic is being discussed more in our forum.) It would appear that this project has quite a lot to do with selling homes and building shopping centers. Otherwise, why would State Sen. Jon Lindsay, a big proponent of the parkway, have held a private meeting with developers to discuss Grand Parkway plans?
Recently there was a rumor that a toll road might be built through the Heights area. The outrage that immediately followed had Harris County Judge Robert Eckels running for media outlets to declare his opposition to that idea. It is interesting to note that Judge Eckels is in full support of the Grand Parkway project. Spring residents and business owners are not getting the same consideration from Judge Eckels that Heights residents received.
It's clear that if the Harris County Toll Road Authority takes control of the project, no more public input will have to be considered and no more environmental impact reports will be done. The HCTRA does not have to meet the same requirements as TxDOT.
UPDATE: The Chronicle has a new story posted with more details, including some information about State Sen. Jon Lindsay that demonstrates not just his support of the project, but his efforts to get the project completed:
County officials rejected state Sen. Jon Lindsay's offer to work for the county as a consultant who would try to persuade north Harris County developers to donate land for the project.
Lindsay, a Republican who represents much of the area where the segment would be built, has long supported the Grand Parkway.
He said he met last year with 14 developers who own land between Texas 249 and I-45. About 10 of the developers agreed to donate land to the county for the toll road, Lindsay said.
With that land, the toll road could have been built without traversing as many Spring residential areas as called for under TxDOT plans, he said.
Lindsay said he met with Eversole and other officials in the fall and tried to sell them on hiring him as a consultant.
He would have asked the county to pay him about $5,000 or $6,000 a month for his services, Lindsay said.
"I told them I was not going to do it gratis. It was too much work," he said.
County officials balked at the proposal, saying it could appear to be improper for the county to hire a state senator to lobby developers who were his business acquaintances or friends and who would benefit from the highway's construction, Lindsay said. "I did not understand where the conflict of interest was, just because I was a senator," he said.
Phew! He's something.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/25/05 07:02 PM |
Be wary of eminent domain
Following up on Mayor White's State of the City address yesterday, Owen Courreges has some thoughts on gentrification and Mayor White's plan to foreclose on tax-delinquent properties, and even use eminent domain if necessary, in order to build more affordable housing in six areas near downtown.
After our experience with $AFEclear, I think it's safe to say this is something to keep an eye on. A sharp eye.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/25/05 04:20 PM |
City Council delays vote on $AFEclear changes -- again
City Council has again delayed a vote on Mayor White's proposed $AFEclear changes and, in fact, six councilors have offered their own plans, according to a KTRH-740 newsbreak.
(Kevin Whited foresaw this development.)
Once again, this means the original program is still in place. If you break down on the freeway, you will be towed -- for a minimum of $75.
I don't know what the problem is, or how many weeks the councilors feel they need to get a grasp of the problem, but they need to either pass the changes or shelve the program. This exercise in endless debating is costing Houston area drivers a whole lot of money.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: Anne is exactly right that the obstructionist members of council either need to get on board with the proposed improvements or come up with the votes to kill this program. Mayor White has played VERY nice with council so far, working to build coalitions and trying hard to avoid the acrimony that surrounded the last mayor. However, I suspect if he decides to go public and blame the current, unacceptable towing mess on the obstructionists, they're going to suffer politically, not him.
UPDATE: Here's the Chronicle's story.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/25/05 03:15 PM |
LULAC opposes $AFEclear: now the mayor is in trouble!
Back before $AFEclear became such a hot topic, I did a post on the upcoming forced towing program and a very smart commenter saw a potential problem.
He was almost right, because today's Chronicle has the details of LULAC heading to Austin, with a group of tow truck drivers, to complain about $AFEclear:
"We've been at it since March," said Patricia Gonzales of the Houston-area chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens. "Mayor (Bill) White didn't hear us out."
That confuses me. The media usually hops to attention when LULAC heads to a microphone, so I don't know how we could have all missed LULAC's concern, beginning last March.
City Council is expected to consider White's proposed changes today.
But LULAC and the Houston Professional Towing Association are circulating petitions denouncing the ordinance. The groups claim to have collected 20,000 signatures from people who say the ordinance unfairly hurts low-income drivers and small wrecker companies.
The ordinance grants exclusive towing authority in 29 freeway zones divided among 11 wrecker companies, which together pay the city about $1 million a year for the contracts.
And that is one big reason the mayor is doing everything he can to salvage this program and get the public on his side: He does not want to give back the $1 million in franchise fee money.
Later in the story, Councilman Michael Berry provides some $AFEclear spin:
But Councilman Michael Berry, who chairs the transportation committee, said Safe Clear is a rare example of public policy that wasn't driven by industry, special interest, or even a true constituency.
He said the ordinance emerged from the need to address Houston's congested freeways and that the protesting drivers are unhappy that they didn't get contracts.
That's a bit of a whopper when Berry says $AFEclear "wasn't driven by industry, special interest, or even a true constituency," because there absolutely was "a very special" interest involved here: the city's coffers. And everyone, from drivers using Houston freeways to area tow truck drivers, have had to learn a new set of rules in order to make the city coffers happy.
The mayor said in his speech yesterday that he is hearing from drivers that the congestion problem is better and people are getting to their destinations faster. But anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. Show us the studies! Every day on the local traffic reports we hear of traffic backups related to things $AFEclear does not address. Do $AFEclear supporters have a plan for those problems, too? When a big rig breaks down, we know $AFEclear can't do anything about it, and what about road construction that ties up everything? And then there's the problem of debris on the road. Last Friday during rush hour it was a load of manure that overturned on a freeway. I'll bet that didn't get cleaned up in six minutes. But it did make for a great Debris Game!
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: At least the Chronicle is reporting the $1 million in fees, which is a fairly crucial part of the story that had been omitted from their reporting, until Bob Stein let it slip and a certain blog jumped all over it.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/25/05 08:54 AM |
24 January 2005
Casey's SAFEclear solution: a new tax
Talk radio and blogs have done a really good job picking apart the SAFEclear program, examining alternatives, and critiquing various proposals to change the program.
However, Chronicle columnist Rick Casey, who seems to have missed most of the blog and talk radio discussion, did manage to come up with a new proposal in his Sunday column:
How could the Legislature help? It could authorize cities or counties to pass a vehicle-license fee to cover such traffic-control problems. To cover their political backsides, legislators could require that it be approved by voters.
[snip]
I'm not arguing for a new fee. I'm just putting this thing in perspective.
Perspective indeed! Leave it to reliable lefty Rick Casey to try to change the discussion from the Mayor's proposed revisions to the SAFEclear program (which will still leave the city ahead by $700,000 if the mayor's cost estimates are correct) to advocacy for a new tax.
City Council will take up the proposed changes to SAFEclear on Tuesday. The proposed changes were tagged by various councilmembers last week, keeping the current system in place.
RELATED: Houston wrecker drivers take their fight to Austin (KHOU-11).
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/24/05 08:51 PM |
State of the City
Mayor Bill White will give his State of the City address today at a Greater Houston Partnership luncheon.
KHOU-11's blurb says one of the topics the mayor will likely discuss is the $AFEclear program.
UPDATE 1: The City of Houston website posts the text of Mayor White's address.
UPDATE 2: The Chronicle has posted a story focusing on one part of the mayor's address: tax foreclosures.
UPDATE 3: Matt Bramanti has helpfully translated the mayor's speech for us.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/24/05 10:25 AM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]