Chronicle edited Culberson's response, leaving out important facts
When the Chronicle ran a letter to the editor from Rep. John Culberson in Monday's paper, what we didn't know was that it was originally submitted as an op-ed, and some key parts were left on the editing-room floor.
If Metro had gotten its way, every other transit agency in the country would ask for 100% federal funding up front and our record deficits would skyrocket.
When we are talking about millions upon millions of taxpayer's dollars, it's not a good idea to be setting new funding precedents.
And here's the second sentence:
Although it was not reported in the Chronicle, I have put language into the transportation reauthorization bill making Metro eligible for federal funding once their application is approved by FTA.
That sentence is critical, because it makes the Chronicle's hyperventilating moot. Rep. Culberson DID look out for Metro's interests, and when Metro's application is approved, Metro will get federal funding -- funding that follows federal guidelines, thanks to Rep. Culberson.
It is stunning that the Chronicle edited that last sentence out. It changes the whole focus of the Chronicle's coverage!
The third sentence that was edited out was from the beginning of the op-ed:
As the only major daily newspaper in Houston, the Chronicle has a responsibility to print the facts so that voters can make informed decisions.
Dumb question: why do you suppose that wasn't included?
This is the second op-ed submission that blogHOUSTON is aware of (here is the first), that ended up being a pared down letter to the editor, with key facts left out. Both of these submissions were in response to what the writers felt were errors on the part of the Chronicle.
The Chronicle should be welcoming of alternate points of view in its Outlook section, especially if the alternate view is in response to Chronicle news reporting. At the very least, Rep. Culberson's fact-correcting column deserved to be a full, unedited op-ed, and it could have easily replaced this or this.
(I wonder if HISD superintendent Abe Saavedra will soon have a letter to the editor in the paper.)
Click "Read More" to see the full op-ed. I have bolded the sentences that did not appear in the Chronicle.
The Facts on Metro
As an elected representative, I have a responsibility to honor the will of the voters. As the only major daily newspaper in Houston, the Chronicle has a responsibility to print the facts so that voters can make informed decisions.
The recent coverage of Metro’s rail plan is a stunning example of the Chronicle’s failure to live up to that responsibility. The front page article on Sunday, February 13, “Proponents question whether 2 congressmen still oppose plan,” argued that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and I blocked a change in federal law for Metro, when a similar change was made for San Francisco. The Chronicle’s reporting of this incident reminds me of the old adage, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.” Here are the facts.
I learned about Metro’s request for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to pay for 100% of the next two light rail lines with federal money, with Metro paying 100% of the last two lines with local money, during a meeting with the Houston Chronicle’s Editorial Board last October.
I knew Metro’s proposal would not pass muster with the FTA since it did not meet legal requirements, so I tried to help Metro devise a better plan by sending them letters from the Chairmen of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee expressing their strong opposition to Metro’s funding scheme.
Metro appeared to follow our advice, amending their application to FTA to reflect a 50/50 split between federal and local funding for each of the next four lines. FTA Administrator Jennifer Dorn even sent a letter to Metro saying “I am very pleased with this [50/50] approach, as it is consistent with both the Administration’s and Congressional guidance on advancing proposed projects.”
Just before Thanksgiving last year, Congress finished its business for the year with a 1600-page omnibus spending bill. The omnibus was written by House and Senate Appropriations Committee staffers during round-the-clock negotiations between the two houses. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tom DeLay, and I had agreed to help Metro by supporting language that would allow them to bypass the redundant process of studying alternative routes for the rail lines (since they were clearly spelled out on the ballot). This language saves Metro $8-12 million of taxpayer money and months of time on unnecessary studies. When the final draft of the bill became available online, I saw that this language was included. The 100% federal funding proposal that Metro had agreed to abandon was also included in the bill, but it had been crossed out.
For the record, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison did not insert the 100% federal funding language into the bill, and Tom DeLay and I did not remove it from the bill. Actually, one of Metro’s lobbyists bypassed all of our elected officials and gave the language directly to a House Subcommittee staffer, who mistakenly put it in the bill instead of the language we had all agreed on. The Chronicle’s story makes for a better headline, but it doesn’t report the facts.
The Chronicle also highlighted language in the bill for San Francisco as identical to what Houston was requesting, but the comparison is apples-to-oranges. San Francisco asked for and received FTA approval for all of its light rail lines, even the line that was built entirely with local money. Metro has never asked for FTA approval for its Main Street line, and has not yet received FTA approval for its other lines. Metro is attempting to bypass FTA approval for its last two rail lines, meaning they could build lines that do not meet federal standards.
The language in the bill did not give San Francisco the same “flexible funding” Metro was requesting. It simply allowed San Francisco to apply some of the money they spent on their locally-funded, FTA-approved line towards the next line, but the federal share for the next line was still only 77% before the language was passed. Metro asked for 100% federal funding for the next two lines, which is well beyond the maximum 80% federal share spelled out in law.
San Francisco will use local money from a current project as the local match for a future project. Metro wants to use future projects as the local match for current projects, which has never been done, according to FTA. If Metro had gotten its way, every other transit agency in the country would ask for 100% federal funding up front and our record deficits would skyrocket.
Although it was not reported in the Chronicle, I have put language into the transportation reauthorization bill making Metro eligible for federal funding once their application is approved by FTA. I will continue doing my part to honor the will of the voters by working with Metro to help secure federal funding for rail after they gain FTA approval.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/23/05 11:31 AM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.