28 September 2007
Some mobility concerns get Mayor White's attention
Mayor White has come out against a big high-rise condo project in the Rice University area, and he has promised legislation to deal with projects like this in the future.
Cory blogs about this at Lose an Eye, It's a Sport, with a focus on future zoning laws.
On the Chron's City Hall blog, Mike Snyder notes that Mayor White's concern primarily deals with traffic around the project:
White's letter gets straight to the point: "I believe that the proposed development of a 23-story mixed-use development with over 450 parking spaces, on the site of the Maryland Manor apartments, will impair mobility on Bissonnet, a two-lane street." He concludes with a promise to "use any appropriate power under law to alter the proposed project as currently planned."
So far, however, city officials have not identified any regulation violated by the project as proposed. Work is under way on a new traffic impact ordinance [PDF], but for now the city is powerless to require developers to alter their projects based on the findings of traffic impact studies.
It's a shame Mayor White isn't as concerned with the impaired traffic mobility that will wreak havoc on Richmond when Metro tears things up for light rail.
Or how about the concerns of MacGregor Place residents in getting the new Bus Rapid Transit line moved off MLK Blvd.?
MacGregor Place residents played the King card in their efforts to get Metro's planned Bus Rapid Transit line for the Southeast Corridor moved off Martin Luther King Boulevard.
A Sept. 7 letter, sent at their request by Martin Luther King III to Mayor Bill White, suggests that he use his influence to "maintain the positive character and integrity of this particular neighborhood."
While the letter does not flatly ask White to overturn Metro's route selection, it does say that correspondence from residents expresses "valid concerns" for "the wisdom of selecting another location."
[snip]
Metro spokeswoman Sandra Salazar said the MLK route was judged best in a Final Environmental Impact Statement and approved by the Metro board. It is also in the federal funding pipeline for construction to start in 2008, she said.
That's what will happen with the Richmond route, too.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/28/07 05:11 AM |
27 September 2007
Houston Press "Best Of" time
The Houston Press' annual "Best Of" issue is out, and lots of interesting choices have been made. Perhaps some could even be called...unexpected. Check it out, if you haven't already.
Thanks to Banjo Jones for the heads up.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/27/07 07:13 PM |
Wayne Dolcefino vs. Metro, part 2
As promised, KTRK-13's Wayne Dolcefino tells us how to ride Metro's transit offerings for free:
we've found a way you can ride the bus or the rail absolutely free anytime you want.
"Are you referring to METRO employees?" asked Smalley.
That's right. METRO employees ride free.
"Why should they ride free if we have to pay?" asked passenger Jackie Harris.
"How can we compete with the private sector? One of those ways is a transportation benefit," said Smalley.
The perk on the park and ride is worth up to $1,700 a year just for one employee. It's a perk that's costing Houston taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Unless you buy METRO's logic.
"It's an existing seat," he said. "It's an empty seat."
Don't forget, the City of Houston pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy its employees Metro passes. It's all taxpayer money, you know, so no biggie.
Then Dolcefino digs where local media rarely goes: Metro's generous compensation:
But do METRO officials need a free ride? Sixty-nine executives make more than $100,000 a year. Smalley makes $175,000. Dionne Smith spends $400 a year commuting on the bus.
"If I've got to pay, they should too," she said.
"Did anyone say at METRO, this isn't a good idea?" we asked Smalley.
"We think it's a good idea," he answered.
And now, we've learned it's not just employees. Their spouses' get free bus and rail, too -- 3,000 more people. But METRO won't show us the list.
But Dolcefino did get a list of Metro salaries, and it's here.
And then there's this hilarity:
You'd think free passage would be an incentive for METRO officials to use mass transit. The METRO Blog says yes.
"A blog is a good example of new technology we want to capitalize on," said Smalley.
Writing the blog is part of Mary Sitt's $76,000 a year job at METRO.
"Even if she was just blogging, that might in itself be worth the money," said Smalley. Sitt told readers in July she was riding back to work on the train when she ran into four METRO officials, including Vice President Todd Mason and the CEO Frank Wilson.
"I happened to have my camera in my purse and snapped some photos," the blog said.
What a lucky coincidence for Sitt.
"Was that some kind of staged PR stunt and if that's the question, no it wasn't," Smalley told us. "We don't play those kind of games, Wayne."
We asked because Sitt said the pictures were taken on June 18 at 1:18pm. We looked at METRO's Q Card records and there was no record Sitt was even on the train that day or Mason or Wilson.
METRO's explanation -- maybe they just didn't swipe their Q Card and got on the train without a ticket.
"Are there instances when I'm rushing to catch a train and don't swipe my card on the reader? I'm sure there are instances," said Smalley.
Try that explanation the next time a METRO cop asks for your ticket. Let us know how it works.
Yeah, what a coincidence. Here's the Metro blog post to which Dolcefino's referring.
But the indefatigable Dolcefino still wasn't done. He confronted Metro Chairman David Wolff about Metro officials' (lack of) public transit ridership. Go read, and then chuckle.
One last thing: Metro employees are not happy with this, and they're expressing their frustration with Dolcefino at his blog. The comments are quite a read, to say the least.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/27/07 06:22 AM |
26 September 2007
Metro: Frank Wilson's too busy to ride public transit
Last night on KTRK-13, Wayne Dolcefino took a look at what it cost to make those goofy videos on Metro's website:
Just how much of your money is METRO spending to convince you to ride the bus and rail you are already paying for? And is it the job of METRO to convince us in the first place?
"This is the METRO Report, your source for news and happenings with your host, Elliot Roberts," said the ad METRO is running on its website.
Who's Elliot Roberts? Let's go to METRO headquarters and find out.
"I'm looking for Elliot Roberts," we said when we went into METRO headquarters.
"Who's Elliot Roberts? We asked METRO's George Smalley.
"He's an actor," said Smalley.
He's an actor you paid to do an imitation of Steven Colbert. You can catch his show on Comedy Central.
[snip]
"We're trying to add a little levity, a little lightness to an education piece," said Smalley.
We showed the video to bus passengers next to METRO headquarters.
"You think it was funny?" we asked.
"It was stupid," said one person.
That cost $46,000, a mere drop in Metro's overflowing, taxpayer-funded bucket.
Next up, a movie trailer!
The movie trailer cost $68,961 of your money to make and took three days to scout a location to shoot the video, even though METRO has more than 25 park and ride lots.
"Odds are, there's one near you," the ad says. "Maybe even in your own back yard."
Add another $115,000 to run the video before movies in 13 theaters. You paid talent fees of $3,750 for the actors. Apparently, no one in METRO's $3 million a year marketing department could do it as part of their work day.
And then this:
One of the park and rides lots is down in Missouri City. There are plenty of empty spaces there. Its near Frank Wilson's house, METRO's chief executive officer, but he doesn't use it even though the 163 downtown express can drop him off just a couple of blocks from METRO's headquarters. And the other bus connects to the METRO Rail that runs right next to Wilson's office.
"He's busier than the average commuter," I said.
"Certainly there is a higher expectation on a CEO about how they spend their time and make most productive use of time," Smalley replied.
But METRO spends your money telling you how much work you can get done on mass transit
"With the study time I get on the bus, I got a 'C+' in history," said an actor in the spot. "METRO rocks dude!"
But of course, Wilson gets a $1,000 a month car allowance. So maybe gas prices don't hit his wallet the same as yours.
Metro's transit offerings aren't efficient enough for a busy CEO, and the average commuter's busy-ness isn't comparable to Frank Wilson's. He's just more important!
Another fine example of Metro's tone-deafness.
Perhaps Metro officials could spend less time and money trying to sell an inefficient product, and more time making their product work better...for busy commuters AND CEO's.
Tonight, Dolcefino promises to show us how to ride the bus and light rail for free!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/26/07 05:14 AM |
24 September 2007
The financial benefits of Houston's arts
According to a new study, Houston's vibrant arts scene contributes substantially to the local economy (via Houston Business Journal):
"The Business of the Arts: A Look into The Economic Impact of the Arts on the Houston Region" showed that in 2004, the nonprofit arts in Houston brought in $626.3 million, supported 14,115 full-time jobs and generated $69.5 million in local and state government revenue.
[snip]
The study also found that the 9.2 million people who said they attended
an arts and cultural event in 2004 was twice the number of people attending events related to Houston's three major league professional sports teams in 2005.The 1.6 million visitors to Houston who attended cultural events in 2004 spent $132 million in addition to the cost of their tickets, the survey found.
"Houston is not just a good places for the arts, it is one of the best," said Larry Faulkner, president of Houston Endowment Inc., a philanthropic institution founded in 1937 by Jesse and Mary Gibbs Jones.
"The arts are a powerful business asset and one we need to have for Houston to remain a leading city in the future and to keep its extraordinary economic vitality," he said.
Hear, hear!
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/24/07 07:45 PM |
Trending in the right direction
Homicides in Houston are down fourteen percent from last year (via the Chronicle):
Between Jan.1 and Sept. 17 last year, the city's homicide count was 290, Police Chief Harold Hurtt said.
In the same period this year, "we've had 248, for a reduction of 14.48 percent," Hurtt said last week. Houston recorded 248 homicides this year through Sept. 17, compared to 290 at this time last year.
Hurtt reviewed Houston crime statistics in a regular monthly press conference last week.
"Total violent crime in January through August 2007, versus 2006, is down 4.9 percent," Hurtt said.
This is very good news, for Houstonians as well as for Houston's hard-working police officers. Let's hope this trend keeps heading in the same direction.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/24/07 07:30 PM |
23 September 2007
Metro works for the "greater" good...all 0.9% of it
Last week I ran across this post on Reason's Out of Control blog which included a link to some interesting data: Houston's public transit market share in 2005 was 0.9%.
For some clarification, Tom Bazan explained exactly what that means: Out of all the "trips" made by Houstonians, whether by car, bus, rail, whatever, less than one percent was carried by public transit. Think of all the hundreds of millions of dollars Metro collects each year, and then think of what percentage of the population that serves.
Yesterday, Rad Sallee noted that Metro's board approved a new budget for 2008 that totals $875 million:
The sum includes an increase, to $354 million, for operations — a cost that had held steady for three years before going up 4 percent in 2007.
But the biggest difference from the current budget is a 65 percent increase in the general mobility payments that Metro makes to the city of Houston, Harris County and 14 member cities in its service area.
That annual obligation, which amounts to 25 percent of Metro's sales tax revenue as required by a 2003 referendum, is budgeted at $185 million in 2008.
Metro President and CEO Frank Wilson attributed the jump to the city of Houston undertaking more mobility projects and presenting more invoices from those projects for Metro to pay.
Tom Bazan has suspected for a while now that Metro wasn't meeting its general mobility obligation to the city of Houston and Harris County areas where Metro collects sales tax revenues. Does Metro have some making up to do? Sure seems like it!
But what's really amazing is that light rail proponents complain that the 25% set-aside is too much!
METRO’s CFO, Francis Britton, estimates that since the program’s inception, more than $1.3 billion has been reallocated. Houston could have built a LOT of high-quality urban transit with $1.3 billion.
Even though three-fourths of the sales tax Metro collects goes to public transit, that's still not enough. The CTC wants 100% of it to go toward transit that serves a teensy fraction of Houstonians.
Here's an interesting tidbit from Sallee's story:
But 2007 was a busy year too, with detailed engineering and property acquisition starting on four of the lines, purchases of 65 new buses, opening of three new Park & Ride lots, and testing of a new fare card system.
Hmmmm, wonder what kind of property acquisition has been going on?
And then a bit of number crunching:
To pay for all this, Metro forecasts sales tax revenue of at least $450 million, $113 million in federal grants and $256 million from short-term borrowing with commercial paper.
Fares are estimated to bring in about $53 million, which would be 6 percent of total spending and 15 percent of operating costs.
Metro will take $450 million from local taxpayers, and fares from actual transit riders will bring in $53 million. That's a plan only government can love!
Today's Chron carries an op-ed by Roy R. Reynolds who laments the fact that Metro just does whatever it wants, no matter how ill-conceived the project. He starts off with a great point that Kevin Whited also made last week:
Houston Mayor Bill White took to the skies a couple of weeks ago to scope out traffic problems created by at-grade rail crossings. As the mayor's helicopter swooped around the city, he saw for himself how "arrogant" rail operators seemed when blocking intersections and creating long queues of cars.
He could have saved the 45-minute helicopter ride and just walked a few blocks from City Hall to see the same problems created by Houston's own light-rail system.
Further in, he gets to the meat of the problem:
Alas resistance, as they say, is futile. Metro recently held public hearings that allowed opponents of the Richmond rail route to voice their dissent. But surely all those attending the meeting know any words of discord fell on deaf ears.
Seemingly nothing can be said that will convince Metro's leaders of anything other than the plan they're forcing on Houston. Those who live and operate businesses along Richmond are told to sacrifice for the "greater good."
Houstonians are inundated with projected ridership figures aimed at showing how useful a rail line cutting through an already-busy part of town would be.
But those dubious numbers, which must come from some bureaucrat's crystal ball, are designed to secure federal funds. That way, Metro can force a whole nation to pay for a rail system that will serve only a handful.
Never mind that the light rail can't get commuters from the suburbs to their jobs. Or that Houston's decentralized population and wide geographic reach vastly reduce the utility of a static mass transit structure.
Logic hasn't dissuaded Metro in the past. Nor have various political scandals. So don't expect the rights of property owners along Richmond — the same kind of people who created a city of opportunity — to make a difference.
One last note, Kevin sent me this amusing email yesterday:
We caught a bus from Athens airport to nearby port city of
Ruffina. Very nice bus, minimal number of stops, took hardly any time
at all, three euros for the fare. Not like Metro's airport express!
Well, that's what we get with a quasi-governmental agency that has practically no accountability. And those who are in a position to force change aren't interested.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/23/07 05:32 PM |
Houston billionaires give to local politicians
The ever-enterprising Matt Stiles took last week's list of Houston billionaires and gave it a local politics-angle:
Business reporter Purva Patel has a story today about the Houstonians who made Forbes magazine's annual list of the 400 richest Americans.
The list includes John Arnold, a 33-year-old former energy trader at Enron who now heads the energy-market hedge fund Centaurus Energy.
Arnold, the youngest billionaire noted by the magazine, is among several on the Forbes list who donated campaign money to city politicians.
The Houston billionaires and their spouses gave at least 44 donations, totaling more than $100,000, in the 2005 and 2007 election cycles, according to campaign finance records.
Mayor White, of course, received the most money, collecting at least 17 donations totaling $80,000, the data show.
I compiled a list of all the donations, and then the totals by elected official. Check out both files on Google Docs.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/23/07 09:20 AM |
22 September 2007
More supervisors listening in on police chases
Paige Hewitt writes in the Chronicle about HPD's adding some items to its chase policy.
Here is a post I did on my blog and in the Chronicle's blog pages about it:
I read today's article about HPD revising it's pursuit policies. In short, it sounds to me like it just adds more supervisors into the mix. Supervisors are supposed to be monitoring the radio regardless of what is happening on the streets. When a chase starts, supervisors are supposed to be listening. If he/she feels the chase is getting too risky then they already have the power to terminate the pursuit. Don't forget that the officer, who is involved in the chase, also has the discretion to terminate if necessary. Please allow me to present some basic facts and arguments concerning police chases that many in the media and public may not know (or simply may not care).
.
Too many people get hurt/killed in police chases.
.
-Well yes. One officer or innocent civilian injured or killed is one too many. Personally, I don't care about the crook who is running. If they hurt or kill themselves and nobody else, no big loss in my opinion. The sad reality is that unless we are given the technology that allows us to disable the engine at the start of the chase, the high number of criminals in Harris County will continue to run. Handcuffing the police is not the answer.
.
Forbidding chasing for traffic violations and minor non-violent crimes would save lives.
.
-No, it wouldn't. If that were the case, why would anyone bother stopping when being pulled over to begin with? That just gives more power to the criminals and it puts the public at their mercy. Would anyone dare suggest the police not show up at a hostage crises? After all, if the criminal is allowed to escape, he/she may not have to take hostages leaving innocent people at the mercy of the criminal.
.
Police could simply run license plates and find the driver later.
.
-Not necessarily. If the car is already stolen, what good is running the plate going to do? In many parts of town, usually where most of the chases occur, the person driving the car is not the registered owner. Especially with a high illegal immigrant population, someone obtains the car and sells it under the table to an illegal immigrant or an unlicensed driver without ever changing the title over. On top of that, finding the car later on doesn't mean finding the driver. It's hard to get a good look at someone's face when they are fleeing in a vehicle.
.
Why risk officer and public chasing someone who ran a red light?
.
-Most often the reason the person is fleeing isn't because they ran a red light. Usually they are trying to conceal something else. I can cite two good examples off the bat. I remember one night an officer tried to stop a car for speeding. The car took off and eventually crashed into a tree or a ditch and the occupants took off on foot. The driver was caught. It also turned out the owner of the car had just been kidnapped by those two. He was bound and gagged in the trunk. Had that officer not been allowed to chase what he originally thought was just a speeder, there would have been a homicide later on. One day I tried to stop a car and it took off. Turned out the two inside the car had just robbed a store and I interrupted their getaway. The passenger was caught that day and the driver turned himself in a month later. Now they are both in prison.
.
Is the death of an innocent citizen worth catching the bad guy?
.
-Of course not. However, no officer who gets involved in a car chase wants an innocent person to get hurt or killed. There is no way we can foresee tragic endings. If we could do that, then we would all play the powerball when the jackpot reaches $1 million. Unfortunately, these things do happen and will continue until these people are stopped from running altogether. Now before you mistakenly criticize me for being dismissive, let me point out something: Everyone who gets into their car everyday and drives to work takes a risk of being involved in a car accident. Drunk drivers cripple and injure far more innocent citizens than police chases. Do you argue for a return to prohibition? When you walk into a bank, or a convenience store, you take a risk of being present when the establishment is robbed. Again, more people are hurt or killed in robberies than in police chases.
.
The public is safe when a chase is terminated.
.
-This is patently false! I have never seen an instance where a pursuit was terminated that the criminal slowed down and obeyed the traffic laws. When the police stop chasing, the criminal will continue fleeing at high speeds. What would you say in an instance where the police terminated the pursuit for public safety, yet the criminal kept driving 80+ through a neighborhood and killed someone down the road? This has happened before and the police were criticized for terminating the pursuit to begin with!
.
In closing, car chases are one of the most dangerous tasks of law enforcement. We have to keep in mind our safety, the safety of the public, and try to figure out why the bad guy is running to start with. The Chronicle points out that there have been about 7 deaths in 900 vehicle pursuits (over what time span I'd like to know). However, I pointed out two instances where one life was spared from a kidnapping, and who knows how many lives were spared when we caught those two armed robbers. Think about it -- more lives are spared when these criminals are stopped and captured. I know that doesn't bring comfort to the families of people killed in chases. However, talk to the family of someone killed by a criminal that was allowed to escape and see if it's any easier.
Posted by Jason @ 09/22/07 11:08 AM |
Mayor White talks leadership...during the week he was lacking some
So, last week Mayor White admitted he lacked leadership by ignoring his instincts, and instead doing what Council wanted:
"One thing I've learned from this experience is to go with my instinct," said White, who originally wanted the contract put out to bid. He said he later decided to negotiate an extension at the request of council members.
Ironically, last week he gave a speech at Rice University detailing what's needed to be a leader:
Speaking as part of the International Leadership Competency Forum at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, White began by dispelling societal misconceptions about what it takes to be a leader.
“Pop culture often confuses leadership with celebrity or wealth, or where you stand in a hierarchy,” White said.
In fact, he said the qualities that make a person well known will not make them a leader. The most important qualities for leadership are not necessarily the most publicized and most appreciated ones, he said. Intelligence and academic proficiency, while valuable assets, are overrated leadership qualities, and trustworthiness and reliability are more important, White said.
“You’re much more likely to succeed as a leader if the people around you are rooting for you to succeed,” he said.
White said leadership styles are highly influenced by one’s parents and the leaders one observes. If people do not deliberately develop a leadership style, they will begin to copy what they see. He said he reads about his political heroes for guidance.
If Mayor White's instinct truly told him that the airport concessions contract should have gone out to bid, he should have followed it. By not doing so, he demonstrated a tremendous lack of leadership.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/22/07 09:07 AM |
21 September 2007
The danger train strikes again
Well, while Kevin and Anne [woops! That should be Kevin and Callie!] are off to the sunny Near East, I'm picking up the slack a bit by noting that the Danger Train has struck (a vehicle) again, just about an hour ago. Since the accident just happened, the details are pretty sketchy:
One of the train's passengers — a person in a wheelchair — was taken to St. Joseph's hospital by ambulance, they said. No other injuries were reported. All passengers of the train will be offloaded while Metro authorities consider whether to start a bus bridge along the route to bypass the accident scene.
Would it be too much to ask to build a train bridge to bypass the entire route? Evidently so, given Metro's expansion plans.
The cause of the accident is under investigation, officials said.
Hint: Elementary physics and stupid design are at fault. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time; therefore, putting trains and cars on the same street is a bad idea -- but only if the trains carry freight, apparently!
UPDATE: As Rorschach points out, the story seems to have changed. Most interesting alteration is that the first story mentions a wheelchair-bound person being taken to the hospital. The new story omits any mention of a wheelchair, and mentions only a "motorized scooter." Equally peculiar, we are informed that the scooter "broke in two" but we are given no information on her injuries, other than "they are considered not life-threatening." This seems to be an awfully mild - and vague - description for personal injuries, given that the scooter broke in two.
One still wonders how a person without a vehicle wrapped around them (meaning unrestricted vision) and, presumably, a red light, could miss something the size of a MetroRail train.
Posted by Ubu Roi @ 09/21/07 06:35 PM |
Is Tilman over-compensated?
According to the Houston Business Journal, one group thinks he is:
Proxy Governance Inc. said in its report issued Thursday that the compensation package of CEO Tilman Fertitta is more than 10 times that of the company's other five named executives in its proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Houston-based Landry's (NYSE: LNY) has nominated board members Michael Chadwick, Michael Richmond and former Galveston County Sheriff Joe Max Taylor to be elected to the compensation committee at the company's annual meeting on Sept. 27.
Though the Virginia independent proxy firm believes the board is generally covering its oversight role, it urges voters to withhold votes for those positions because Fertitta's pay package is out of line.
"We have concerns regarding (Fertitta's) compensation," the report states, "given the company's financial performance relative to peers."
Among the 18 peer-group companies included in the group's analysis are California Pizza Kitchen Inc., Isle of Capri Casinos Inc., Ruth Chris Steak House and Trump Entertainment Resorts.
[snip]
According to the report, Fertitta's average annual compensation package for the past three years was $7.1 million, including base salary, bonuses and stock compensation. That is 350 percent higher than the CEOs of the peer group companies.
Not surprisingly, a Landry's executive disagrees:
Steve Scheinthal, Landry's executive vice president and general counsel, said Thursday that the company disputes the methodology used in Proxy Governance peer group calculations.
"When we use comparisons to an appropriate peer group, Fertitta's compensation is well within the group," said Scheinthal. "We disagree with the mechanics of how they've done it."
"If (Fertitta) doesn't get a competitive salary then he won't be here. And he is Landry's."
It's hard to disagree with that last statement.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/21/07 08:04 AM |
20 September 2007
Mayor White: Council made me do it! Really!
After yesterday's Terminal C food contract passed by an 11-2 margin, Mayor White decided to play the victim:
"One thing I've learned from this experience is to go with my instinct," said White, who originally wanted the contract put out to bid. He said he later decided to negotiate an extension at the request of council members.
"From now we're going to put it out for RFP," White said. "And if some council member says it ought to be extended, we'll replay back this debate and be accused of not being transparent."
Right. Because as we all know, Houston has a weak-mayor form of government.
Let's not forget he used a variation of this we'll-do-better-next-time excuse after Council approved the sale of Bolsover to a private developer.
So ... since the Terminal C contract was last bid upon in 1990 and won't be up for bid again until 2016, that means a local government contract will not have been through the process that ensures taxpayers are getting the best value for their money for 26 years.
Imagine if the vendor's name was this.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/20/07 05:07 AM |
19 September 2007
Might the driver have been an "undocumented" person?
A wild driver recently slammed into Westbury Animal Clinic.
Here is the interesting description of the driver from the Chronicle's Betty L. Martin:
The driver, who spoke no English and apparently had neither a driver's license nor insurance, Cooper said, told police that her brakes stopped working moments before the accident.
"She said she had the choice to hit another car or our wall," Cooper said. "Thankfully, no one was hurt."
Apparently?
It seems like that might have been worth further investigation.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/19/07 09:57 PM |
Happy Birthday to us (and an announcement)
Anne Linehan reminded me a few days ago that the blog's third birthday was approaching.
Sure enough, our first posts here were on September 19, 2004. So, Happy Birthday to us!
We weren't quite sure how our city-specific, LA Examiner-like follow-up to the successful Chronically Biased project would fare, but we at least had in mind a web project that we thought would be fun and different.
It's definitely been fun! That it continues to generate interest among the city's pols, journalists, bloggers, and our wonderful commenters is even more gratifying. Whether you agree with our posts or not, we're pleased when Houstonians take more of an interest in our great city. That's sort of the point of it all.
That and having a drink with our net friends! We'll definitely be planning a birthday celebration in the near future.
But (now for the announcement part)... it will have to wait a couple of weeks. On Friday, Callie and I are off on a long-planned excursion to Greece (and Turkey, if I get my way) for a couple of weeks. We may check our email if we find suitable internet cafes, but we intend mostly to be unplugged. So, starting Friday, no posts from me until sometime in early October. Please play nice while I'm away (and keep an eye on those crafty pols). Opa! :)
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/19/07 08:14 PM |
If a developer can do it, why not homeowners?
Some Houston residents are tired of their street being used as a shortcut by other drivers, and they have an idea how to stop it (via KHOU-11):
"To us it's very unsafe to have a car going 50 miles an hour next to our horses when we're walking,” said Arango.
His horses do get spooked when a driver veers off busy Westheimer and uses a long, narrow street as a cut-through.
"They come right up to the horse they are blowing the horn and then they speed up to 60 (mph) said Arango. “ This is a real safety issue and that's what it is all about."
But it's more than horses. About 100 homeowners on East and West Rivercrest have long worried that speeding cars here pose a danger to their children.
"We see a hazard,” said attorney George Fleming, who lives on Rivercrest. Neighbors picked him to offer the city a deal.
"A sale of the street. We'd purchase the street,” said Fleming.
The City of Houston would pick the price and the residents would turn the roads private.
A few blocks away, Michael Levy worries if the city lets one wealthy neighborhood buy a public street and put up gates at either end, it could start a trend.
How is this different from the city selling streets to developers?
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 09/19/07 04:58 AM |
18 September 2007
Carey: Clarence Bradford kicks off DA campaign at the Aquarium
Fortunately, only one of them -- Clarence Bradford -- is returning to local politics.
As Carey reports, Bradford says there is a crime problem in the community (which must come as news to MayorWhiteChiefHurtt) and he is the man to tackle it.
We hope that in the upcoming campaign, reporters will force Clarence Bradford to address the HPD crime lab problems that developed under his tenure as HPD chief. The public (still) deserves answers about his (mis)management of the crime lab.
BLOGVERSATION: Off the Kuff, Greg's Opinion.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/18/07 09:58 PM |
17 September 2007
Mayor responds to airport concession criticism with press release
Last week, Councilmember Anne Clutterbuck put a tag on Mayor White's proposed sweetheart contract extension for the underperforming (but politically connected) concessionaire at Bush Intercontinental Airport's Terminal C.
Since then, Mayor White (who has trumpeted his administration's transparency) has come under fire in various quarters for refusing to open a bidding process to find a new vendor and upgrade Terminal C's inadequate concessions.
Today, Mayor White's press machine tried to counter some of the criticism. The Chronicle's Matt Stiles posts the press release he received from Patrick Trahan:
Food service at Terminal C provided by a contract inherited by my Administration is worse than at competing airports.
I have proposed to council that we negotiate an extension because our position with the vendor puts us in a unique position to leverage value for the city. Secondly, it is in the best interest of the city to move forward with this proposed agreement that would allow for expedited conversion of Terminal C, without a protracted battle over contracts.
The City of Houston's professional airport managers and I announced publicly last spring our intention to replace the current food contractor when the contract expires next summer, unless there were big changes in management and millions more invested in upgrades. Council Members were updated along the way and had input. The process was transparent. The contractor complied with tough demands. Aviation professionals tell us the City obtained the benefit of competition before the current inadequate contract expires.
Hard-nosed managers in the private and public sectors often tell vendors they must immediately offer better contract terms or face replacement later on. By removing contract extension as a tool for City negotiations, we would lose an effective tool for improving existing contracts.
This Administration does not mix contracts with politics and does not fear fights. I believe the public wants city officials to pay more attention to constituent service and improving public safety, traffic, and neighborhoods, rather than on fights between vendors.
Council spent almost a year debating the vendor for scheduled airport shuttle service, and for months much service was lost after a contract expired, without replacement.
That is a BIZARRE press release that is not convincing.
First, I don't think I would have concluded a press statement trumpeting the White Administration's transparency by... citing an earlier airport-related sweetheart deal that benefited one bigtime political contributor (Yellow Cab) and effectively put an existing airport shuttle operation out of business. That example isn't really consistent with the message (as the expensive political consultants might say).
Second, calling a non-transparent process transparent doesn't make it so. The Mayor may not like the criticism of this sweetheart extension, but he's getting criticism because he claims to govern transparently, yet has promulgated a sweetheart contract extension for an underperforming vendor who just happens to be politically connected. Even Mrs. White admitted that this doesn't pass the smell test.
Third, the whining in the first paragraph about inheriting this underperforming vendor from a previous administration is just odd, since the lengthy contract extension being proposed by Mayor White would only saddle future administration(s) with the underperforming vendor. Why is saddling the next mayor(s) with an underperforming vendor preferable to a competitive bid process?
Fourth, the notion that the public wants the Mayor and Council to avoid a protracted fight on this matter is curious. Surely Mayor White does not really mean to suggest that his administration is incapable of pulling off a basic function of government (structuring a bid for services and going through a fair process that secures the best deal for taxpayers). That is not a reassuring signal from a big-city mayor with aspirations for higher political office. It's hard to imagine such an admission (implicit or explicit) coming from Mayors Bloomberg or Daley.
Or even from Albuquerque's Mayor!
In fact, we've heard quite a bit about Houston's lax residency requirements of late. If Mayor White doesn't feel like he's capable of conducting a fair bid process for IAH Terminal C concessions and forging political consensus on Council for such a move, perhaps we could run Albuquerque's mayor in the next election?
ANNE ADDS: Here's the first paragraph of Carolyn Feibel's story in today's Chronicle:
Mayor Bill White called the food service at Bush Intercontinental Airport's Terminal C inferior to that of other airports and said the fastest way to improve it was to extend the contract of the company that dishes it out.
That's just insane. This is not how good government operates, and taxpayers should demand better. Also in Feibel's story, Councilwoman Anne Clutterbuck asks:
"I think it's a terrible precedent," Clutterbuck said. "The way it is now, it begs the question of why do we bid any contract? To what other contracts will this process be applied?"
Indeed, but maybe we already do have a precedent: Will all airport contracts be set aside for City Hall's political friends? We certainly seem to see a pattern.
And Councilwoman Clutterbuck's greater point is extremely important as related to government: What other city vendors will now come forward and demand the same preferential treatment Jason Yoo gets -- provide a lousy service, give plenty of political donations, and land a sweetheart deal?
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/17/07 09:44 PM |
That's our Sheila Jackson Lee
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee made an appearance for KPRC-2 at Key Middle School today.
The best part of this story, though, is that as she is touring the school, the Congresswoman actually stops, pulls her mask aside for a good camera shot, and proceeds to complain that people should be "out of here" until proper testing can be done. The video is available on the right side of the page here.
We wouldn't expect Sheila Jackson Lee to let allegedly hazardous airborne contaminants get in the way of a good camera shot!
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/17/07 08:29 PM |
16 September 2007
Mayor, federal official observe at-grade freight-rail congestion
The congestion caused by Houston's at-grade freight-rail lines made the news earlier this week.
Here's an excerpt from Rad Sallee's reporting for the Chronicle:
A federal transportation official, invited by Mayor Bill White to see how freight trains often block street traffic here, got a bird's-eye view of exactly that on a helicopter tour of the area Monday.
Toward the end of their 45-minute tour, the copter flew over a four-lane street by a rail switching yard near southeast Houston, where a Metro bus and several tractor-trailers were waiting at a crossing, blocked by a stopped train.
"They're so arrogant," White told Surface Transportation Board Chairman Charles "Chip" Nottingham. "That train does not have to be stopped over those tracks. The railroad does not give a darn."
It has always been surprising to me that so many important side streets in Houston are cut off by freight rail tracks, which are elevated or routed away from traffic in many major cities. It's good to see Mayor White trying to address the issue.
Then again, Mayor White's argument may be undercut somewhat by the fact that the area's regional transit organization (METRO) is proceeding full speed ahead with plans to lay many more miles of light rail down the middle of busy streets, thereby contributing to congestion. That's a problem that some critics of congestion caused by at-grade freight-rail prefer to ignore.
RELATED: Rail issues "a giant challenge" for Houston (Houston Business Journal), Mayor wants trains to stop blocking roads (Jeremy Desel, KHOU-11 News).
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/16/07 09:08 PM |
[Previous 20 Entries] [Next 20 Entries]