08 January 2005
$AFEclear roundup
There is an abundance of $AFEClear-related items in the news and around the web. Here are some links:
HPD has released a list of $AFEclear frequently asked questions.
Here's the $AFEclear motorist bill of rights (which appears to be thin on motorist rights).
The Chronicle has an editorial opposing the $AFEclear program.
Friendswood lives up to its name!
The JazzHouston forum and the Houston MINI Motoring Society have discussion threads on $AFEclear.
JoeUser blog, Liberty's blog, Baboon Pirates (language warning), Darth Apathy, Uebelhart, and of course, Lone Star Times, all have posts and some have comments.
If you know of more forums or blogs discussing $AFEclear, please let us know, so we can add them.
UPDATE: Callie points us to this Galveston Daily News story about Friendswood's more flexible towing policy. I like this quote:
“We don’t have an active towing program,” said City Manager Ron Cox. “We work with the individuals and we are certainly are not going to indiscriminately tow cars away.”
Now I understand that Friendswood isn't the size of Houston, but it is a refreshing point of view, one that Houston appears to have lost, in spite of Mayor White's declaration that he wants a dynamic, customer-service oriented government.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/08/05 06:55 PM |
If it's good enough for Houston....
The Dallas Morning News reports that the $AFEclear program has caught the city's attention there:
"The Houston situation has spurred further interest and should make it easier to get things accomplished here," said Mike West, a retired traffic safety official with the Texas Department of Transportation, who also is participating in discussions about revising Dallas' wrecker ordinance by summer. "If they can do it, why can't we?"
Fortunately for Dallasites, their officials think a different system might be better for their city:
It isn't likely that the same program will catch on in Dallas, but city officials, Dallas police and representatives of other agencies already are talking about ways to improve response times.
Interesting. Many people and agencies seem to be working together to solve the problem of response time in Dallas.
Little did we realize having a world-class freeway monitoring system set Houston up for a program like $AFEclear:
Dallas also doesn't have the equipment to copy the Safe Clear program. Houston relies on a network of traffic cameras on all its highways to spot stalled vehicles or accidents. Officials watching traffic cameras are the ones who dispatch the wreckers and keep tabs on the six-minute window.
In Dallas, cameras cover only 35 percent of highways, Lt. Branton said.
Posted by Callie Markantonis @ 01/08/05 03:56 PM |
Mayor: it's voodoo and fraud (but he's not talking about $AFEclear)
Ken Rodgriguez, of the San Antonio Express-News has written a column about Houston's Fattest City designation. Kevin already covered the Men's Fitness "findings" perfectly, but there is one amusing part in Rodriguez's column that caught my eye:
White defended his city on NBC's "Today" program, called a news conference and blasted the magazine's methodology.
Honest. He really did that.
While residents were screaming about their cars being towed under a new clear-the-clogged-freeways program, White was charging the magazine with "voodoo" and "fraud."
With a "fat city" to defend and a new, highly unpopular forced towing program to sell, I would guess the mayor's a bit pooped after this week. As you might have figured out, we think the mayor should drop this $AFEclear nonsense and help fund an expanded MAP. If this really is all about safety, then that's the way to go.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/08/05 08:40 AM |
07 January 2005
Big rigs excluded from $AFEclear program
KHOU-11 is reporting a rather large loophole in the $AFEclear program: 18-wheelers. The state regulates towing of big trucks and buses and only heavy duty tow trucks can tow a heavy duty vehicle:
Apple Towing of Houston is one of five local companies with a state contract for towing those larger loads that are too big for the lightweights.
"You need a Class A vehicle to tow a Class A vehicle, basically. And the light duty vehicles are not capable. They're not equipped and they are not legal to tow something larger than itself," says Mike Scully, president of Apple Towing.
[snip]
City officials also say that disabled 18-wheelers and trucks make up a tiny percentage of the traffic congestion on the roadways. So for now, Safe Clear program will focus on smaller vehicles.
The $AFEclear program suffers from an unbelievable lack of common sense and basic planning. If it is so darn crucial to get every vehicle off freeway shoulders, then why doesn't that include the big trucks and buses, too?
Of course, the mayor says they are working to get heavy towing equipment included in the $AFEclear program. And I would guess an 18-wheeler can't meet the six minute, flat tire requirement, so that could mean some nice dollars flowing into the city coffers. I'll bet the mayor is hustling to fix that big loophole.
I wonder how big trucking companies are going to take to a forced-towing program? I would love to see a $AFEclear heavy duty tow truck driver try to tell a big rig driver that his livelihood will be towed -- no ifs, ands, or buts. Oh, and cough up $1,500.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/07/05 08:00 PM |
06 January 2005
Mayor rides in helicopter, declares $AFEclear a success
KPRC-13 has a story about the mayor's helicopter ride this morning and the mayor gives this report on $AFEclear:
"We didn't see a major problem out there today," said Mayor White. "We looked at the corridors which are the most congested corridors. A lot of what we have been doing appeared to be working well."
Well, hallelujah! Praise be to Mayor White -- he has fixed Houston's freeway congestion problem! Gosh, who knew that the main reason Houston roadways were so jammed up was because of cars on the side of the road? Many of us assumed it was due to the sheer volume of cars on the freeways, especially at rush hour.
Rob Booth has written a smart post that meshes nicely with the mayor's quote:
It is alleged that cars by the side of the freeway slow down traffic. How do we know that? I've heard people assert it as a truism, but actually all I've heard is people's recollections based on personal experience.
[snip]
Release the numbers from the Katy Freeway test and let us know how SAFEclear affected travel times, including methodology and data, please.
That being said, I'm smelling a bit of Big Nanny statism coming from some of the SAFEclear advocates.
[snip]
I'm a grown, free man living in a free country. I can decide for myself if I think it's safe to change my own tire by the side of the freeway. If someone would like to follow me around and tell me how to live my life, they're welcome to enjoy a piping hot cup of "mind yer own dang bidness." I'll also say that I'm glad when people like this said, "Gee, we shouldn't throw the King's tea in the harbour, somebody might get hurt," everyone else ignored them.
So, the bottom line for me is, if you're a public official, don't just tell me "studies show" that such and such will work. I won't believe you. Put the study online, let me see it.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/06/05 07:22 PM |
Dan Patrick interviewing Sen. Whitmire
Dan Patrick (KSEV-700) is interviewing state Sen. John Whitmire right now. Since Patrick is in favor of the $AFEclear program and Whitmire has expressed his concern and has called for a moratorium, this might be worthwhile.
UPDATE: Well, that was pointless. Patrick wasn't interested in any of Whitmire's concerns and said (as he has been saying for days now) that old klunkers that might break down should not be on the freeways. Nor their drivers who don't have a good supply of cash in their wallet. Whitmire tried to point out that other big cities use a program similar to Harris County's MAP program. Patrick wasn't interested in that idea. Patrick also tried to turn it into a property tax interview. I'm with Patrick on the property tax issue, but this interview wasn't the time or place for that.
Patrick said that for Whitmire it's all about money. But it appears that for Patrick it's all about money: he thinks that people who don't have money shouldn't be on the roads, and the city needs money and this provides a revenue stream, better known as a new tax.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/06/05 04:12 PM |
Assessing $AFEclear from on high
Apparently Mayor White and Chief Hurtt took a helicopter ride this morning to assess the $AFEclear forced-towing program. Wonder how helpful that was?
Maybe the mayor could use that helicopter for his daily commute and leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/06/05 12:00 PM |
$AFEclear: Mayor White's idea of customer-oriented government
Today's Chronicle has a perfect example of what is wrong with the $AFEclear program:
Bess said her car was towed after she had a blowout on Interstate 45 on her way to a doctor's appointment about noon Tuesday. Her friend, who was driving, pulled the car to the shoulder and was just preparing to change the tire, but a tow-truck driver arrived and told them he had to remove the car.
When Bess refused to have it towed, the wrecker driver called police. Two uniformed officers came and explained the new towing law to Bess. One drove her to her doctor's appointment in his squad car.
Now, her car is in storage and she can't afford to get it back. She and her mother, Norma Bess, 73, live together on a fixed income.
Under the Safe Clear program, which became effective Saturday, towing costs $75 for the first five miles and $1.50 for each additional mile. Storage, if applicable, is $48 for the first day, $15 for each additional day. About 500 tows were authorized by 3 p.m. Wednesday, according to Houston TranStar.
By Wednesday, Bess owed about $139. She doesn't know how she'll get enough money to get the car back and fears she and her mother will be forced to take the bus to the grocery store and their doctor's appointments.
"This is ridiculous, what they did," Norma Bess said.
Yes it is. Mayor White was on Chris Baker's show yesterday and if I had to hear him say one more time, "It's better than it was before" or "It costs less than it did before," I was going to scream. Mayor White, BEFORE $AFEclear someone didn't get towed and impounded for a FLAT TIRE. Someone didn't get towed as they got a gallon of gas. Mayor White said that before $AFEclear, when he was stuck in traffic backups, he became really annoyed as he realized it was because of some car sitting off to the side. Well, gee Mr. Mayor. So sorry someone's misfortune inconvenienced you. Those of us who drive cars need to expect to be inconvenienced by others who break down from time to time. We don't live in a perfect world, and if you want a perfect commute, Mr. Mayor, then live downtown and use light rail. Then pray light rail doesn't crash into something, or someone. And I find it very implausible that all Houston freeway congestion is caused by cars on the side of the road. I think it's more likely caused by numerous cars on the roads.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/06/05 07:37 AM |
05 January 2005
KPRC poll: White policies not helping mobility
A new KPRC-2 poll suggests that Houstonians are not buying Mayor White's claims about improving mobility in the city:
In an exclusive Local 2 Flashpoll, SurveyUSA asked approximately 500 Houstonians, "if they think the mayor's SAFEclear program, along with synchronized traffic lights, has helped Houston traffic?"
Eleven percent believed the situation has improved. Fifty-nine percent said it has gotten worse. Twenty-nine percent said it is the same as before and 1 percent of the people polled were not sure.
I could not find the details of the poll on KPRC's website, so that result should certainly be taken with a grain of salt. Still, politicians generally aren't happy when they're on the wrong side of 60%.
The poll reminds us of this bizarre paragraph from Kristen Mack's glowing Chronicle review (more on that fine piece of journalism at some later time) of Mayor White's first year:
Other moves already are having real or perceived effect. White's first initiative, which he announced during his inauguration speech, was to synchronize traffic signals at 1,500 intersections by the end of the year to ease congestion. Before some intersections were complete, people were noting a difference, and White acknowledged that just announcing it created a placebo effect. It was an easy and early win.
I wonder sometimes if Kristen Mack even reads the copy she churns out. Either the initiatives have had an effect, or they have not. There's no "placebo effect" to lights being out of sync. Either you're stuck in traffic because of the problem or not. You don't sit at a red light and imagine it's green because Mayor White says so!
The KPRC poll -- if it is to be believed -- suggests that many Houstonians aren't buying the mayor's rhetoric on mobility. Local television news, talk radio and message boards suggest the mayor has taken a big hit from the $AFEclear program, and deservedly so.
Incidentally, Mayor White asserted on the Baker show earlier that the revenues raised from the newly created $AFEclear wrecker oligopoly will be reinvested in traffic enforcement. He specifically mentioned motorcycle cops. We here at blogHOUSTON have been citing the need for more cops for some time now, but the Mayor and his Council have made no moves of which we're aware in that regard. Unfortunately, Baker did not press White on his curious assertion about boosting traffic cops or on the amount of money the $AFEclear program has raised, so those questions remain. Indeed, quite a few questions remain, as the mayor pretty much stuck to his talking points and platitudes.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/05/05 10:55 PM |
Sen. Whitmire wants $AFEclear moratorium
State Sen. John Whitmire has called for a moratorium on the $AFEclear forced-towing program:
State Senator John Whitmire stated that due to the failure of city officials to consider all the negative consequences of the new Safe Clear program, they should immediately declare a moratorium on the towing of vehicles that are not impeding traffic and can safely be repaired at the shoulder of the freeway within a reasonable time frame.
He states that the plan does not adequately consider the well-being of passengers, particularly children, stranded after their car has been towed.
"It is unacceptable to take entire families to a fire or police station," said Whitmire.
Families could be safe at home or work if the City of Houston had a fair program similar to Bellaire or Harris County which allow motorists more time to secure reasonable aid. The public should not be expected to get into a tow truck driven by an unknown person. Whitmire said that, as a matter of public safety, criminal background checks should be performed on tow truck drivers. "To lose your car to an expensive storage lot should not be allowed," said Whitmire.
Whitmire stated the intended purpose is fine. No one has a right to block the flow of traffic, but common sense dictates that a safe repair on the shoulder should be allowed.
UPDATE: KPRC-2 has a bit more from Sen. Whitmire:
State Sen. John Whitmire said if the city does not issue a moratorium on the ordinance, he is prepared to take action at the state capital.
He said he is most concerned about residents who cannot afford the mandatory towing fee or who are not given enough time to fix their broken vehicles.
"They are implementing this policy without the common sense approach of allowing people, if they can (in a) timely and safe fashion fix their automobile, go on to work or go to school -- they're not being allowed to," Whitmire said.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/05/05 05:04 PM |
Some thoughts on $AFEclear problems
Over at Lone Star Times, Owen Courreges has some thoughts on the problems with $AFEclear:
[...]there is a pernicious belief going around that Safe Clear will actually reduce congestion by limiting the number of wreckers that come to an accident. There are numerous problems with this reasoning. First, Safe Clear applies to situations where no towing is required, namely cases where a person merely has a flat tire. Secondly, having several tow trucks firmly in the shoulder has a minimal effect on traffic flow (and as far as I know, rubber-neckers need little excuse to gawk).
And thirdly, Safe Clear has actually increased the time it takes to tow a vehicle in many cases (to as much as 90 minutes) because the wrecker companies contracted to handle the tows can't always handle the volume of cars. This means that the cars stay out for longer, possibly offsetting even the modest gains that result from having fewer wreckers respond.
There is one more sticky point here as well, namely that there is no hard, statistical evidence that Safe Clear will reduce congestion. It's the same with light rail -- Bill White tells us that it increases traffic flow, yet he provides no data to back this up. Safe Clear has already been tested, so the data is out there. Why hasn't White offered proof that it works? The answer is: Because it doesn't.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/05/05 01:32 PM |
Mayor: drivers have no right to change a flat
The Chronicle has a story that includes state Sen. Whitmire's questions (noted in the post below) about the $AFEclear forced-towing program, and this from Mayor Bill White:
White also responded to complaints — voiced repeatedly on radio talk shows and in e-mails — that Safe Clear rules do not give motorists time to change a flat tire, instead forcing them to pay a $75 towing fee for a problem they could fix."Folks don't have the right to change tires on the freeway in the middle of rush hour," he said. "It's dangerous and it backs up traffic."
I didn't know that people don't have a right to change a flat tire on a freeway during rush hour. Learn something new everyday, I guess.
And then there's this observation from a dissatisfied towing customer:
"(The insurer) could have had someone out there within 20 minutes, but instead I waited for 90 minutes on a dangerously narrow side of the freeway," he said. "This sounds more and more like a sneaky legal way to make money to me."
Noooo. Surely not. This is all about safety.
UPDATE 1: In the forum, Kevin wonders, after reading Mayor White's quote, if the $AFEclear forced-towing program is only in effect during rush hour.
UPDATE 2: Mayor White is flying into action:
Mayor Bill White plans to ride along with a wrecker driver to get a firsthand look at his administration's new ordinance, Houston's SAFEclear program, which has been under fire since its inauguration.
[snip]
Despite the controversy, White is still defending the program.
"The new system will reduce congestion, will reduce deaths, get the vehicles out so that the traffic can move," White said.
We are still awaiting all those stats the city must have from the Katy Freeway experiment to show how this is going to reduce congestion, reduce deaths and get traffic moving.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/05/05 06:56 AM |
04 January 2005
Who could have predicted that drivers wouldn't like $AFEclear?
In what is a surprising development, Houston-area drivers are less than thrilled with the new $AFEclear towing program. Well, it's surprising to some supporters of forced-towing:
James Kahig knows the tow truck industry isn't always well respected. He didn't expect such a backlash from Houston's new towing ordinance. "It just blew up in our face," he said.
Every stop he makes along the freeway is a challenge.
The Goffneys knew nothing about the Safe Clear program until they broke down on the Southwest Freeway.
"I'm a little shocked at having to pay $75 when I pay an annual fee to AAA," said Carolene Goffney, stranded motorist.
Motorists aren't the only ones questioning the mayor's new plan.
"I think it may be time for the State of Texas to put a dose of common sense into the enforcement. There are questions I have that no one seems to be able to answer at the city level," said Senator John Whitmire.
And:
It's been in effect for four days now, but the city's new Safe Clear towing program remains the talk of the town. There's growing frustation over the program and changes are already in the works.
[snip]
"I do believe it's a good system," said council member Pam Holm. "I think there are some definite issues that frankly, I wish we would have worked a little bit harder up front rather than reacting."
City lawmakers say they expect some studies to be done in the coming months about how this program is performing.
Aha. Now that the burdensome program is in effect, city folks want to do some studies. Since the Katy Freeway program has been underway for nine months, we should already have "some studies," with answers even. And that quote from councilwoman Holm, about wishing they had worked harder "up front" as opposed to "reacting," is just priceless.
Almost makes you think this idea was dreamed up in some back room by a group of out-of-touch city bigs looking to clear their commute path.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/04/05 09:52 PM |
Awaiting $AFEclear's Katy Freeway statistics
Continuing with the $AFEclear program questions, here is what Councilman Michael Berry said recently:
Councilman Michael Berry, the chairman of the transportation committee, who helped White push the ordinance through in May, said motorists will notice an improvement in commute times.
"The public told us they did not want to be stranded on a freeway that became a parking lot because one car ran out of gas or blew a tire," Berry said. "What a difference this is going to make in the day-to-day lives of our residents."
Since the $AFEclear program has been underway in an experimental mode for nine months on the Katy Freeway, we are wondering if Berry has any statistical proof to back up the claim that this program will make a difference. Surely someone must have been keeping track of the Katy Freeway's improving numbers, so the public could see how $AFEclear will improve the lives of Houston-area residents.
Here is what Berry said in a Chronicle op-ed from November:
The pilot program for this quick-response, single-operator-on-the-scene concept debuted in March. By all accounts, the SafeClear Program on Katy Freeway has been a great success. I've ridden with tow drivers and police officers, interviewed them, and witnessed a positive response from drivers of disabled vehicles who appreciate the quick response to their vehicle becoming disabled. I've also seen the thumbs-up and thanks from drivers who proceed past the removed vehicles as mobility promptly resumes.
We would like to know by whose accounts the Katy program has been a great success? What is the backup for that claim? Is the backup just anecdotal evidence provided by $AFEclear cheerleaders/advocates? Why should we take Berry's word that Katy Freeway drivers think this program is a fabulous idea?
To the Chronicle's credit, it highlights an example of a tow that didn't go so smoothly yesterday, which required the intervention of the Traffic Czar, David Saperstein, to get straightened out. Is he going to be available every day? Is Berry going to be out touring the roadways looking to help? (Is Berry another elite country club conservative looking to make his commute easier?)
But most important of all, we eagerly await the hard statistical numbers that surely will be issued SOON, to show "what a difference this is going to make in the day-to-day lives of our residents." Because after nine months of Katy Freeway practice, those numbers should be available.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 01/04/05 09:33 AM |
SAFEclear, public safety, and revenue enhancement
Mayor White, Czar Saperstein, and Councilman Berry continue to insist that their new $AFEclear initiative is rooted in concerns of public safety, and not revenues for the city.
Interestingly, they ignore the fact that we have enjoyed several much more motorist-friendly programs designed to clear the freeways when there are problems.
There's the free program operated by the Harris Country Toll Road Authority on their roads.
There's Bellaire's motorist-friendly policy described in this story by Rad Sallee.
And there's the old Motorist Assistance Program operated by TXDOT, Metro and Harris County, which presumably is now barred by municipal ordinance from offering the level of assistance it once provided for free.
One can't help but wonder why this growing menace of a safety issue that was previously on nobody's radar couldn't have been addressed in a less intrusive manner by simply boosting these existing citizen-friendly programs. If the safety issue had really become as menacing as Mayor White, Czar Saperstein, and Councilman Berry contend, then certainly it's a public safety issue that at least is as deserving of public expenditure as Chief Hurtt's stun guns.
But that approach would have cost money, rather than creating a new wrecker oligopoly that would pay the city for the privilege. What a convenient arrangement -- aside from those pesky complaining motorists (otherwise known as taxpayers and voters) and the fact that the mayor's new wrecker oligopoly is not nearly as efficient as promised:
But Sugar Land mortgage broker Lee Farb and his son, Daniel, 7, spent an hour and 35 minutes on a narrow strip of dirt separating the roaring West Loop from its busy northbound frontage road near Memorial Park.
A tire, the "doughnut" spare, on Farb's Volvo blew at 10:05 a.m. "I just recently got a flat and hadn't changed it back yet," he acknowledged.
Farb has an American Automobile Association towing policy, but they told him that Safe Clear wreckers had priority on the freeway, which includes the dirt strip.
That segment of the loop is assigned to Allied Collision Center, but its trucks were handling other calls and could not respond immediately.
Two police cars and a sheriff's Motorists Assistance Program (MAP) truck showed up, along with a wrecker that is not part of the Safe Clear program. Its driver, Lazaro Martinez, said he offered to tow Farb for $125, but was refused.
At 10:40 a.m. the first Safe Clear wrecker arrived. After looking at the low-hanging air dam under Farb's front bumper, however, the driver decided he could not tow the car without damaging it.
That's when a frustrated Farb sought help from [Czar] Saperstein, who was riding the freeways to see how the program was working. He drove up after hearing about the problem on a police scanner.
What an unbelievable arrangement!
As in previous instances, when politicians say it's not about the money, it's almost always about the money. We're not particularly surprised that Mayor White is attempting to squeeze every dime he can out of the Houston citizenry without a formal tax increase, but it is disappointing to see former conservative councilman Michael Berry acting as the mayor's point man so frequently.
RELATED: Houston talkers focus on Mayor White's SAFEclear program
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/04/05 08:09 AM |
31 December 2004
The Prop. 2 tall tale that won't go away
In a Chronicle story by Ron Nissimov on the expansion progress at Bush Intercontinental and Hobby airports, there's a bit of misinformation toward the end. Here's the relevant part:
Airport expansion became a talking point for Mayor Bill White during the recent referendum on competing city revenue-cap proposals.
White said airport expansion, which typically occurs in spurts, would be difficult to achieve under the revenue-limitation proposal called Proposition 2, which he opposed.
White proposed an alternative revenue cap, Proposition 1, that would cap tax revenue but not limit annual growth in so-called "enterprise funds," including airport funds, that generate their income from user fees rather than general taxes.
What Nissimov is trying to write about, in a poorly worded way, is the little untruth the mayor told about Proposition 2 in October. The FAA sent the mayor a letter saying that airport revenue could not be used for property tax refunds. Mayor White took this letter and used it as an opportunity to do some Proposition 2-bashing.
The problem is that Proposition 2 would not have used airport revenue for property tax refunds, according to Paul Bettencourt, Harris County Tax Assessor. And this was discussed by Bettencourt and Frank Michel, Mayor White's communications person, back in October. (The link includes scans of the letters in question.) Michel agreed with Bettencourt that the FAA's letter was not based on the facts, but that didn't stop the mayor from repeating the false assertion and it hasn't stopped the media from spreading the misinformation, either.
But, then again, the Chronicle opposed Proposition 2.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 12/31/04 10:13 AM |
24 December 2004
Legislature takes aim at White/Hurtt traffic cameras
The Chronicle's Ron Nissimov reports that the White/Hurtt plan to boost municipal revenues via automated citation-dispensing red light traffic cameras may not outlast this session of the Texas legislature.
Democrats and Republicans alike seem determined to kill the practice:
State Rep. Gary Elkins of Houston, a Republican who led opposition to camera enforcement of red lights in the 2003 Legislature, already has filed a bill to kill the ordinance council passed this week. At least two Democratic lawmakers, Sylvester Turner and Garnet Coleman, also oppose it.
[snip]
Elkins said he is worried that vendors of camera systems, who are frequently paid a portion of ticket revenues, will manipulate the timing of traffic lights to issue more tickets and maximize profits.
Such accusations were leveled against vendors in California lawsuits that led to the dismissal of hundreds of tickets.
[snip]
The Democratic legislators voiced privacy concerns.
"There's been a proliferation of cameras to monitor people, particularly by cameras controlled by the government," Coleman said. "What (state) legislators make decisions on and what the city makes decisions on are totally different. We as state legislators look out for things like privacy rights."
Mayor White responds as follows:
"If the people in Austin don't want us to use technology, then we'd be happy if the state gave us more money to hire more officers," White said.
As we frequently point out here, HPD's manpower problems have been nowhere on Mayor White's list of priorities. It's not a matter of funding from the legislature. The Mayor and his Council have found ways to fund a big Taser purchase, and have found ways to boost municipal revenues by expanding meter coverage and hours downtown (they've also spent time on a new Central Park and an African American Museum). In other words, they've found ways to spend money on questionable priorities, and they've found (questionable) ways to raise new money.
Mayor White would like new revenues from traffic lights, yes. That's the priority here, under the rubric of the "threat" posed by red light runners. One doubts that Mayor White is going to convince the legislature the reason he and his council have thus far neglected to fund new HPD cadet classes has anything to do with red light cameras.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 12/24/04 09:16 PM |
21 December 2004
Council approves traffic cameras
Council today approved yet another of Mayor White's priorities, the generation of new revenues for the city via an automated red light/traffic camera system.
Interestingly, the KHOU-11 coverage indicates that road sensors will be deployed, meaning road construction and delays. That's a curious way to "get Houston moving," to borrow from the seemingly forgotten priorities enunciated in the Mayor's last election campaign.
So far, Mayor White has had few problems getting council to sign off on an agenda that has included Tasers, enriching downtown developers to create a new Central Park, enhancing municipal revenues with new downtown parking meters and expanded hours, reconfiguring the city's pension plan with some unusual arrangements regarding the city's convention center hotel, and enhancing municipal revenues via cameras at traffic lights. The only major initiative that Council has forced the Mayor to back down on was his proposed African American museum, which will almost certainly make another appearance down the road. Neither the Mayor nor his Council have, thus far, seemed interested in addressing HPD's ongoing manpower concerns.
COVERAGE: Ron Nissimov/Chronicle, KTRK-13, KHOU-11.
RELATED: Red-light running, from a Houston officer's view (Hans Marticiuc, Chronicle)
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 12/21/04 10:27 PM |
Mayor White's Planned Parenthood connection
One of today's Chronicle editorials addresses the way to improve health care in Houston and Harris County. Mayor White's health policy advisor is quoted, but we don't think the editors provided readers with the proper context about this particular advisor.
Houston Mayor Bill White's director of health policy, Elena Marks, likes the cautious approach the study group has taken to renovating countywide health care: "I think their idea of letting this council work through it is the right approach. It's not clear that you ought to immediately merge all of the services or never merge any of them."
Marks says she's excited by the thrust of the recommendations "to make some fundamental changes in the way we deliver the full continuum of services from the public health end all the way to the trauma end."
A Chronicle story on Saturday told us that Marks is a volunteer at Planned Parenthood, and it appears she is actually a bit more than just a volunteer -- she is (or was) board chair [sic] of Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc. It is unclear if she is currently board chair (a piece of furniture?) or if that was in the past.
Can you imagine the horror and outrage if someone who was a member of the Texas Right to Life committee was named Mayor White's director of health policy? The Chronicle editors would come unglued! Andrea Georgsson would demand endless editorials screaming about this obvious sign of encroaching theocracy!
Mayor White has apparently known Marks for awhile. This link to a Houston Planned Parenthood newsletter has an article and pictures from a 2001 Planned Parenthood "gala" (does anyone else find that offensive?), and Bill White and his wife were listed as party hosts. If you continue to the second page, you'll see a picture of Elena Marks at the "gala."
And how are things at our local Planned Parenthood these days? Well, the latest newsletter has a "20 Year Reflection" report from its CEO. One of the successes he points to is:
Abortion procedures: 2,882 vs. 6,876. This growth in clients is thanks to our Fannin and Bryan staff, our medical director and other staff physicians.
Thanks, indeed, to the staff: the number of dead babies has increased. Things are looking good at Planned Parenthood of Houston!
Trying to find some biographical information on Marks isn't easy. Her listing on the mayor's website is, uh, short:
Elena MARKS is Director of Health Policy.
Oh, okay. Any medical background? Who knows, but she does have a Juris Doctorate (a very smart person tells me that means she's a law school graduate, which is very important for a health policy advisor.). There is a mention of her in this article that says she is the city’s first health policy director and that it is a ($1 per year) volunteer position, and this 1995 Houston Press column lists her as Planned Parenthood's legal adviser, at that time.
Do you think Marks brings her pro-abortion stance to work with her? Or do you think she tries to be objective, looking at health issues from a pro-life position, also? I think we can guess.
And no wonder the Chronicle editors like Mayor White -- in this case, Planned Parenthood is the tie that binds.
UPDATE 1: A blogHOUSTON reader dug deeper and found the notation "MPH" next to Marks' name on the author information page of the anti-parental notification study. That stands for master of public health. Thank you for the heads up, blogHOUSTON reader. Now we need the mayor's office to note Marks' qualifications on the mayor's website. Houstonians have a right to know who is advising the mayor.
UPDATE 2: David Benzion, an upstanding gentleman doing his best to reign in the motley group over at Lone Star Times, looked at Marks' political donation history, and what he found is not surprising.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 12/21/04 09:39 AM |
17 December 2004
Mayor's press barrage criticized by federal prosecutors
The Chronicle's Kristen Mack reports that Mayor White is under fire from federal prosecutors in Ohio for releasing excessive information about an ongoing bribery investigation that has already nailed one Houston-area official:
The city of Houston has received a harsh letter from federal prosecutors in Ohio scolding Mayor Bill White for releasing subpoenas in a bribery case to the media after the prosecutors asked the city not to.
The prosecutors acknowledged that the release was legal, and a White spokesman said the mayor released the information in the interest of open government.
[snip]
The prosecutors' letter says the city was informed ahead of time, in writing, that the subpoenas were sensitive and that "public disclosure of these materials at this time would not be advisable."
The prosecutors said disclosing the information would "inform individuals under investigation ... unknown details regarding the focus of the investigation, the progress of the investigation and the sources of information obtained to date."
The mayor's office defended the release of information as reflective of White's belief in transparent government.
Former Mayor Bob Lanier weighed in, with a quote that is perhaps more revealing than intended:
"They have one set of needs in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Ohio and the mayor has another set of needs in leading the city of Houston," Lanier said.
The most Machiavellian mayor in Houston's recent history surely must be taken seriously on such topics, and we have no doubt this release of information was intended to satisfy the current Machiavellian mayor's political needs.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 12/17/04 10:34 PM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]