20 January 2005
$AFEclear inspires more memorable quotes
The Chronicle has a wrap-up story on city council's decision to delay voting on Mayor White's proposed $AFEclear changes. Just like yesterday's Chronicle story that had some off-the-wall councilmember quotes, today's story has a couple of doozy quotes, too. The first is from Mayor White:
"Our choice is whether we decide we're going to do some things to impact the safety and traffic on our freeways, or whether we do not," White said shortly after stressing that improving transportation is the No. 1 concern among Houstonians.
"I need you to respect me and do this," White said. "I don't think that if we have 10 different plans, or 14 different plans, we will get it approved. I will work to get consensus, but we won't have it with a moving target."
This has nothing to do with respecting Mayor White. As the $AFEclear plan shows, he has little respect for Houston citizens who are not blessed with lots of disposable income, never mind a citizen's right to determine how to handle a mechanical problem with his or her own car. If the mayor came up with a plan to ban cars from freeways, that would certainly solve Houston's freeway traffic problem, but I think we can confidently state that Council and Houston citizens would not respect the mayor and agree to the plan.
This is not about Mayor White, although he is intent on making it about himself, it seems. It's about a plan that is WRONG on so many levels. However, we do agree with Mayor White that councilmembers need to get off their duffs and make a decision -- preferably shelve the program -- because the longer a decision is delayed, the longer the punitive old plan is in place.
Today's second dopey quote comes from Councilwoman Toni Lawrence, who had this stellar profundity from yesterday:
"If you don't think you can come up with the extra money, your responsibility is to not get on the freeway."
Sounds familiar. According to the Chronicle, Sen. Whitmire read that quote in yesterday's paper:
He said the next time he reads about a Houston official saying indigent motorists should stay off the freeways, he will file a bill to end the city's Safe Clear program or "place it under the review of the Texas Department of Transportation."
Lawrence responded:
Lawrence was unmoved by the threat, saying, "John's gotta do what he's gotta do, and I've gotta do what I've gotta do."
Which must translate into, "I've gotta be an out-of-touch, uncompassionate elite politician, who's gotta fine people for flat tires and impound their cars if they can't pay the fine."
City council needs to shelve this program at the next meeting. As someone said yesterday during the public comments portion of the city council meeting, "The citizens of Houston cannot afford to be victimized by a work in progress." (The person who said that also commented in our forum yesterday.) The mayor and city council can work the bugs and kinks out if they must, but not while Houston-area citizens are guinea pigs.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: It's amazing to me that these councilmembers who CONCEDE there are problems with the original program still voted to tag the Mayor's proposed changes, which are at least an improvement over the current $AFEclear mess.
I just listened to Toni Lawrence on the Chris Baker program contend her statement was taken out of context. No it wasn't. The context is, she said what she said, as reproduced above. I don't think that sort of elitism is going to play very well, and some of these councilmembers seem to be confused about who was elected mayor (they seem to be looking in the mirror and letting their imagination get the best of them).
My preference would be for this program to go away altogether, but that doesn't seem likely. For a handful of elitist councilmembers to stall Mayor White's proposed changes hurts motorists, and also hurts the elitist councilmembers politically. I just don't get it.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/20/05 11:26 AM |
McGilbra supervised construction of 911 call center
Here's an eye-opening paragraph in a Chronicle article about former Brown administration official Monique McGilbra:
The charges surrounded an energy contract she oversaw. As the head of the city's Building Services Department, she also helped supervise the construction of the new 911 call center. The developer who won that contract acknowledges that he hired the now-former boyfriend, Garland Hardeman, but said it was unrelated to Hardeman's relationship with McGilbra.
That was a $53 million center she was overseeing, and it is a mess.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/20/05 07:50 AM |
19 January 2005
Council decides not to decide on $AFEclear changes -- yet
City Council has decided to delay voting on the mayor's proposed $AFEclear changes:
City Council tabled the measure and is scheduled to vote on the Safe Clear program next week.
"I have to have due diligence. I have to know why we're doing things," Councilwoman Pam Holm said.
"As you see from the comments by so many citizens, I think there's serious flaws with the process we're looking at," Councilman Gordon Quan said.
"The clock is ticking on our ability to act decisively," Houston Mayor Bill White said. "So, we have a choice. Our choice is going to be whether we decide we're going to do some things that have an impact on traffic congestion and safety on our freeways or whether we do not."
Before the measure was tabled, more Houstonians got their chance to speak out about the program, which started Jan. 1.
"The citizens of Houston cannot afford to be victimized by a work in progress," a taxpayer said Wednesday during the city council meeting.
You can bet Mayor White wants to get this wrapped up before state Sen. Whitmire gets the Legislature involved.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/19/05 05:22 PM |
Today's the big $AFEclear day
The Chronicle has a couple of must-read $AFEclear stories today. One is about the city of Houston (not) partnering with Harris County's Motorist Assistance Program and one is about the different plans city councilmembers are proposing, instead of Mayor White's revised $AFEclear program.
The MAP story is frustrating to read, because the city doesn't want to join MAP, and of course we all know why -- MAP won't make the city any money. Mayoral spokesman Pat Trahan offered this insight about why the city can't join MAP:
White's press secretary, Patrick Trahan, said MAP and Safe Clear are different programs. MAP focuses on getting motorists safely moving again, while Safe Clear aims to clear congestion caused by stalled cars and rubbernecking.
Aha. I'm sure Trahan makes nice money to come up with deep thinking like that.
The last paragraph pretty well sums it up:
Wainwright said MAP has assisted about 600,000 motorists since 1986, an average of 128 per day since the program is limited to weekdays, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Safe Clear has towed about 100 vehicles per day.
Welcome to Houston.
The second story details some different $AFEclear plans floating around city council:
White's spokesman Frank Michel said Tuesday that the mayor was conferring with council members who want the cost of the "free" tows to be paid instead by reducing the fees the contractors pay the city for the exclusive right to operate in specific freeway segments.
In effect, Michel said, this would pay for the free tows out of funds earmarked for the Safe Clear program, rather than out of general funds available for various purposes.
Council members Carol Alvarado, Ronald Green and Adrian Garcia said they support that change.
[snip]
Council members Mark Goldberg and Toni Lawrence, who support the program, suggested that instead of providing tows for free, the city should give motorists time to come up with the money.
"If someone can't pay — maybe they don't have the immediate means — they would get a citation which would require them to go to a municipal court within 30 days and pay," Goldberg said. "If they sent in the money before the 30 days, they would not have to appear in court."
Lawrence said: "If you don't think you can come up with the extra money, your responsibility is to not get on the freeway."
Councilman Mark Ellis agreed with giving drivers a grace period and suggested cutting the fee to $35 for short tows that would be free under White's proposal.
Councilwoman Pam Holm said it is "inappropriate" for taxpayers to pay because a motorist's car broke down.
"The city doesn't owe that to anybody," Holm said. "If you're able to drive a car, you ought to be able to maintain it."
Councilman Goldberg's idea is one that he discussed on air with Dan Patrick the other day. Patrick thinks it's a great idea, too. So if you break down and can't afford the punitive towing fee, you get a court date, but if you can come up with the money in 30 days you can avoid court. That's bizarre. A flat tire = a court date.
And, Councilwoman Holm (along with Toni Lawrence) is not going to win our compassionate politician of the week award with her comments. I wonder if Holm has ever had a tire blow out due to road debris that the city did not clear within six minutes?
(Dermatologist) Councilwoman Sekula-Gibbs wants the whole plan shelved. I strongly disagree with her smoking ban idea, but I agree with her on her $AFEclear opposition.
This morning the public has the opportunity to address Council and the vote should happen later today.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: Hey, we get to go PowerLine style on this post!
That's the most coverage I've seen from the Chronicle on MAP. It might have been useful if they had run more on MAP earlier in the debate, like some blogs!
It's interesting that Goldberg, Lawrence, Ellis, and Holm have endorsed (in some fashion) Patrick's elitist notion that you shouldn't be on the freeways if you don't have $75 to spare. That should make for some useful opposition political research at some point. Even more interesting, though, is that it shows the extent to which Mayor White has sucked the air out of the old conservative council bloc that was so troublesome to the last mayor. We've seen stories suggesting Mayor White is politically wounded from this. I'd suggest otherwise.
It's also interesting that Alvarado, Garcia, and Green advocate making a change in the accounting of funds. While that makes sense conceptually, it sort of illustrates how little they've had to say about the substance of this matter.
Why in the world didn't the Chronicle story mention the difference between the estimated cost ($300,000) of the "free" towing and the SAFEclear fees collected from wreckers ($1 million, according to Bob Stein)? The story cried for those numbers, but they aren't there.
RELATED COVERAGE: Houston towing policy stalls (Bruce Nichols, Dallas Morning News), Vote on new SAFEclear program could be delayed (Reggie Aqui, KHOU), Interview with Councilman Michael Berry (KHOU, Windows Media video).
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/19/05 07:23 AM |
18 January 2005
City Council to hear public's concerns about $AFEclear
Following up on Kevin Whited's post this morning about City Council taking up $AFEclear revisions this week, KPRC-2 has this notice on its website:
Houstonians will get the opportunity to voice their opinions about the city's new controversial Safe Clear program Tuesday night.
That's incorrect. I just called the City Secretary's office and was told there is no public session tonight; it will be held tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 9:30, and councilmembers will vote tomorrow evening.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/18/05 01:48 PM |
Tow truck driver gets caught in $AFEclear's muddled details
I wonder if Mayor White and David Saperstein can admit that $AFEclear wasn't the most well-thought-out idea in city history. The fact that some major changes have been proposed a couple of weeks after the forced towing program was implemented would be one sign. Another sign might be that police and wrecker drivers are unclear on the technicalities of who can respond to a $AFEclear call and who can't, as evidenced by this KHOU-11 story:
Yun Gim was in his truck after midnight Wednesday when he heard the accident, then got the call.
He says Houston Police Officer wanted a nearby wrecker to clear a dangerous situation from the Katy Freeway.
Gim says that when he arrived, he told the officer that he was not a Safe Clear driver. The officer said that didn't matter and told him to hook up the car.
He towed the car to a lot on the city's northwest side.
A day later, he says another HPD officer called him back to the lot.
"I'm upset to get the ticket, so I wanna find out what's the deal for the ticket," Gim says.
He was stunned by the illegal tow ticket he received, that could cost him as much as $700. He also had a letter from the city that said any wrecker can tow off a freeway if an officer says it's an emergency.
"Whether he just got hung in a situation and did something that he shouldn't have, I really don't know," says Ken Ulmer of A-1/Safetow Towing.
Ulmer owns the rights to the stretch of freeway where the accident happened. He says his driver told him a different story.
"He was there, and that it was not an emergency situation," says Ulmer of his driver.
Yun Gim says he will fight what he sees as an unfair and aggressive maneuver; the latest skirmish in what could be a long battle.
It comes down to the question of whether or not the officer called the scene an emergency. An HPD spokesperson said the department is looking into it, but there was not an answer Monday afternoon.
Let's see...that $700 can pay for 14 $AFEclear tows!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/18/05 08:26 AM |
16 January 2005
Councilwoman says $AFEclear is socialized towing
Dr. Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs has an op-ed in today's Chronicle where she says the $AFEclear program, even with the proposed changes, is nothing more than socialized towing:
I understand the need to keep traffic moving, but I champion common sense and individual rights.
The Safe Clear Program is flawed. It is not uniformly enforced. Citizens have no idea how it works. Individual rights are run over. It is unsafe for seniors, women and children who may have to wait hours for a ride.
To make matters worse, state lawmakers have threatened legislative action against the city if we don't pull the plug. Why should we allow the state to fix problems created at City Hall? City Council members need to solve this problem, not the state.City Council should vote to repeal the program. We should send it back to the mayor for further study.
Only this time around, the process needs more transparency and public involvement. People should be informed well in advance so they know what to expect. A public information campaign should be put in place before the new program takes effect.
It sounds very sensible, so chances are it won't happen. But the Dr. Councilwoman has a few days before the city council vote, and maybe she can convince enough of her fellow councilmembers to repeal the heavy-handed program.
What strikes me, though, is the irony of the Dr. Councilwoman's position because she is in favor of a smoking ban in Houston bars and restaurants, so she wants a Big Government solution to what she says is a dire health and safety problem. The mayor wants to tow cars forcibly off Houston freeways, so he created a Big Government solution to what he says is a dire health and safety problem (albeit a safety problem that was previously unknown to anyone but himself, David Saperstein and Councilman Michael Berry. Oh, and Dan Patrick).
Personally I would love to see the Dr. Councilwoman succeed in getting the $AFEclear program shelved; I just find it amusing to contrast her opposition to $AFEclear with her enthusiasm for a smoking ban.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/16/05 08:26 AM |
14 January 2005
There's still some $AFEclear opposition
State Sen. John Whitmire is not sold on Mayor White's proposed $AFEclear changes:
"I appreciate the city going back to the drawing board, but they need to stay there," said state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston.
"There is something wrong when people don't understand the plight of people who have zero money but could safely ... repair their automobile on the freeway shoulder," Whitmire said.
He said he is concerned that drivers who can neither pay towing fees nor qualify for free tows could lose their cars to storage yards, which would resell them. And he said police should not be providing a taxi service for the stranded passengers.
[snip]
Whitmire said there is support in the Legislature for requiring approval from the Texas Transportation Commission for cities' highway towing ordinances to ensure they are "reasonable and consistent with other jurisdictions."
"A high percentage of Houston motorists are from out of town, and as they pass through the different cities and the county there are different policies," Whitmire said.
Those last two paragraphs are interesting. It doesn't mean that $AFEclear would have to be shelved, but the Legislature might require Houston to have a freeway-clearing program that is in line with what other Texas cities do.
Councilwoman Addie Wiseman has her own concerns with the $AFEclear modifications:
Councilwoman Addie Wiseman, who voted against the ordinance, was skeptical of the proposed changes. "I fear that this latest knee-jerk move will only bring us additional legal problems. I don't think anything has been resolved here," she said.
Wiseman said she wants to see the exact language White will offer and where the money will come from. "Give us the numbers," she said. "When we looked through the budget last year, I didn't see a $300,000 slush fund sitting around. I want to know what will be sacrificed for this.
"Also, if vehicles on the shoulders present a safety hazard, then why are police vehicles allowed to sit there, with the officer standing behind them checking his radar?"
And Councilwoman Carol Mims-Galloway has asked Mayor White for a moratorium on the $AFEclear program until the changes are approved by city council. The old $AFEclear rules remain in effect until city council gives its okay, as one driver discovered:
Arlene Cuellar felt caught in the middle Wednesday when her disabled vehicle was towed from the South Loop and she had to shell out the fee. Under the current plan, she had to pay $78 -- $75 for the mandatory fee and $3 for extra mileage.
"I just don't think it's fair because I'm a single mother and really can't afford it. But what choice do you have?" Cuellar said.
Under the changes Houston City Council is expected to pass next week, Cuellar would have qualified for a free tow up to one mile.
"I saw on the news last night where it said they were going to try and do it up to a mile free and then you try to get your car fixed from there. But I asked (the wrecker driver) and he said, 'No, it's in the making but they're working on it,'" Cuellar said.
The Chronicle story also says that Councilwoman Galloway has asked Mayor White to have Houston partner with Harris County in the Motorist Assistance Program. That idea, of course, is loaded with common sense, but I would guess the mayor can't do that because of all the franchise fees the towing companies paid for freeway rights. The city does not want to give back that money.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/14/05 07:03 AM |
12 January 2005
Some thoughts on the SAFEclear revisions
As Anne Linehan noted earlier, Mayor White has announced changes to the controversial SAFEclear program that has been a hot topic on talk radio and blogs (especially this one) for over a week now.
The original, draconian program called for near-immediate towing of any disabled vehicle on Houston freeways regardless of the extent of the disablement for a non-negotiable fee of $75. Motorists without $75 would suffer vehicle seizure and accrue additional administrative and impound fees, in some cases for a simple flat tire. We later learned from advisor and Rice University Professor Bob Stein that towing companies actually anticipated seizure and reselling of vehicles as part of their incentive for bidding for SAFEclear permits, which he said netted the city $1 million in new revenues.
All along, Mayor White, traffic czar Saperstein, and Councilman Berry have contended that the SAFEclear program is absolutely necessary for reasons of public safety and to improve mobility. Conservative talk radio host Dan Patrick backed them on this contention.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/12/05 10:43 PM |
Digging a deeper $AFEclear hole
Mayor White has proposed "free" tows, in the $AFEclear program, for minor breakdowns such as when a car has a flat tire or runs out of gas. But (there's always a but), it won't really be free. The city will pay $50 for each of those tows out of city transportation funds, according to a report on KTRH.
A car will be towed up to one mile or to the nearest gas station on the city's dime. If the problem is a flat tire, the tow truck driver will change the tire. If the problem is the car is out of gas, the tow truck driver will take the car to the nearest gas station. (It would be faster and cheaper for the tow truck driver to carry gas and put some in the tank.)
The immediate question is how can the city all of a sudden afford this? Chris Baker is saying Metro funds will be used, but Metro is already in a financial pinch. If the city is now going to subsidize tows, why doesn't the city help fund an expanded Motorist Assistance Program, instead? That program is already established and doesn't have all the problems that plague $AFEclear.
The reality is that towing companies paid franchise fees for freeway rights and they expect to get a return on their investment. So, the mayor could not shelve $AFEclear; he had to find a way to calm down the anti-$AFEclear uproar AND not have the towing companies go ballistic, which is why towing companies had to approve any changes to the program.
Of course, this whole mess could have been avoided if $AFEclear had never been enacted.
Here's some information from the city of Houston and here's the Chronicle's story on the changes.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/12/05 05:07 PM |
A $AFEclear question
Something about $AFEclear has been gnawing at Rob Booth:
Back in 2003, a law went into effect that required drivers in Texas to move over one lane or slow down by 20 miles per hour when passing an emergency vehicle with its lights flashing on the shoulder. It was called the Move Over Act. There was an e-mail that made the rounds after Houston set up speed traps using this law as an excuse to write tickets.
Does anyone remember what the problem was that this law was designed to reduce?
According to officials at the time, people weren't slowing down when law enforcement officers were parked on the shoulder with their lights on.
[snip]
So now I'd like to know, which is it? Are we slowing down when we see cars by the side of the road or aren't we? Show me the studies.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/12/05 02:08 PM |
$AFEclear lives on
A KPRC-950 newsbreak just mentioned that Mayor White may propose that tows for people who cannot afford $75 should be subsidized by raising the towing fees for others drivers. Maybe the mayor reads blogHOUSTON.
And a Chronicle article has more from the mayor's traffic czar, David Saperstein, on possible program changes:
David Saperstein, the mayor's mobility chairman, said he's presented White with several options. One would establish a reduced charge for simply being towed off the freeway to the nearest parking lot for an insignificant repair.
Hardly anyone who has been towed under Safe Clear since a pilot project on the Katy Freeway began in March has voiced objections, he said.
"We handled two complaints from the Katy pilot," Saperstein said.
Any motorist short on funds should ask the wrecker driver to deliver the car to the nearest mechanic, Saperstein said, which likely will pay the wrecker and add the $75 to the repair bill.
Any changes to Safe Clear would have to be endorsed by the towing companies so the amendments could be added to their contracts.
Towing companies will now have a say in city policy! But, let's not forget, this is all in the name of safety.
UPDATE: All the local TV station websites have variations of the story about the mayor proposing some changes this afternoon. KHOU-11 has the most interestingly worded one:
That change will address one of the most widely-criticized aspects of the program -- what to do about drivers who can't afford the $75 tow fee.
Now those drivers, and anyone else who doesn't want to pay $75, will have a choice. They can be towed short distances free of charge, then be on their own to take care of the car's problem themselves.
Other drivers who don't mind paying the $75 can still have their car towed within 10 miles of the breakdown site.
That can't be right, because I imagine everyone would "mind" paying $75 for a tow.
I also like this quote from councilman Michael Berry in the KPRC-2 story:
"We are going to talk about dealing with people who can't pay, and we are going to be talking about providing a service so that all of society can move and be safe," Berry said.
Houtopia is right.
The mayor is expected to make his announcement at 1:30, so we should find out then how much more involved and asinine this program will become. I'm still rooting for Sen. Whitmire.
(See also KTRK-13)
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/12/05 08:53 AM |
Chronicle publishes more $AFEclear letters
Again, the Chronicle is running quite a few letters to the editor on the $AFEclear topic.
There is one from councilman Michael Berry who isn't happy that the Chronicle's editorial over the weekend characterized the mayor as one who creates public policy, in private, with his own advisors; and there's one from an HPD officer who says that we would all be safer if broken down cars were off the freeway (he doesn't say why a police car on the side of the freeway isn't just as big a safety hazard), and then he writes this at the end of his letter, "Wreckers [sic] drivers are just trying to make a decent living by doing what the city law has enabled them to do." I don't think that argument is going to sway public opinion. I am sorry the wrecker drivers are caught in the middle, but the city law is flat-out wrong.
The rest of the letters express opposition to the $AFEclear program, and three of them would like to see a program along the lines of MAP.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/12/05 07:56 AM |
11 January 2005
MAP: the common sense solution
The Chronicle has a great op-ed by Bob Lemer, chairman of Citizens for Public Accountability, where he advocates what blogHOUSTON has advocated -- the city should end this $AFEclear nonsense and contribute to an expanded Motorist Assistance Program:
Houston doesn't need Safe Clear, with its padding of the coffers of the city and favored tow truck operators.
All Houston needs is for the city government to join Harris County's Motorist Assistance Program, or MAP, as it should have done long ago.
MAP offers free assistance to motorists in Harris County from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday (except for Harris County holidays), on I-45 north and south, I-10 east and west, U.S. 290, Loop 610, and U.S. 59 north and south. If the city joined, other freeways could be added to the covered areas.
MAP's stated services, by specially trained deputy sheriffs, include:
• Assistance in changing a flat tire.
• Supplying fuel, water and air.
• Assistance with minor engine repairs.
• Jumpstarting vehicles with dead batteries.
• Providing traffic control at major and minor accidents.
• Removing stranded vehicles from the roadway by use of the push bumper or by summoning a tow truck.
• Providing use of mobile phones to notify relatives or employers, or to summon additional help.
• Providing courtesy transport of stranded motorists to a safe location.
• Rendering first aid and summoning medical assistance.Compare these free and citizen-friendly services to the expensive and heavy-handed Big-Brother-type Safe Clear alternative. The choice is crystal clear.
In answer to my inquiry, MAP advised me that it handled 2,486 requests for assistance last month and only 96 required a tow truck. Safe Clear's first month of operation has barely started, yet it already has had hundreds of vehicles towed, according to news reports.
Lemer points out some more facts -- that the fleet of MAP vehicles is provided, free of charge, by the Houston Auto Dealers Association (the group that initially started the program, before handing it over to Harris County), TxDOT provides MAP office space and pays for MAP's eight dispatchers, Metro funds the 18 sheriff deputies who work the MAP shifts and Cingular provides cellphones and free airtime to MAP vehicles.
Lemer also passes on the information that when Lee P. Brown was HPD chief, he declined to participate in MAP, and the city has continued to pass ever since.
Lemer writes that he carries the MAP phone number with him, on speed dial, as Kevin Whited suggested we all do. MAP's number is 713-225-5627.
One last point: on Chris Baker's program yesterday, a MAP driver called in and encouraged everyone to call MAP if they breakdown, for whatever reason. HPD and $AFEclear tow truck drivers cannot force MAP personnel to leave the scene; MAP takes priority over $AFEclear.
UPDATE: I need to clarify that last paragraph a bit. In the comments Kevin Whited points out that a MAP driver can help with the things listed in the Chronicle op-ed, but cannot call for a tow truck. If a tow is needed, $AFEclear takes over, fees and all.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/11/05 07:47 AM |
Mayor White on Pat Gray's show
Mayor White will be on the Pat Gray show (KPRC-950) this morning. From what Gray is saying, the Mayor should be on just after 7:30. Maybe he'll share some $AFEclear news with Gray's listeners, since Chris Baker mentioned yesterday that a $AFEclear announcement would be forthcoming today.
UPDATE: It's over and the mayor did not have an announcement. In fact, the mayor appeared to be digging in his heels repeating the same old talking points -- $AFEclear is awesome, naysayers don't know what they are talking about.
Citizens who are opposed to $AFEclear should continue to voice their displeasure, politely and respectfully of course, to officials and media outlets, and encourage state Sen. Whitmire in his quest to outlaw this program.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/11/05 07:08 AM |
10 January 2005
Good Samaritan aids woman who couldn't afford $AFEclear fees
The Chronicle passes on some good news: in the "Wrap-Ups" section, we are told that a Good Samaritan has paid all the fees on Yvonne Bess' car, so she can have it back. Yvonne Bess is the woman who was already changing her flat tire, and the tow truck driver, apparently working hard to give Houston the Unfriendliest City title next year, wouldn't help her or even let her finish. Nope, she was towed and she couldn't afford the tow. So her car went to the impound lot, and the bill starting going up. In fact, this story gives us an inside look at those impound fees (and it's not quite what the mayor has been telling us):
Under the Safe Clear program, which began Jan. 1, tows cost $75 for the first five miles and $1.50 for each additional mile. Storage is $48 for the first day and $15 for each additional day. Bess said she also was charged a $32 "notification fee."
Police Lt. Lori Bender said state law authorizes the fee to notify owners and lienholders by registered mail that cars are in storage.
Now, I have tried to pay careful attention; however, I don't remember the mayor or the traffic czar telling us that if a car was impounded, the first day was almost $50. And I don't remember that $32 "notification fee" mentioned, although a tow truck driver did mention the notification letter on Chris Baker's show last week, but he said it was $25. Is the city taking a cut on that letter, too?
Perhaps there is a good idea in here. Why don't all those $AFEclear supporters, who contend that this is the only way to improve safety and traffic flow, start a Good Samaritan fund for people don't have the funds to pay for a $AFEclear tow and impound? They can put their money where their elitist mouths are, and we wouldn't have the city crying poor-mouth, as it's busy fleecing drivers.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/10/05 08:40 AM |
Sen. Whitmire working on legislation to end $AFEclear
State Sen. John Whitmire has told KTRK-13 that he is preparing legislation that will bring an end to Houston's $AFEclear program:
When the state legislature begins its new session Tuesday State Senator John Whitmire will work to outlaw Houston's controversial new Safe Clear towing program.
Senator Whitmire is preparing legislation that would outlaw the tow program altogether. Whitmire says the six minute rule to remove vehicles is too stringent.
Whitmire would like to see a policy in place like the one used in Bellaire where drivers have up to four hours to remove their vehicles.
"I saw a young lady on the West Loop frantically trying to change her tire before a wrecker truck got there. She was safely off to the side, so that ought to be the test -- can you do it safely and timely like they do in other cities?" said Senator Whitmire.
Let's hope he is successful. If you would like to send Sen. Whitmire a note of encouragement and thanks, here's the link.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/10/05 07:16 AM |
09 January 2005
Mayor's $AFEclear spin machine starts to wobble
Mayor White and supporters of his flawed $AFEclear initiative are starting to have a little trouble with their talking points.
On the Chris Baker program a few days ago, the Mayor himself denied the program was about generating revenues, then asserted later that the new revenues would be used for additional traffic cops and equipment (what new revenues?).
In the press release (pdf file) announcing the program, the Mayor's office asserted that $AFEclear is "modeled" on a New York program.
Thanks to some solid research from Chronicle reporter Rad Sallee, we now know that the Mayor's office didn't get any mandatory tow provisions from New York's program:
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/09/05 11:07 PM |
HPD babysits mayor's $AFEclear mess
The $AFEclear fun continues as HPD was called to handle a dispute between two tow truck drivers:
When Jerry Martins' car stalled he was told Lozano's wrecker service would be there in 10 minutes.
"About three minutes, maybe even less, this T&T Motors showed up and they said I had to use them," Martin said.
Lozano's wrecker service isn't part of the new Safe Clear tow program. It's not allowed to tow on that stretch of roadway, but it did.
"Yes I towed it because the owner requested me to tow it," said Ruben Lozano, wrecker driver.
Lozano may have towed the car to a lot, but he had company. The Safe Clear wrecker driver followed him and called the law.
"We called the police and the police come out here and now the police is fixing to give this other wrecker driver a pocket full of tickets," said Gaines.
"The freeways are not owned by the City of Houston. That's a state freeway there," Lozano insisted.
Police listened, but then wrote Lozano a ticket for $750.
Just when you thought the fines were over -- "They're telling me I that I have to pay them $75. They're even now telling me I still have to pay the $75, even though they didn't pick the vehicle up," Martin said.
This seems like a wise use of HPD's limited resources.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/09/05 06:17 PM |
$AFEclear, con't.
Tow truck drivers think they are getting a bum rap, with the uproar over $AFEclear, as Houston-area citizens express their displeasure with the program:
Houston's simmering ambivalence toward wreckers boiled over last week as Mayor Bill White's Safe Clear effort to free highways of disabled vehicles rolled into high gear. Talk radio and computer chat rooms hummed with disdain for White's program, dismissing tow-truck drivers as "vultures" and warning out-of-town motorists to avoid Houston.
As wreckers hauled away about 100 vehicles daily, one chat room visitor suggested that motorists taunt tow-truck drivers by parking their cars en masse in highway breakdown lanes.
"As soon as (the driver) starts walking up to your car, take off as fast as you can," he wrote. "If enough people agree to do this all at once, it would be hilarious."
Yes, the internet is humming with this. It's a nice outlet for people who previously were limited in how they could express themselves. Not every caller can get on a talk radio show and not every letter to the editor gets published.
Toward the end of the Chronicle article, the city's traffic Czar is quoted:
David Saperstein, the mayor's mobility chairman, credited the Safe Clear ordinance with ending the "craziness" of numerous and unnecessary wreckers responding to highway accidents. Officers now specify how many tow trucks are needed; the trucks then are dispatched by the wrecker company serving that stretch of highway.
The ordinance also allows police to specify the number of wreckers needed for incidents on city streets, but with multiple towing companies in each of the city's five towing zones, it does not preclude competing wreckers racing to the scene to be first.
Roving wreckers contracted to travel designated routes are responsible for removing disabled vehicles from highways — the ordinance's most controversial aspect.
"The fact of this ordinance is that it's improving traffic," Saperstein said, noting that statistics should show that in about three months. "No one is telling that story."
When the mayor was on Chris Baker's show last week, he also mentioned that $AFEclear has solved the problem of too many wreckers rushing to the scene of an accident. But is this highly punitive, forced-towing program the ONLY way the tow truck problem could be solved? Really? The city can pass a bill where a private citizen's car can be forcibly taken from him, but the city can't do anything to better control the wrecker chaos on the highways? What do other Texas cities do?
Then, of course, Saperstein starts in on the talking points, the same talking points the mayor likes to use, whenever possible. I heard Mayor White use this particular talking point on Dan Patrick's show last Friday (and he used it in his interview with Chris Baker, too). It's the talking point that says this ordinance is improving traffic. The mayor told Patrick that all the traffic reporters in town were telling him that traffic was moving better because of $AFEclear's forced towing. Saperstein says that no one is talking about the improving traffic situation, but also says the city should have the statistics in about three months.
Well then, how can the improving traffic story be told if the statistics aren't yet available?
The other question is, where are the numbers from the nine months of the Katy Freeway experiment? Are there any? If the city won't release them, the question is why? Did the numbers not show any improvement? Or did no one think to do a study?
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/09/05 09:36 AM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]