Houston Leadership Vacuum: Of Parklets and S'MORES!

(Note: I found this while looking at the Pinboard feed of PubliusTX)

So this is a real thing:

Houston's first official "parklet" is now resting outside 19th St mattress store. Swamplot.com

Picture courtesy of Newliving

Apparently, the Parker administration has lowered the bar for ribbon cuttings to include things resembling something hastily thrown together by a 3rd graders parents in an effort to earn a "C" grade for that gardening project due tomorrow the child neglected to tell them about.

What you're seeing in the picture above (from Swamplot via New Living, please go read their entire article) is apparently not a late-arriving April Fool's joke.  This is a thing in Houston and it's called a parklet.

Now, before going any further, I've been to Europe, Asia, and visited many cities across the US of A and I'm familiar with the concept of placing a barrier of plants between parked cars and sidewalks in front of bars/restaurants which allow for patio dining and, in many cases, they are a good idea. They are (usually) tastefully done in a stone planter and placed just on the edge of the curb.

What I've never seen in ANY city is something that looks like a make-shift dumpster or construction staging area for greenery given the land-mark treatment and the full rigmarole that's being afforded this eyesore. To suggest that this was "designed" is an insult to design, to suggest that it represents a gigantic leap forward in the aesthetics of Houston borderlines on the ridiculous. That Houston's lame-duck Mayor is going to have a celebration and ribbon-cutting ceremony for this is just more than a little bit sad.

On top of that, Mayor Parker's Chief Policy Officer/Director of Communications Janice Evans shares with us that S'mores are being provided at the site. This brings to mind several questions.  For one, given that it's now illegal under Annise Antoinnete's regime for charity organizations to feed the homeless unless they are operating out of a certified kitchen, has Mr. S'more been cleared by the Houston Department of Health to distribute said sticky-sweet food items? After all, we live in a world where the City now decides who can provide a chicken sandwich to the most needy among us, should not that same standard also apply to who can provide sweets to folks who live in refurbished bungalows?

I enjoy a good S'more just as much as the next person.  But I have to wonder if we're not on the verge of the great marshmallow controversy here judging by the picture. I mean, I don't seen any evidence that established food safety protocols are being followed. No gloves, no hair nets. No refrigeration.

Certainly I would have no problem partaking in one of the proffered sweets but shouldn't the City, given their penchant under Parker for sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, step in and do something about this?

Or is this just another case where city ordinances and bothersome things such as food safety rules are "for thee and not for me"?  Because this is something that Mayor Parker likes, that she's rolling this out as the first step in Houston's transformation into San Francisco, all the bothersome things that restrict the freedoms of the citizenry are heretofore waived and considered null and void, provided you put a shoddy box full of plants in front of your property.

Of course, there is another possibility regarding this "parklet".  Could it be that underneath there's a gaping pothole that Annise Antionnete has no designs on fixing? She could then tout this as something new under the Sun to burnish her green credentials for a future State-wide run.

Coming soon to the middle of a road near you: Parklets! A San Francisco treat!

We might want to make sure the S'mores makers invest in those day-glo traffic vests, especially if operating near the Danger Train.

Houston Leadership Vacuum: 20,000 criminal cases not investigated in 2013, revenue cap to be blamed.

The old adage in politics, attributed to Rahm Emanuel, is that you never let a serious crisis go to waste. Since first uttering these words in 2008, "Rahm's Rule" has become de facto guidance for Federal, State and Local politicians.

In Houston, we're witnessing preliminary usage of Rahm's Rule in relation to the recent HPD scandal.

20,000 Criminal Cases not Investigated in 2013 by HPD. James Pinkerton, Mike Morris. Houston Chronicle.com

This story is behind the Chron's pay wall so I'm going to quote sparingly with the usual caveat that you should go and read the entire article.

"We investigate everything we have the capacity to investigate,"[Mayor Annise] Parker said. "We need more police officers. The only way we can have more police officers is to have more tax revenue to pay for them."

According to the article, the report coming out now was originally requested by current City Council Member and former HPD Chief of Police from 1997-2004, C.O. Bradford shortly after taking office in 2010. This report only covered results of cases filed in 2013, but an additional Chronicle investigative series seems to suggest that the non-investigation of criminal activity is systemic in HPD and goes back several years. Of course, there was a review and some scalps were claimed but, for the most part, bucks have now been passed and a majority of the blame has been placed on "rogue" employees and out-of-date electronics.  Nowhere in these cases was it mentioned that the impending doom of the revenue cap was a culprit.

Until now.

Now we have converging crises and politicians with an understanding of Rahm's rule as well as a willingness to use it.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't provide the entire picture. If you take a look at the HPD Org Chart available on-line you find an extremely large amount of staff placed in what can be described as administrative positions, and very few departments out actually doing police work. In fact, HPD is organized more like a professional services company than a public safety entity. This is not to say that needs such as professional development are not important, but does it really have a need for four separate units and captains?

I'm not sure of the answer on that, maybe it does. The problem caused by sweeping everything under the "more revenue is needed" umbrella is that these questions are not being asked. What's missing from the org chart is the distribution of officers within the respective commands.  Even IF the argument for all of the units and captains can be made, is the department allocating resources effectively? Again, we don't know because the City is taking a page out of the playbook of the old Mrs. White* and choosing to just call for rolling out the catapult and hurling large amounts of money at an ill-defined problem.

Now the bad news. Unless Houston is really serious about taking a look at HPD operations, organization and spending, things are going to get worse not better.  Even IF voters agree to roll-back the originator-of-all-city-problems, hoped reviver of Chris Bell's political career, and example (In Bell and Parker's eyes) of voter stupidity that is the revenue cap the City Council and Mayor Parker have just placed a huge investigative load on the department in the form of the Grand Urinal Bargain of 2014 which led to the passage of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance.

You see, after the bargain, HPD will also be responsible for investigating claims of discrimination filed by members of the various groups now offered protection. If they can't handle their responsibility of handling the investigation of life, personal injury and property crimes how in the word are they going to handle investigations in the often he/she said vs. he/she** said world of discrimination claims?

Mayor Parker and Co. can roll out the biggest of catapults and hurl the largest amounts of money at the problem and there will be no success in closing the gap because Houston continues to dig a deeper hole.  How long before that hole starts swallowing up the poor and middle class, forcing them to move outside of the City?






























*Mrs. White: The name I gave the Houston Chronicle Editorial board back in 2006 because they always stood by their man.

**It's he/she not he-she. In other words, either or.  Not a transgendered slam for those of you looking for scalps for that.

Kayaking Houston's Bayous: Good idea, shoddy reasoning.

Today the New Mrs. White waxed poetic about the increasing trend of kayaking Houston's bayou system.

Our Bayous. Mrs. White, ChronBlog

 The time is right to start making full recreational use of our bayou system on a regular basis, not just once a year. The Bayou Greens Initiative connecting 150 miles of trails and new Buffalo Bayou Park along Allen Parkway are great steps in that direction. In addition, the long-awaited site referred to as the Sunset Coffee Shop Building at 1019 Commerce at Main will offer kayak and canoe rentals by the end of the year. Another rental facility for boats will be located on the banks of the soon to be constructed "Lost Lake," which is at Dunlavy and Allen Parkway east of the Beth Yeshurun Cemetery. The put-in point for canoes and kayaks at Woodway near the 610 loop is set to be finished in early summer.

I think it's a great thing that Houston (along with the county and several other private and quasi-governmental entities) has taken strides to improve the water quality and recreational potential for Buffalo Bayou.  Truly this is a positive sign for the residents of Houston who might enjoy paddling down a lazy bayou on a sunny Summer's day.

As is usual, Mrs. White's problem is trying to make this something it's not.  This gem was buried at the bottom of the editorial:

Lake Austin/Buffalo Bayou. Not exactly apples to apples, but we predict that the sight of canoes and kayaks on the bayou will become inceasingly [sic] more common. People enjoybing[sic] themselves on our waterways will be an economic boost for the area and good for tourism. Skeptics may believe there is a field-of-dreams quality about the bayou as a recreation center. But 180 years ago, a dream about the bayou became the city of Houston.

Ignoring the copy errors for a minute (which runs into another theme of how bad the copy editing is at ChronBlog) the idea that kayaking on Houston's bayou system provides a meaningful economic and tourism boost is wrong-headed.  As is the idea Houston is an "indoor city".

Let me explain.

If you want to see evidence of the outdoor nature of Houstonians one needs only to visit one of Harris County's many parks on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.  As I've mentioned before, I live on the NorthWest side of Harris County in the general vicinity of Bear Creek Park.  On the weekends, the park is packed with families either cooking out of playing games of soccer (organized or not), flying kites, using the jogging trails or a host of many other activities.  The same can be said for Memorial Park, Hermann Park, Disco Green, any of the multiple dog parks and other recreational areas with activities ranging from fitness circuits to disc golf.

Speaking of golf, have you ever tried to get a tee-time at Memorial Park on a Saturday?

The fact is many of Houston's residents take advantage of the great outdoors, even in the Summer when you don't need a grill to cook meat.  The problem, as Mrs. White and others see it, is that Harris County residents are not spending their time outside inside the Loop.  Outside of Disco Green, which I thought was a mistake at the time it was built but admit to being wrong about, downtown is better known for a good tunnel system, a train with a propensity of running down cars, bicyclists and pedestrians, but not outdoor recreation. Again, this doesn't mean that bayou kayaking is a bad idea, only that the image cast by the ruling class and their courtiers of Houston being a collection of sun-averse, mall shopping mole-persons is inaccurate at best, an outright lie at worst.

Yes, people in Houston shop at malls. So do people in Austin, Portland, Seattle and other cities that are considered outdoor meccas.  But people in Houston also shop in Rice Village, Town Centre and a host of other outdoor areas where you can find them walking around outside.  Have you been up to The Woodlands recently?  What the Bayou Initiative is, at it's heart, is a good amenity for people who live inside the Loop, especially in the Heights and in the burgeoning Near Northeast side. It's a great thing for residents of those areas that people who live here might drive down to (since Metro seems incapable of transporting them) during a weekend.

Where Mrs. White falls short is trying to tie this to the great white whale of tourism and the enigma that is economic development.  Houston has always been, and continues to be, a city where business gets done. It is not a tourist mecca, it is never going to be a top convention destination, although it does host conventions.  Houston is a place where people want to live because there are jobs and a relatively low cost of living.  Adding things like kayaking bayous will help increase the quality of living, but not tourism. I also highly doubt that the ability to paddle down a slow-moving estuary will be the kicker that determines whether or not people relocate here.  Economic development is driven by jobs and industry.

What worries me most when I read such ramblings is the history of Houston's leadership to listen to the unproductive class and take their eye off the ball. This proclivity has led to a crumbling infrastructure and a focus on trinkets designed to generate names on plaques which some feel build legacies.  Bayous and downtown parks are nice, as are bike trails. Modernizing and repairing the infrastructure, sequencing traffic lights, pollution control at a street level (Have you seen all of the litter strewn around Houston?) will do far more to improve Houston's reputation than a series of travel ads promoting our bayous to tourists.

That said, Mrs. White has always preferred the shiny over the practical, it's too bad there's little chance of this changing because a region that's as nice as Houston deserves better.

 

Houston's New Urbanists cry foul. Angry that New Urbanism is happening in the wrong places.

As a start, I like urban development and I think Houston should have more of it. I especially like urban development when coupled with a robust public transportation system that is structured in a way that a.) moves people from outside into the developed area and b.) makes it fairly simple to get around said area.

You see this type of infrastructure in many of the older European mega-cities. London has an extensive rail network that ends in beautiful train stations from which one can either hop on the Tube or a bus and get pretty much anywhere you want to go within the city center. Paris has a decent metro system, but shoddy bus mapping and a horrendous means of transport to/from the suburbs to the city center.  Because of this London has a relatively affluent suburban system and Paris is subject to periodical riots due to lack of opportunity etc.

In Houston, we're trending more toward the Parisian model of public transit and development, with one large twist.  The twist, as identified by Kevin Whited at BlogHouston (Note: a site where I contribute occasionally) is one of elitism, American style. In Houston, we want our New Urbanist dream but we want it under a specific set of conditions. Those conditions involve not disturbing the suburban-like development in certain key neighborhoods of a certain demographic lean. They don't involve building multi-family structures where single-family homes already exist in a very un-dense environment. The twist involves calling for more in-fill development where "those" people live so as not to disturb the idyllic environment envisioned by predominately wealthy white progressives who have decided their lifestyle choice is somehow morally superior to the rest of us.

This brings us neatly to the current outrage over a planned Olive Garden & Chili's near the Heights. It appears that these types of establishments, places where $9.99 all-you-can-eat pasta are commonplace, are not in line with the white-linen night aesthetic envisioned by the new moral minority. Hilariously, this is leading to questions as to whether or not the area is becoming "suburbanized" which is code-word for "appealing to the masses".  And as we all know the masses are not the type who would pay $35.00/lb for house-made salami.

The problem is not with Olive Garden, but with the people who would dine there. Just as the problem, for Metro, is not with busses to regions that need transportation but with who would be riding. By allowing this mentality to dominate our transportation discussions we're allowing a small group of people to effectively limit public transportation and development in Houston.

Is this really the transportation/redevelopment that we want?

It's the same story with historical preservation, where buildings originally designed to be temporary and aging unused relics draw much attention and needed funds from things that Houston really needs. Houston needs good roads, fixes to it's water system, updated infrastructure, sequenced traffic-lights and a host of other, basic, public goods and services. By catering to Richard Florida's creative class and handing over the key-decisions to the Inner-Loop set we're short-changing neighborhoods and communities in favor of playthings for the unproductive class.

These decisions were made at the ballot-box, based on campaigns that were mute on the issue or made promises of give-aways for all. Politicians and organizations who relied on the votes of certain communities wouldn't dream of telling them that they were going to do the exact opposite of what they promised.  The problem is, the voters never learned.  So we've been hammered with a Metro Board that now wants to reduce bus service to the areas that need it most, a City Council that passed a "rain tax" and is now clamoring for more funds to do the work the tax was earmarked for, a Mayor who has priorities so outside of her campaign speeches as to be almost unrecognizable and a Comptroller who does......well, nothing to be honest, unless it's campaign season.

Houston has let this carry on for a while now, content to be coddled and told stories while the city's infrastructure crumbles around them. We've been fed a diet of world classiness and new urbanism livability substituted for the nuts-and-bolts that actually improve quality of life.  Is there a way to reverse the flow?  I think probably no.  One thing is for sure, our former newspaper of record has no interest in telling the story. Neither do our TV news outlets or even our alt-weeklies.  What we're seeing is a city in decline.  I don't care which side of the political aisle you find yourself that should make you sad.

Unless you're of a New Urbanist lean however, then you're likely to be quite satisfied up to the point the redevelopment encroaches on your view.  Then you're furious.  And well funded, which means you win.

C'est la vie.

Houston's White Whale

It's a sad time in Houston as the city was omitted from consideration by USA Today as America's Best Convention City.

Despite amazing conventions, Houston misses out. Heather Alexander, Chron.com

Houston has missed out on a chance to be named best convention city in the U.S. in the results of USA Today's public vote.
The award for the reader's choice of best convention city in the nation considered convention facilities, recent modernization programs as well as what the city offers to visitors.
Both Dallas and San Antonio made the cut, but Houston missed out despite high quality convention centers and a fast growing infrastructure to support guests.

Beaten by Dallas and San Antonio, oh the horror.  As you can imagine this has those in Houston of a World Classiness bent wailing and gnashing their teeth. How Dare They! Seems to be a refrain followed closely by Something! Must be done.

I've no doubt this means there will be Blue Ribbon panels created to do Something! with a focus being on creating "amenities" that will convince the nice folks at USA Today that Houston is indeed as world classy as say.....Phoenix.

Certainly these august bodies will determine that Houston could aspire to the heights of Philadelphia and Indianapolis if only taxpayers would shell out a few measly Millions to build more downtown hotels, possibly a nice entertainment district downtown.  We're assuming this would be markedly different then the downtown entertainment district that popped up briefly during the Super Bowl and then faded away as most of the bars and entertainment centers became financially insolvent.  This time Houston, we're going to get it right.  THIS time, we have a few more miles of light rail and another world-classy hotel on the horizon.  THIS time we're a dining mecca dammit!

As is typically the case with these stories the rhetoric (specifically that found in the comments of this story) does not match reality.

Houston is hot! humid! and boring!  Of course, this is not entirely relevant in the grand scheme of things.  After all, Las Vegas is hot, Orlando is hot and humid and Atlanta is just as hot, humid and boring as Houston.  The Peach city has a lesser public transportation system as well.

What Houston does lack, in spades, are diversions, things to do when people aren't shoe-horned in a room, eating dry chicken and laughing uncomfortably at the jokes of a keynote speaker best known for either writing a book nobody can remember or being an expert at something no-one understands.

In Las Vegas, you can (most likely) be relieved of your children's college fund at the casinos or (if you're not thinking clearly) risk contracting an unreachable itch from one of the town's many escorts. In Orlando you can bring the family and spend their college fund on a mouse and his friends or Indiana Jones. In Seattle, you can get hit in the head by a flying salmon or see some really, really beautiful nature.

In Houston? Let's face it. NASA isn't the draw it once was and while there are hundreds of things to do, most of them involve hanging out at a bar or waiting in line for an hour or so to eat above-average food accompanied with below-average service.  Many of the things we say are "great fun" in Houston hold little attraction for the conventioneer. And no, the downtown Aquarium is not a draw to visitors, just stop it. Neither is Montrose for that matter or Washington Ave. Provided people could park on Washington (unlikely) in the end it's just a bunch of bars and designer jeans, making it indistinguishable from other bar districts.

Then we get to infrastructure, Houston's Achilles heel.  Our roads are a mess, our traffic makes several areas impassible due in part to poor light sequencing, constant road-works and a public transit system that is seemingly planned by someone with no concept of the need for people to get their butts in the seats on-time.  Trust me, it doesn't look good to your boss if you show up 30 minutes late to the opening break-out session, even IF you have in your back pocket the excuse that the Light Rail had stopped because it ran over a family of seven. Even if you decide to pass on Metro's daily crap game you still have the problem of renting a car, driving on streets that are so pitted they can homogenize milk, and arrive harried, tired and a little frustrated after being cut-off 75 times as you wait either to merge or make a right turn.

All of this comes back to a leadership vacuum.  Houston currently has a Mayor who has promised to "Try to do better" when it comes to pothole repair, but that's not saying much really. "Better" in this case could simply mean we're going to shoot for roads equal to Singapore, and not Rwanda. "Better" is a very low bar.  Also in question are the priorities of leadership, as illustrated in this post by Kevin Whited from BlogHouston. It's not that Houston doesn't have the money to fix the roads, it's that $2.6MM on a "downtown inspirational center" is deemed more of a priority than residents (and visitors) tires.  In today's silly political climate this could be spun as job-friendly policy, since the numerous tire repair shops/dealers in Houston cannot be unhappy with our moon-scape of a road-system.

Aside from all of the above, the cruel reality is that Houston, no matter how many Danger Trains, half-empty taxpayer-subsidized hotels, FoodBorg-ey restaurants or hip, new True Religion-filled bars they decide to build is ever going to finish better than 6th or 7th in any convention poll.  The entertainment deck is stacked against them.  Hell, even Oklahoma City and Tulsa have gambling facilities. St. Louis has Busch Gardens, Las Vegas their casinos and Orlando the Mouse.

At this point I'd place Houston slightly above Salt Lake City and that's only because the latter doesn't have alcohol. A necessity if you have to sit in a room and discuss techniques for creating an inclusive, eco-friendly office environment all day.

Why do Newspapers still pen endorsements?

It's endorsement season, that mystical time when newspaper editorial boards across the land feel an undying need to 'educate' voters on the pivotal issue of for whom they should cast their ballots.  The New Mrs. White goes crazy on this stuff, throwing out endorsements, many times for races where there is no real need.

For example: Do you really think that Republicans need to be told that Attorney General Greg Abbott is the best choice for Governor? Or Democrats that Wendy! Davis is their go-to Gal?

I don't think so.  Then there's the question of credibility.  In short, I see nothing that qualifies the members of the Editorial Board to tell voters anything regarding who they should vote for.  Also, judging from the comments on both of these endorsements, they're not moving the needle anyway.

In short, who gives a crap what a group of J-school grads and other Courtiers think?  Republican and Democratic primaries are best decided by the parties themselves. If this means that one party or the other picks a dog of a candidate, so be it.

This is another step in my long-running argument that the Editorial Board is a concept past it's time. A better result would be to shutter them and redeploy the resources in local reporting.

There are plenty of endorsing agencies that voters can go to if they're concerned about such things. They also can do things the old fashioned way: By doing a little research and picking the candidates for themselves.

The Sky is Falling! (Psst, and so is our paywall *Temporarily*)

Posted under the Orange Box News items: Weather Alerts! on the front page of Chron.com was this nugget:

Access HoustonChronicle.com/E-edition, for free. Chron.com


Apparently, the honchos over at ChronBlog have decided that opening up the pay-wall and allowing users to access their "premium content" while stuck at home during Houston's weather (non)-event will be good for sales. Ostensibly this is to allow the good citizens of Houston to keep up with breaking weather news and other stuff they might need while riding out 40 degree temperatures and moisture. And what do they get during this free preview?

News that a section of the downtown tunnels are closing during the Spring

News that the Affordable Care Act (You might know it better as ObamaCare) is creating hardships for Texas Schools.

News that the City is keeping potentially negative financial audit letters (from 2006, when Annise Parker was City Controller) hidden from the public.

News of road closures (that normally could be found, for free, elsewhere)

An AP (behind the paywall, really?) story that some states are considering a return to old-style executions

An AP story (see above) regarding NSA spying

A third AP story (unbelievable)on AA's $2 Billion dollar loss

And that's just the front page. What this means is that over half of the information ChronBlog has decided to "give away" over the next two days, on the front page, can be found elsewhere for free. Granted, you won't have access to the insight of Chron.columnists such as this and this, but you also get spared the tortured logic found here and here. As a matter of fact, keeping the Chron.columnists behind the pay-wall, and hidden from most of the public's view, might be the best advertisement FOR keeping the thing.

Unfortunately, the New Mrs. White has been released for all to see. In many cases, with some of its reporters, ChronBlog does a very good job covering local issues. In recent years, under the editorial vision of recently demoted columnist Kyrie "Memo" O'Connor, that reporting has fallen off in favor of Joey Guerra's infatuation with side boob, a host of useless, buggy pictorials, worthless lifestyle stories and the sometimes confusing rantings of Jeff Cohen's group of sub-par wunderkind columnists. Rumors are ChronBlog is going to renew its focus on local news stories, leaving the fluff to organizations such as CultureMap: Houston.

This seems like a good move but, we have to plead, please leave the columns behind the paywall, and consider moving The New Mrs. White there, for the sanity of us all.

Houston Bicycling: You can't fix a problem when no one accepts their part of the blame.

Three people died in hit-and-run accidents involving motor vehicles and bicycles over a 45-day span in Houston and that's got those of a sardine-urbanism persuasion up in arms. Because we now have a chronically-angry Houston group angry, we need evidence that we have a war on cycling and the Chronicle has been more than willing to oblige in their unique manner. "Some motorists" they say are waging a "war on cyclists" apparently running around looking for bicyclists to kill. If you take the Apple Dumpling Gang and Dug Begley at their word you could auction off a Houston Cyclists Hunting Permit for far more than the $350,000 that some sap just paid to hunt a Black Rhino.

Already we've had the Apple Dumpling Gang write a love letter to cyclists imploring motorists to "lose the hate" while calling for even the "grumpiest motorist" to be cheered by Critical Mass. I'm sure they're not including the person desperately trying to get to their shift-work job that might be held up by Critical Mass and their "harmless fun" or someone having a medical emergency. I'm sure those "grumpy drivers" might not want to stop and enjoy the parade. How many people might just not be on the roads joyriding on a Friday evening, but actually might be trying to get somewhere important? I see no consideration of those questions.

The Gang also chose to ignore reports of bicyclists hitting cars on the hood if they honked when delayed at a green light, or reports of bicyclists blatantly running red-lights and stopping cars from entering intersections during a green-light because "us taking over the roads for one evening is not too much to ask." Of course, the ideal (espoused by the bicycling community and the Gang) is not to "take over the road" but to "share the road" right? Not if you listen to the rhetoric coming from the bicyclist side of things. Nothing short of owning the road, being given right-of-way in every situation, will ever be enough, and even then they'll demand more. The missing component to a "fix" for Houston's cycling problem is suggesting that there's a problem with the cyclists to begin with.

In his (opinion) column today, Dug Begley, sort of, starts to say there is a problem with bicyclists but stops well short of fully defining it. He also, inadvertently, reveals another problem, specifically, the clueless attitude of Houston's political leadership on this issue. That Mayor Parker feels "inattentive and disabled drivers" to be the sole controlling issue here displays an astonishing amount of ignorance regarding Houston's current cycling culture. Because of this we're given lip-service regarding "complete streets" and a lack of enforcement for an unenforceable "3 foot passage law" which (I've read cyclists say) actually requires drivers provide 6 feet of space.

When you combine all of this Houston is stuck with political leadership that doesn't understand the problem, a media who has clearly chosen sides, a cycling community who is under no pressure to change their ways and Houston motorists who are more uncertain and angrier than ever. Does any of this translate into a "war on cycling"? Of course not, but we're not talking about fixing problems here as much as we are catering to approved special interests and trying to sell newspapers. I don't care which side of the issue you're on, the current state of debate, driven by ChronBlog and City Hall, is not going to solve the problem.

Before I go any further I should state that, despite appearances above, I am NOT anti-cyclist. As a matter of fact I can often be found, out in my suburban neighborhood, pedaling along on my Orient Express to the local store to pick up an item, or riding recreationally on bike-paths in the area. I enjoy riding my bike, especially on days such as we've had recently in Houston, Chamber of Commerce weather makes for a great bike ride. That said, solutions to this problem are going to mean both sides making concessions. To truly "fix" this problem it's going to take a change in dialogue and having both sides agree to some things that they're not going to like.


- First: There is no "war on cyclists". It's time to drop this media and advocacy-group driven drivel once and for all. Yes, tempers are rising in this debate but the reality is they're rising on both sides. Suggesting that motorists are looking high and low for cyclists to maul with their cars is silly. It's just as logical to say that the cyclists are trying to wage a "war on motorists" by restricting their rights to drive where they want without fear of constant harassment by the police and a gang of two-wheeled vigilantes. Ending this bit of childish drivel should be the prequel to fixing this mess. Unfortunately, ChronBlog has historically shown no proclivity, under the editorial helm of Jeff Cohen, to inject sanity in local debates so the suggestion is to just ignore them straight out.

- Second: There needs to be a push for driver education regarding sharing the roads with both pedestrians and bicyclists. In a city where even the Chief of Police ran over a pedestrian (Chief McClelland then received preferential treatment under the law for doing so) it's very clear that people need to be taught about what they're doing in their cars. Instead of calls for "banning cell phones" and "safe passage laws" which are unenforceable, Houston needs to educate its police force on proper enforcement of existing distracted driver laws. It would also be advisable to consider increasing enforcement of existing anti-road rage laws. Angry drivers are dangerous drivers and dangerous driving is illegal. As easy as it is to say: Common sense can go a long way to solving many of the problems.

- Third: Bicycles used for commuting purposes need to be licensed and ensured. Just as a motor vehicle is required to have a license plate, registration and insurance so should bicycles. Plus, if there IS an incident, individual identification is going to be a necessity should a bicyclist break the law. Cyclists should also be insured in the case they are found to be in the wrong and damage is caused. I don't believe that there needs to be a "bicycle driver's license" because existing Texas Driver's licenses should imply an understanding of traffic laws.* I also don’t think that recreational cycling, on bike paths, or children’s bicycles would be subject to the same criteria. On a secondary note, I don’t think underage children should be riding bikes on anything other than residential streets without being accompanies by a bicyclist of driving age who has a driver’s license.

- Fourth: Put an end to Critical Mass, at least in its current format. At this point it's doing more harm than good. Judging from my interactions with members and spokespersons for the group it's not about bicycle awareness but about sticking it to motorists. This not only poisons the well, but it does more harm than good. Moving a recreational ride to Houston's growing expanse of bike trails would alleviate much of the pressure. Yes, you have a right to the road, few are disputing that, and those who are disputing it are just wrong. Houston has spent Millions of dollars trying to provide cycling trails that are safe, expansive and beautiful. You advocated for them, now use them.

- Fifth: The City of Houston needs to work to identify "Prime Bicycling Corridors" and re-engineer them accordingly. While I'm not a fan of "complete streets" for all of Houston I do see windows of opportunity for certain corridors where bicycle and pedestrian traffic is found to be high enough to justify providing individual lanes. The problem, as is usual with Houston Government, is that we're now witnessing Ready! Fire! Aim! logic when it comes to trying to make cycling safer. Cycling corridors should link to the existing bike-trail system, to park systems and touch upon areas where cyclists are most likely to ride. All care and caution should be taken in this study to prevent encroaching on motor-vehicle mobility, because (for the foreseeable future) Houston will remain a car-based city.

- Sixth: Get rid of Mayor Brown's bike "lanes". In most cases they do more harm than good. It's time for Houston to get serious about creating real bike lanes within the areas that bicycle traffic is highest, and end the fallacy that some narrow, poorly maintained areas on the shoulder make Houston a bike-friendly town full of "world-classiness" and other none-such. It doesn't half do that, but it sure sounds good on the campaign trail.


For all of the hue & cry regarding the bicyclists in Houston and their rights to the roads, there are still a lot of false-truths that are allowed to persist because of the proclivities and political-leanings of the leadership and opinion-drives within the city. The idea that "we pay taxes too" is a canard that always dies hard. The "war on cyclists" meme is exciting, and lends a cloak-and-dagger bit of intrigue to the situation but doesn't solve it. Critical Mass running around town banging on car hoods and flipping drivers the bird accomplishes nothing, nor do motorists swerving in front of cyclists or not letting them pass out of spite. Geographically, Houston is huge, there should be enough room for use of transit of all types, provided the planning and execution is done correctly. Given Houston's terrible transit planning track-record however, I've little faith the leadership is going to get it right this time.

















*Yes, I understand that this would require a legislative solution at a State level.

Houston: An unevenly regulated mess whose elected leaders have forgotten basic services

On a recent business trip to Denver the rental car company messed up and assigned me a minivan with no GPS system to guide me around town. As a result of this mix-up, with an assist from some calm protestations, I wound up with a BMW 528i for the few days I was in town. By any measure, this is a great car. Easy to drive with tons of power and, for the most part, good on fuel economy I enjoyed the climate control, heated leather seats and comfortable ride when I had the traction control set in "comfort" mode.

It only took me a couple of minutes to figure out that "Sport" mode was not going to work. Not on Denver's roads. After a few miles of pot-holes I decided to make a change, so I turned the traction control system off. This didn't work either so I went with the Comfort setting and found myself easily navigating Denver's spotty freeway system. For a City like Denver, dodgy pothole repair is unfortunate but at least somewhat explainable. While I was there the temperature was in the 60's and the recent heavy snowfall was still piled up on the side of the road. Given that the next storm was fast approaching I wasn't surprised to find pothole work done as if the repairman poured in a bag of Quickrete and evened it out with the back of a garden rake before moving on.

The problem is that you don't just see this in Northern cities such as Denver, but in relatively mild-climate cities such as Houston as well. This is a problem because, if you're not lucky enough to drive a BMW 528i set to comfort on Houston streets you run the risk of self-homogenization. Seriously, you could churn butter on some Houston streets right in the back of your car. Then, when I come back to Houston I notice a group of news stories that (partially) explain the situation.

Over the last few days we've seen that a Houston jury granted residents near the Ashby High Rise $1.7MM in damages that haven't occurred yet apparently, a large portion of citizens think this is a good thing. I'm willing to bet (although I have no proof) that many of those in favor of such events are also proponents of re-making the near North side, and displacing those without sufficient incomes to put up a legal fight. On top of this, we find that our non-gay-rights-spokesperson Mayor is facing lawsuits over her very gay-rights-vanguard policy that appears to run counter to both the City Charter and existing State Law. We also find out that several anti-human trafficking groups have serious issues with the 16 strip club bribe settlement that allows them to resume lap-dancing and eliminates the 3 foot rule in favor of some handy cash payments to the Houston Police Department. This settlement brings an entire new meaning to "Pay to Play".

And still, Houston's roads look more similar to a picture of the moon than something indicative of a first world transportation system in a city that touts itself as a place "where business gets done". One thing that's not getting done are audits from the City Controller's office. Remember during the election when, then candidate, Ronald Green announced a flurry of audit findings after being questioned about not doing them? Of course then, as Candidate Green, he ASSURED you that the timing of those audits weren't political. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that we have gone back to not hearing a peep from him since he got re-elected as well. Given his prior history I think you can say there won't be much from Green's office until he decides to run for office again. It's an open secret that he wants to be the next Mayor, and I've a feeling he might win should he run.

Why is that you ask? Houston's current Mayor didn't really distinguish herself as a fiscal watchdog during her stint as Controller. Green is just taking a page out of the Up-the-Houston-Political-Ladder playbook.

Taken on their own, each of these examples reveal a stunning lack of focus among City of Houston elected officials in the area of basic services. Public Works is a travesty, the "rain tax" fund is collecting piles of money, but has yet to roll-out any projects, and for all of the magazine accolades about Houston a real, meaningful point is always overlooked: The infrastructure and regulatory environment in the city are getting worse, not better.

Normally, if things were falling apart, I'd turn to the media to fulfill their watchdog mission and report on these issues fully and in a forthcoming manner. In this case, we live in Houston and the former newspaper of record seems content to inundate us with odd anti-male rants, missives that things are grand despite several warning signs that may not be doing that fine after all and a continuing flood of sex and Side Boob! pictorials.

And we can't even blame snow fall and de-icing chemicals for our bad roads.

Quick Houston Aside: Perhaps the problem lies not with the masses, but with the mass transportation itself?

I found today's story by ChronBlog Transportation reporter Dug Begley (hidden behind the Chron's pay wall) to be interesting solely due to its wrong-headedness.


Study Finds Houston won't Curb its Driving Desires, Dug Begley, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

In keeping with fair use, a quick blurb:

Though transit, biking and other alternatives to driving have always been a tough sell in Houston, similar cities with harsh climates and sprawling urban footprints far outpaced Houston's slight decline in the percentage of people driving to work.

In short, the problem Houston, lies with you, and your infernal insistence on remaining anchored to your car, and continued insistence on electing folks who don't see things the way your intellectual betters feel you should. While I understand the argument that's being made and, at least in part, agree with it, there are other factors that need to be considered that I believe are even stronger drivers of Houston's car dependence.

The first of these, is HoustonMetro itself. Whether you're referring to "Old" Metro or "New" Metro the results are the same. In many cases the "New" Metro is even worse. To be blunt, the transit plan is a shambles. The agency is teetering on the verge of fiscal collapse there is increasing evidence that some of those currently in charge lack basic skills in budgeting and an understanding of transportation planning and the insistence on Inner-Loop, at-grade light rail has severely damaged the organization ability to provide basic transit service. Lest we forget, HoustonMetro is a regional organization. That they are a regional organization that's focusing 90% of their resources on approximately 40% of their covered region is something that's not widely discussed either in ChronBlog, by ChronBlog's Rah! Rah! transportation reporter, or many of the other local outlets who pretend to report the news.

The bus routing, something that would be key to promoting commutes by public transportation, is a sham, designed only to funnel bus riders downtown to force boardings onto the toy train to run a handful of blocks before getting on another bus that will take them back out to their destination. Don't believe me? Take a spin on Metro's trip planner and try to get from the Northwest side to either the Galleria or Greenway Plaza. The fact is, you cannot do this without going downtown, hopping on the DangerTrain before boarding another bus to be (eventually) dropped off at somewhere (sort of) near your final destination.

On top of that, with the new focus on ridership, Metro wants to make it harder, not easier, for those who need transit the most to make use of Metro's services. I've long stated, on previous blogs, that the true goal of the sardine urbanists, the unproductive class consisting of Houston Tomorrow and other groups of that ilk, really want to relocate the poor out of the city center and then devote the majority of transit resources to the so-called creative class. I've dubbed it the Paris model, where the city center is beautiful but the ring communities are full of mainly the poor who, through clever engineering, find it difficult to travel to the center and then can't find a place to park their cars when they get there. Sound familiar?

But let's be honest. Even IF Houston had a robust public transit system that served regional needs there'd still be a large portion of people who would not give up their cars. My guess is that would fall somewhere around 85-90% give or take. So from that point of view building out an expensive, working regional system doesn't make a lot of financial sense. It makes more sense then building a network designed to cater to 6% of the population however, which is what Metro is currently capturing. While it's easy for Metro advocates such as Houston Tomorrow, the Citizen's Transportation Coalition or ChronBlog to shake their heads and blame those mouth-breathers in the sticks, the real problem lies within their own ranks, with people who can't see the forest for the trees and lack the intellectual flexibility to understand that life in the suburbs is just as viable and sustainable as life in the City Center provided the busses and trains take people where they need to go. In Houston, those places are varied and not limited just inside Loop 610.

Until they fully understand this Houston's transit population will continue to stagnate, all of the finger pointing at politicians and those who don't choose to live life in a manner acceptable to the urbanists will actually make things worse. Who wants to get on a train with a humorless scold?

Why Government doesn't always work (St. Thomas Example)

Having spent the last week in "Paradise" (more on that in a future post) I'm now back firmly in the lower 48 and, after catching up on the falsehoods, broken promises and outright lies surrounding Obamacare, thought it would be nice to take a look at government dysfunction on a smaller scale.


On a cab ride from Charlotte Amalie to Red Hook our cab driver Java Johnson (no, I'm not making that up) took us along the back roads and gave us quite an interesting history tour of St. Thomas at no extra charge. One of the best stories he told us was about the locally famous Bridge to Nowhere.


It seems that, back in the 90's, the government of St. Thomas received a bunch of cash from the U.S. Federal Government for flood control projects. There was an area outside of Red Hook that had some flooding problems which experts determined could be solved by moving the existing road approximately 500 feet, to a point where it crossed a creek. This, of course, necessitated the building of a bridge, and the seizing (through eminent domain) of several private residences and businesses.

At a cost of $1.5 Million the bridge was completed in 1997. It is a fine bridge, made of concrete and steel it's not a pretty thing, but (without maintenance) it still looks to be operable in 2013, IF you could drive onto it with a car. And that's the problem, you can't. Because after the bridge was built the remaining phases of the program stalled. The eminent domain seizures took longer than anticipated, the environmentalists started griping about gas contamination should the road be moved (one of the seized properties was a gas station with underground tanks) and the recession hit which dried up government funding. In short, the road was never constructed to tie into the bridge.

Fast forward to today and the bridge has become a source of comedy for the local population. As Java said to us "Many people got rich off making this very fine bridge to nowhere, and that's government in St. Thomas." As we got out of the cab at Red Hook I thanked Java for the cab ride, gave him a tip for the history lesson, and told him that, unfortunately, what we saw with the Bridge to Nowhere was pretty much government everywhere today.


In Houston (in case you're wondering) we have our own expensive boondoggle that made several connected interests wealthy, it's called MetroRail and in his recent State of Metro speech Metro board Chairman Gilbert Garcia admitted "It really doesn't go anywhere", forwarding my theory that, despite its size, Houston government operates much like one in a small town.

At least they didn't spike themselves

That's the new upside for the Raiders, the new benchmark for NFL futility now that the Lions are off the schneid. Not surprisingly, ChronBlog cheerleaders are out in full force. Of course, they're wrong, their analysis is sloppy and superficial but....hey....It's ChronBlog (Which, oddly enough, has become the new benchmark for Media futility, especially in their sports coverage*)

Solomon's column (usually one of the more level-headed sports columns in Chron-Blog, if not always accurate) really contained the most errors, from Dunta Robinson being a player to the Texans being in a battle with Indy for first place...huh? About the only thing I agree with him on is that Matt Schaub is better than Tony Romo. However, winning that battle is like being told you've won the congeniality award at the Beauty pageant....great.

As has become the norm, it's time for grades. I'm sure mine will be a little bit different than McClain's.


Quarterback: B- - For one half, Schaub looked pretty good, then the second half came and the game turned into a sleep aid. Against a defense as terrible as the one the Raiders are fielding there's really no excuse.

Running Backs: D - Steve Slaton can't find a hole and the best part of the Texans running game was Ryan Moats. That tells you pretty much all you need to know.

Wide Receivers: C+ - No one could get open in the second half, Daniels dropped a ton of passes and no one seems to have any idea how to get Andre Johnson the ball on a consistent basis. In the first half they were great.

Offensive Line: D+ - Did a better job against the pass rush (which isn't saying much) but still got pushed around in the run game like they were playing patty cake with a defense that wanted to run them over. It's a recurring theme, but the second half offense was abysmal.

Defensive Line: B+ - For a team with one total sack coming into the game the appearance of Smith and Amobi was welcome news. Granted, they turned it up against the worst team in the league, but still.

Linebackers: A - The LB's were the Texans best, most consistent unit of the afternoon. Play after big play was made by Ryans, Cushing and Diles. Cushing's best game as a Texans by far.

Defensive Backs: F - I know, I know, you think I'm being too hard on them right? Well, go back and take a look at the game again, and watch all of the times a wide open Raider receiver either dropped the ball or was overthrown. Too many. Yes, they make some plays, forced fumbles etc. but often those are made after a completion that shouldn't have been made in the first place were the cornerbacks and safeties in good cover position. The reason the run defense was better was due to the LB's and not to this group.


Coaching: A- - I thought the coaches did a good job this week. It was an easy game to come out flat for. The defensive scheme was smart, gearing to stop the run, as was the offensive game plan, relying on the short pass in lieu of a running game. I'm never going to be a big Kubiak fan as far as game management and talent evaluation goes, but they did a good job this week.


Texans fans are giddy after beating a glorified Top 5 College team 29-6. Talk of playoffs and 'respect' are in the air. Despite their recent struggles, I expect the Arizona Cardinals to put an end to all of that silliness next week. He may be getting old, but Kurt Warner is a damn sight better than JaMarcus Russell, and Fitzgerald, Bouldin & Co. aren't going to make the drops that Murphy and Heyward-Bey were making on a consistent basis.

As you can tell by the grades, there are still gaping holes in the Texans that aren't going to be addressed until the talent is upgraded significantly.







*Who knew that John P. Lopez leaving would be considered a downgrade in quality?