This is being rolled out as a public safety play, instead of the two-pronged move that it really is.
First, each of these bond referendums included enabling taxation language, which I'm willing to bet you a six-pack of Dome F'auxm will be used as an attempted end-around of the voter-imposed, pillow-soft revenue cap that Turner (and others) has been aching to overturn since before he was elected.
When you've worked no job in your life that requires you to live within a budget, Turner is a life-long politician who has thrived on the patronage system, fiscal responsibility is a campaign buzz-word, and nothing more. Turner wants his increased tax revenues to build a legacy.
Second, Turner has some campaign promises to fulfill. He needs to pay off the police and municipal employee unions that he relied on so heavily to win the election for Mayor. Failure to do so might imperil his reelection hopes.
Big infusions of cash into the pension plans will allow those who have been putting off retirement to do so. Getting shiny new police cars will improve morale while ensuring votes in two years. That's the thinking behind this.
All politicians will talk a good game about how they're doing for the citizens and the worst of them will talk repeatedly about how they're "fighting" for the taxpayer, but what they're really doing is working to ensure they're in a place to get reelected, and that they can do some legacy assuring ribbon cuttings that will ultimately lead to having their names on plaques or things being named after them.
There's no doubt that Turner inherited a mess. From Mayors Brown, White and Parker he took over leadership of a city that had ignored public works in favor of TIRZ and trinkets, he was saddled with a pension system that was built on bad actuarial projections and unicorn farts (some of which he had a hand in due to his position in the State Legislature) and he was smacked in the face upon getting elected by that bastard Harvey.
Give Turner this much, through it all he has kept a laser-like focus on the well being and prosperity of his political patrons. That's both politics 101 in America today and the sign of a man who understands how American cities really work.
He's also lucky. Lucky because Houston's civic engagement rests somewhere below minimal. People understand that there is a city government at work but what they do is nebulous and, largely, unreported.
Yes the Houston Chronicle runs a glowing profile of some civil servant from time to time and even attempt investigative reporting, some of it can be quite good. But they bury it behind a pay wall that only around 10% of the populace cares enough to look behind.
In a low-turnout election as we just experienced the public sector can dominate. Even in high-turnout elections the scales are weighed so against the non-public sector that voting is more an exercise in insanity than it is an actual political act. Governments are bloated, they vote in blocs, and they frequently move mountains to ensure all of their employees get a chance to vote against the citizens, and for themselves. Psuedo government groups work hard to ensure that the message is one of spending and excess while the average taxpayer is currently working hard just to try and rebuild their homes.
You cannot beat the system, but the system will beat you.
My worry is not that Houston residents are going to find themselves overtaxed and cash-strapped, only the most poor will find themselves in that position, my concern is that this money, like so much before it, is going to be wasted on patronage and bike lanes, that real items that are needed to make a city run are going to be ignored.
Houston is very good about electing public officials who want to paint lanes of traffic green or spend hundreds of Millions on the Astrodome, not so good at electing people who want to sequence the traffic lights, fix the streets and sewer.
Right now Houston needs more of the latter and less of the former.
Guess which ones you're stuck with?
