Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: In the end, the machine churns on.

Late last night, due to trailing by a margin of a few thousand votes, Bill King called Sylvester Turner and congratulated him on winning the election for Houston's Mayor.  Earlier in the evening, I'm sure Bill Frazer called Chris Brown to congratulate the latter on winning the race for Houston Controller.  With those two calls, Republican hopes for a resurgence in Houston municipal politics came to an end. To me, the result was a mild upset. Based on what I had seen, and inferred, in polling for the run-off seemed to indicate that King was slightly ahead.  Did the stormy weather hurt? Possibly, but I think it was all but over when the early results were released and Turner was leading there.

Kevin D. Williamson of the National Review Online recently wrote a piece about how it was Republicans who must save the cities. In Houston, and in every city in America larger than San Diego, governance has been practiced under progressive, new urbanist, rules for decades now. The result are urban areas rife with high-unemployment, poor schools, high crime rates and terrible financial problems. Last night the city basically declared itself insane as it elected politicians of the same stripe to fix a problem that they have created.

How did this happen?  Why are Republicans so feckless in municipal elections?  Just how big of a hill will they have to climb to regain relevance?  

For the most part, the municipal unions don't want to be saved. They are quite happy bleeding the city dry in order to preserve their pension system. There are a lot of them out there, and they don't care one iota about tax increases etc. because they understand that they are the beast that is being fed.

Right now, this is the most powerful voting bloc in Houston. They are organized, monolithic and never, skip an election, even giving themselves paid-time off to go vote on bonds, and political elections important to them.  Like it or not, this is going to be an impossible nut for the Republicans to crack. Even the threat of City bankruptcy isn't going to stop this group, or make them become civic minded. In most, not all, but most, cases their leadership views the everyday citizen as an enemy to be beaten.

Republicans don't "do" local. At least, not to the level they need to in order to win. You won't find many 'community organizers' with an R behind their name. And you won't hear a whole lot of local issues at Tea Party gatherings, or many R gatherings for that matter. You might hear an occasional local nugget in the run-up to the election, or occasionally a firebrand issue such as HER Ordinance will stir the natives but, for the most part, Tea Party and Republican meetings are a laundry list of rants against Washington D.C., Obama or whatever RINO (a useless political term these days) has done something stupid now.

Again, this is going to be a tough nut to crack. Local politics, uncovered by Fox News or the Blaze or other news outlets, is hard. The talking points on issues aren't laid out in front of voters by Hannity or Laura Ingram. And local politicians are typically not the sharpest tools in the shed. Because of this getting and keeping the attention of voters takes money, and a whole LOT of effort. Effort that is frequently going to be rewarded by defeats and a progressive machine that is going to ignore you, a media that is going to treat you like a 'no to everything' crank and citizens who are going to be apathetic at best.

Many inner-city voters have been ignored by the Republicans for so long they've given up on them. It's no accident that Sylvester Turner only won in 21 of Houston's Majority White precincts. Nor is it a surprise that King did poorly with the Black community.  Yes, there is the matter of candidate race, where King (Caucasian) and Turner (Black) were always going to do well among voters of the same race. Turner especially had the advantage of incumbency for those who reside in his State Congressional District (one of the poorest districts in Houston FWIW) and are used to pulling the lever for him.

The fact remains however that the monolithic Black vote kills Republicans in urban areas. Despite years of governing that has broken their communities and destroyed their family structure, for the most part Republican presence in these neighborhoods is nil. The best thing Republicans can do is outreach, sustained outreach within the communities that doesn't just center on elections. To do this Republicans are going to need to identify local leaders who are willing and able to do this hard work. Again, initially this is going to be a thankless job, with a future that includes many political losses, outright hostility in some cases and being treated as a crank by the local media. This person is going to need a quick wit, and thick skin.

The local media is firmly behind the machine. This is true in all cases, especially in Houston. And while it's easy to point a finger at the Houston Chronicle it's also wise to take a look at local television news.  For instance, ABC13 assigned to Sylvester Turner a reporter, Miya Shay, whose husband is a Democratic State Legislator and was actively campaigning for Turner. At no time did Shay disclose this conflict of interest, or bias, nor did they mention that it probably led to her being granted the first interview with Turner.

In the end, the media are courtesans just trying to be given an audience with those in the royal court. They're hangers-on who like the access to power and the feeling that what they are doing is "making a difference". Republicans have tried, to some degree, to counter this through the use of alternative media, but blogs have lost, Facebook is an echo chamber and Twitter is nothing more than a place to shout over one another in dumbed-down sound bytes.

In Houston, the local Republican party is a-shambles. There were party members publicly campaigning against Bill King, party leadership is a disaster right now, and Jared Woodfill, Dr. Stephen Hotze and other of their ilk won't go away. King and Frazer were the exceptions to local R candidates in Houston. City of Houston Republicans have a shallower bench than Texas Democrats at the Statewide level.  And if you haven't been paying attention, that's pretty shallow.

Even when Houston Republicans get united behind an issue, which is very seldom, there's typically no one to lead them to victory. Paul Simpson seems to be an earnest man but his leadership on local issues seems distracted, at best. Amazingly the chair for the local government committee is VACANT and has been during the entire run-up to this election. During a time when Houston was in the process of determining who it's new government would be, this is inexcusable.

Already I've seen tweets and writings by local Republicans congratulating themselves on "coming close" or "almost getting there". These are inevitably followed by exclamations that "we'll get 'em next time."

The problem is, unless Republicans get to work now on local issues, they won't. And it's going to take a LOT of work to get there. Mr. Williamson is correct in his assessment that it is going to take Republicans to save the cities. The one thing he has neglected to mention, is  that they seem to have no idea how to get started, and little motivation to do so.

Until they find their path the Houston Area Leadership Vacuum will continue to expand.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: Bicyclist Bob produces a poll.

"The Mayor's Race is in a DEAD HEAT!!!!" was the thing that KHOU was exclaiming. In all of his 36 years of polling Bicyclist Bob has NEVER seen a dead heat such as this one.  Such was the reporting from KHOU on their recently ran poll:

Dead Heat in the Mayor's race: New Poll shows Turner, King, tied. Doug Miller, KHOU.com

The survey shows both candidates supported by 38 percent of surveyed voters, with roughly one-quarter of voters still uncommitted. About 13 percent told pollsters they didn’t know how they would vote, while another 11 percent refused to answer the question

So, it's razor thin then, going down to the wire and we're likely to have a scenario where YOUR VOTE COUNTS. Especially, as 'they' are prone to say, in a run-off election where it COUNTS EVEN MORE!!! MORE do you hear?!?!

OK, enough with that. A couple of key points here:

1. Recent polling by Stein has been off.  And by off, I mean not even really close. He had King polling at 3% prior to the general election and had Parker's Folly winning by a comfortable margin. For whatever reason his polls are developing a blind spot toward conservative voters.

2. Part of the reason for that, I think, is that Stein is under-sampling Republicans. In this vote his partisan breakdown (shown on the KHOU report) is 35% Democrat (low-ish) 15% Republican (very low) and 57% Independent. (way, way too high). Now, granted, it's become fashionable for Republicans to say they are not Republican these days and there is a large grouping of people who say they're independent voters despite never having cast a vote for that "other" party in decades.  So, for the high independent numbers, I give Stein a pass. But the Republican percentage certainly seems low, almost by half.

These two things, combined with what we know about the race from other polls, suggests that King certainly COULD be in the lead and, at the least, he's in a foot race with Turner until the end.

All of this means that I'm in agreement with Evan. If Bill King loses this, it will be a surprise.

That doesn't mean he's a shoe-in (no one ever is, and the Democrats could produce a huge turnout on Saturday) but it means he's in the lead based on the data that I've seen.

Fortunately, this will all be over after Saturday.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: Parker endorses, Polls are (supposedly) out.

As we slowly churn forward to December 12th a few items of note took place yesterday:

1. Outgoing Mayor Annise Parker gave her endorsement:

Parker cites Turner's Budget Experience in Endorsement. Rebecca Elliot, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

While suggesting that Turner's ancillary work on the Texas budget while a member of the State Legislature is somehow applicable to operating as the Chief Executive of Houston is a stretch, it was never a surprise, to those paying attention, which way Parker was going to lean.  With a lot of her campaign staff working for Turner and her Twitter account all but announcing it already this announcement doesn't feel like a needle mover because everyone pretty much knew where her allegiances lied.

There were rumors that Parker was hoping to push Turner on some issues before she gave her endorsement but it appears that it was getting too late in the game for her to hope to get anything out of Turner lest her endorsement be considered 11th hour.  The timing of this is interesting because of the following....

2. Apparently, there are polls showing King with a small lead.

I have not been able to find any media coverage on these polls. However, one is supposed to have been released by The Houston Realty Business Coalition which had King in the lead 48% to Turner's 43% with 9% undecided.  Apparently the poll was of 300 Houston voters but the communique from the King campaign didn't offer any other details that might be helpful. The organization has endorsed King already for Mayor.

Given the accuracy of municipal election polling leading up to the general vote I would take all of these polling numbers with a big grain of salt. Regardless of what the numbers say the victory in this race is going to be had by the candidate who does the best job on turnout.

However, polls showing King in the lead provide some clarity as to why the Turner campaign has turned so negative. As Evan from Perry vs. World points out here: Turner's voting trends are negative with him picking up less and less voters every time he runs. This is happening despite Houston growing like a weed.

I've said before that I think King is a favorite and I see no reason to change that stance now. Turner could motivate his base, but he's running out of time to do it and the attacks that he is making don't appear to be having any effect on the voters at all.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: This is an endorsement?

What happens when the candidate endorsed in the general election has turned negative leading up to the run-off, and you've got an established track-record of shedding crocodile tears over negative campaigning?

You hold your nose.

Turner for Mayor. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
(In keeping with the Chronicle's desire for their editorials to be lightly read I'll only lightly quote here and encourage you, if possible, to go and read the entire thing)

We thought that there wasn't such a thing as a Democratic or Republican pothole, but Sylvester Turner has proved us wrong. In a race that's supposed to be about the issues - pensions, public safety and, yes, potholes - Turner has gone full negative. His campaign is spending enormous amounts of money to hammer his opponent Bill King on matters that range from small to minute. Policies have been misrepresented. History has been distorted. A boat's name has become a topic of speculation.

But still, the Chronicle raises the Turner banner, and provides a key insight as to why further down the way....

We've also yet to see a solid proposal that sets Houston on a fiscally sustainable path without raising the revenue cap, which restricts property tax collection combined rates of inflation and population growth. Moody's Investors Service specifically pointed to the trifecta of rising pension obligations, spiking debt payments and the city's revenue cap as threats to Houston's financial well-being. Turner wants to address all three of those issues. King instead continues to falsely equate lifting the revenue cap with a tax hike.

In effect what the Chronicle is suggesting here is that yes, Sylvester Turner is turning out to be a politician's politician. He's running a mean-spirited, negative campaign designed to divide rather than unite, the latter theme which Turner is keen to call for in his public speeches. (A member of the local media, on Twitter, quoted Turner in his 'victory' speech in the general election saying "Before you can fix a pothole, you have to love one another") but he's willing to bust the spending cap and continue to promote the type of trinket governance that we like, so you should vote for him anyway.

Oddly enough, these misgivings about Turner by the Editorial Board are not new.

Sylvester Turner for Mayor (Oct 12, 2015)

We can only guess what political machinations led the city's three key public unions to endorse Turner before meeting with every other candidate. And time has obscured the scandals that bogged down Turner during his last two mayoral campaigns. Despite all the baggage that comes with a long-time legislator, Turner still stands as the candidate best suited for City Hall.

So, you have a candidate whose potentially going to be scandal-ridden, who has a past history of scandals and who, apparently, thinks that love (and massive tax increases) are going to fill potholes.

Pretty much all that's needed for the Editorial Board to endorse these days.

It is worth noting that about the only thing negative the Chronicle can find to say about King is that he's both potentially not as connected as Turner (read: less chance for scandal*) and he doesn't want to tax and spend the City to death.  For the Chronicle Editorial Board, failure to support tax increases is now viewed as the worst of all possible sins, even greater than surfing porn sites and escort services on the company dime. (there is evidence that the sites he was surfing were of an illegal nature to boot, and that he visited them often.)

Can you imagine the resources for local watchdog reporting that would be freed up if the entire editorial/opinion section of the Chronicle was outsourced and replaced with staffing on the news desks?

We might actually get some meaningful stuff on the Port Authority.

Instead, we get this, which is just another point of evidence in the forensic analysis of the paper's decline in both circulation and on-line page views.

 

*I say "less chance" because it's silly to say that any candidate has no potential for scandal, the entire political patronage system is rife with problems, as Kevin D. Williamson of the National Review does a good job outlining here.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: Before the run-off, news is happeneing

But, are people really paying attention?

Parker reportedly to endorse Turner. Mike Morris, Chron.com

"I'm assuming that I'll have an opportunity to sit down with the two candidates who are remaining and see whether I want to engage —whether they'll be interested in having me engage. Despite what the anti-HERO campaign seems to think, my personal polling continues to trend pretty high, but it's question of whether either campaign thinks an endorsement from me would help them out."

It's notable that Parker is, presumably, basing her high-personal approval numbers on the same flawed polling that showed HER Ordinance winning. Which brings into question just how popular of a Mayor she still is after her angry tirades against the dupes and rubes that voted.


What Houston Mayoral Candidate Have to Say about bringing back HER Ordinance. Florian Martin, Houston Public Media

King has been criticized for not taking a clear stance on HERO but he has said he didn’t like the ordinance as written. He now says he is concerned about the message HERO’s repeal sent about Houston.

“I think we need some time to heal the bruised feelings on both sides,” King said. “But I absolutely intend to call all the stakeholders together at some point in time and begin a discussion about how do we best go about demonstrating to the rest of the world the kind of city Houston really is.” 

Sylvester Turner has supported the equal rights ordinance throughout his campaign. But he sounds less inclined to bring it back — even a modified version — saying the voters have spoken. 

“This is a democratic process,” Turner said. “The people voted on Nov. 3, and I think it’s important now to deal with a whole host of issues that are important to every Houstonian.”

The thought was that King would not bring back Parker's Folly and Turner would.  Either Turner is realizing HER Ordinance is political leprosy or he's just playing some sleight-of-hand to try and quell the anti-HER Ordinance forces in the run-up to the run-off.

As for King, he's going back to being the wishy-washy candidate again which, in my mind, is troubling and provides his detractors with even more ammunition to use against him.  That being said, I've called for what he is proposing so I'm not critical of that tack.

Chris Brown touts his endorsements.

Endorsed by Houston Controllers @RonaldCGreen @AnniseParker @SenatorSylvia George Greanias & Kathy Whitmire

I'm not sure that being endorsed by (in order) three of the people who allowed the city to fall into the financial mess it's in, a man who was surfing child porn sites while on the clock and a former Mayor, outside of the public eye, who has lived in Hawaii for the last several years (and who hasn't paid any attention to Houston issues by all appearances) is something I would want to shout from the rooftops.


Here come the TV ads. Chron.com

Interesting that the original Chron banner headline trumpeted that "King is gong negative" when, in reality, both campaigns are going mildly negative toward one another, but nothing that seems out of bounds. Just another case of a Chronicle headline not matching the story behind it. This is a problem for the paper because a LOT of people just peruse headlines and don't read the story itself. It's a way of stealth editorializing or framing the story while still being able to throw up your hands and claim independence.

Of course, we know the Chronicle is anything but independent.



Don't worry, this will all be over soon.  Then we can go back to wondering why in the world professional sports in Houston (other than the Astros) is so horrible right now.

   

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: Endorsements Make for Odd Bedfellows (Or do they?)

Two bits of endorsement news that might strike observers as odd dropped while I've been dealing with real life issues.

First:  Costello endorses Turner for Houston Mayor. Rebecca Elliott, Chron.com

The first reaction to this was that it somehow proved Turner was the more "conservative"* candidate than King.  I disagree with that because I think Costello is endorsing Turner for more selfish reasons.

It all boils down to the morass that has become Rebuild Houston. This program was Costello's brain-child, it was designed as a give-back to his friends, supporters and donors who stand to profit greatly from it and he desperately wants to see it survive.

In the run-up to the general election Turner stated that he wanted to see Rebuild Houston continue, King said he wanted to eliminate it and fund flood and other improvements with bonds.  Costello views Rebuild Houston as his legacy, and also hopes to generate business from it.  It's that simple.


Second: Chris Bell endorses Bill King

I'm sure we're not far away from the reaction stating that this proves Bill King is a liberal, but again I disagree and think the simple answer is the best.  Bill King promised Chris Bell that he would work to widen Brays Bayou and make improvements to Bell's Meyerland neighborhood while Turner would not guarantee a focus on what is, essentially, a well-to-do, primarily Caucasian neighborhood. This doesn't tie with Turner's "Two Houston's" narrative and Bell wants to make sure his neighborhood remains a spending priority. 

All politics is local after all.

Perhaps more importantly....

Adrian Garcia endorses Turner. KHOU

And....

Most of Garcia's leadership team (and big donors) support Bill King

What this means for the actual vote I'm not sure. But I do think that it shows the relative weakness that some noticed for Garcia on election day.  The overriding story arc might be that Garcia has gone from rising Texas Democrat star, to also ran with no meaningful base of support.

This could be an interesting data point to keep an eye on when Garcia eventually files for whatever office he decides to run for next. 

This is also problematic for Turner as it reinforces the belief that he has difficulties expanding his voting base.  Garcia endorsing is one thing, but the money and organizers siding with King probably means that few votes swing Turner's way. 

Even worse for Turner, Parker's Folly has not gone away and the anti-ordinance crowd are going to run TV ads linking him to a revival.  It is rumored that Parker is going to endorse Turner in the near future, he might want to step up and discourage that as it might motivate the wrong base.

The run-off is December 12th, right now I give King the slight edge.  Were I handicapping I'd lay the odds as follows:

Bill King  (-130)
Sylvester Turner (+120)

I keep the Vig if you want to make that bet.



























































*Honestly, we're at the point where the term "conservative" has the same political worth as RINO. They've both devolved into meaningless terms and should be treated thusly.  I prefer Libertarian, Corporatist, Theist and (worst of all) Progressive these days to the traditional Conservative/Liberal labels.

Of course, as in most cases most people are a combination of all four whether they admit it or not.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: Taking a Look at the Mayoral Run-Off

After all of the Sturm und Drang as a result of the electoral failure of HER Ordinance, Houstonians can be forgiven for having a not insignificant amount of political fatigue. The problem is that we're not done, and even though some might think the big issues are over and the ground has been thoroughly salted, but the truth is many of the same campaign issues are still going to be present in the Mayoral run-off.

The election, which is either going to be held on December 5th, or 12th depending on who you listen to, will pit two polar opposite candidates against one another.  In light of this, the Chronicle has published an early look at the dynamics of the run-off which, in my opinion, is mostly incorrect.

Turner, King set for showdown in December. Rebecca Elliot and Mike Tolson, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

I'm not going to quote any of this, but I am going to highlight a couple of key points that the Chronicle transcribes from Democratic political consultants:

1. King is behind the eight-ball because he is a Republican.
2. Turner is the front-runner because he's largely viewed as the front-runner.

I disagree with both of these main points. And I disagree strongly with UH Political Scientist Brandon Rottinghaus' contention that King has to go negative early and often. To better explain why, let's take a look at the two candidates in question first, and then at some of the issues the article raises.


Sylvester Turner: This is Turner's third run for Houston Mayor. In prior runs he came up short because he was unable to expand his support beyond his base. In the run-off this challenge does not go away. Turner ran a very focused campaign that was predicated on driving sufficient turnout in what basically was his district as a Texas Legislator. He has high name-ID in this area and a fairly reliable base.

To succeed he's going to need to expand that base, most notably he'll need to pick up Hispanic voters and some independent moderates.

Bill King: This is King's first run for Houston Mayor, so we don't have the electoral history that we do with Turner. What we do know, right now, is that King did a good job, as did Turner, running a focused campaign that drove sufficient turnout in Kingwood and parts of the Clear Lake area that are within the City of Houston.

To succeed he's going to need to expand that base, most notably he'll need to pick up Hispanic voters and some independent moderates.

In short, both candidates are facing the same challenge, but Turner has a track record of being unable to do so. In my mind this makes King a slight favorite to pull off what some will consider an upset, but he is going to have to campaign hard and keep interest relatively high.

HER Ordinance: The conventional wisdom is that King enjoyed support from voters who were motivated primarily by opposition to HER Ordinance. I do not believe this to be true. For one, the under vote for the Mayor's race was lower than the under vote for Prop 1. This suggests that, while Prop 1 was certainly a driver, there were those who cast votes independent of that issue.

Second, the idea that King was "helped" by anti-HER Ordinance fervor doesn't pass the smell test. In the run-up to the election King actually took some heat form his opponents for initially not taking a stand on the issue. It was only late that he came out against it for technical reasons. I think that the only candidate who received meaningful support from those opposed to HER Ordinance was Ben Hall. Without taking such an aggressive stance against Prop 1 I doubt he would have cracked 5%, with that support in his pocket he was able to get close to 10%. (Still not a good showing due, in part, because he lost a lot of credibility with Houston voters in his last run for Mayor)

One thing not mentioned is that HER Ordinance furor is likely to run both ways. IF you accept that King received support from the anti-Prop 1 group then you have to concede that Turner received a portion of his support from the Pro-Prop 1 group.  Because of this I think both candidates are going to find that this motivated group of voters is not going to go to the polls for the run-off in the numbers that they did during the general election. Whether than being a negative for King I believe this is a non-factor as the two sides losing momentum will cancel each other out.

Motivation: The key to winning any run-off is the motivation of your base. I think that each candidate is going to see a drop-off in motivation by their supporters and the key to winning will be which campaign does a better job in limiting the damage.

Endorsements: Typically, I don't think these matter much (because people don't pay attention to them) but there might be a couple of factors at play here that could slightly affect things.

Annise Parker: I've written earlier that I think the political reputation of Ms. Parker has taken a beating during this entire process.  She has angered the Black Pastor's Association and many independent voters not only through her spiteful campaign, but in her churlish response to losing. The expectation, based on her public statements to date, is that she will now endorse Turner in the run-off, as she has been very derogatory toward King.  Were I the Turner campaign I would consider asking her to not endorse, and not tie me to the political mushroom-cloud that is HER Ordinance.

What Turner does not want to see happen is he being viewed as the savior of HER Ordinance and his campaign get bogged down in promising to ensure its passage after he is elected. Should that happen, then all of the talk of the anti-Prop 1 forces tuning out could be wrong and King could find himself with a motivated support group who will stay engaged to ensure that Parker's folly doesn't come back from the grave after she leaves office under a Turner administration who is facing rumors that he is a member of the GLBT community himself.

Adrian Garcia: Again, I'm not quite sure either candidate is going to be all that interested in receiving Garcia's imprimatur. The collapse of the Garcia campaign, and the fact that he angered many Democratic activists, could potentially move as many votes away from a candidate as they do toward.

I think this dynamic is potentially more damaging for Turner than King. Turner needs the Democratic activists that supported Garcia while King does not. King could use the support of the Hispanic community but I think he has a good shot at receiving most of it whether Garcia endorses or no.

Ben Hall, Chris Bell, Stephen Costello: Honestly I think their endorsements are irrelevant. Hall's voters were primarily anti-Prop 1 types who will either vote for King or not at all. Neither Chris Bell or Costello received enough of the vote to matter anyway.

Intangibles: There are always these.

We don't know what Mayor Parker is going to do now that she is stung and angry by her electoral defeat. We don't know what surprises lie in the weeds about which we don't know.

There are rumors, circling about both candidates, that could be potentially damaging in the minds of voters, but will either candidate want to be the one to pull the trigger and potentially open themselves up to a counter-attack?

Is there a potential that Bill Frazar and Bill King team up?  IMO this could provide an additional boon to both campaigns if they're seen as a strong team that could shake things up in the city.

How is the media going to cover this race? If it's the same bad coverage that we received in the run-up to the general election will it have any effect here? (Even though it appears not to have on Tuesday)

One last unknown, how hard are the municipal employees unions and John Whitmire going to attack King on behalf of Turner? There are strong arguments to be made why they would/wouldn't and it might depend on whether or not King is seen as jumping ahead early.


So many questions, and just over a month to find out what the answers are.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: The HER Ordinance back-lash begins.

HER Ordinance was (soundly) defeated on Tuesday by around a 2-1 margin. Listening to supporters of HER Ordinance last night I was surprised to find out that the sun rose in Houston this morning. Amazingly, it appears that it did. That hasn't stopped the fear-mongers from fear-mongering however.....

Voters Soundly Reject HER Ordinance. Katherine Driessen, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Supporters failed to come up with a coherent message and should have focused on the possible economic ramifications of failing to uphold the law, said Rice University political scientist Bob Stein.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the economic argument was a salient argument," Stein said. "Would they have been able to win this with that messaging? I don't know. But it would not have been as lopsided and someone could have resurrected the issue at council with a smaller margin."

Although not a (large) part of their campaign, the economic impact argument has certainly become a gigantic part of their response.  And while I'm not going to link to every tweet here, a quick look at the Houston Twittersphere reveals that the economic sky appears to be falling.

Already this morning (I'm writing this at about 6AM, to publish later) I've seen dire predictions of the following:

1. The NFL is going to pull the 2017 Super Bowl from Houston
2. The NCAA is going to pull the 2016 Final Four From Houston
3. The recruiting of tech personnel in Houston has become almost impossible.
4. Financial gloom and doom and threats that the city "will pay"

OK then. This is where we are and where, apparently, the city is going forward on this issue. Given that the reaction is so heated, passionate and strong, I think maybe it's time for Houstonians to reconsider some key items.


What is the role, going forward, of the Greater Houston Partnership?

One of the biggest, and most vocal, supporters of HER Ordinance was the GHP. Until now, they've been viewed (incorrectly IMO) as a "Houston Business Group" that speaks for the bulk of Houston's employers.

I believe that this description is, increasingly incorrect.  The Greater Houston Partnership is, in reality, the remnants of the Houston Chamber of Commerce. While it once might have advocated for Houston businesses it has recently shifted into a quasi-governmental agency whose primary mission is to advocate for increased government expenditures. It also rarely deviates from the preferred message of City Hall.

Much of this is because many of the member organizations do business with the City and their livelihoods depend on maintaining a prime position at the trough. For most Houston businesses (and there are way more companies NOT a member of the GHP than the number that are) access to city contracts is not a priority or a concern.

Perhaps its time for the GHP to be viewed as nothing more than a go-between organization that facilitates public/private partnerships but does not speak for the Houston business community as a whole. They are, in practice, a quasi-governmental agency and should be treated as such.

What is the path, going forward, in regards to a Houston Civil Rights Ordinance?

In order to try and depoliticize this I'm going to drop the HER Ordinance language and start discussing the HCRO for future ordinances instead (I will keep HER Ordinance when discussing the recent election). The question of whether or not you think Houston NEEDS a civil rights ordinance is not one centered on racism, but on political philosophy.

For those on the Left, the creation of an ordinance is a must-have and that ordinance has to regulate to the worst violators in all cases. The feeling is that if the city government does not impose strict rules of business that prevent companies from discriminating, then the worst nature of people will prevail and minority classes will be forced to live under a set of de-facto Jim Crow laws that make economic success impossible.

For those on the Right it is really a matter of where so-called "rights" originate. The feeling is that legislation such as the HCRO are attempts by the government to "grant rights" that are really innate within all of us at a Universal level ("endowed by the Creator" etc.) and that what the government grants they can also take away. To them the best way to ensure rights is to let the marketplace decide, and bad actors will be shunted from society and ran out of business.

I am going to commit a great blogging sin here an admit that I'm torn. I realize that this makes me seem like less than an authority on the issue but it's true. On the one hand, I agree that the government can not, and should not, be in the business of trying to grant "rights" to any people. They are neither wise, or consistent enough to ensure long-term equal protection. It only takes one activist (such as Annise Parker) to decide that they want to promote one group over another for the entire system to come crashing down. In the end, I think this is really what was at the heart of the HER Ordinance debate. Not men using women's restrooms or so-called "equal rights for all" but an argument over whether or not the city should be in the business of granting rights to a class that have not existed before.  HER Ordinance created an entirely new set of rights, and established a messy path for conflict resolution that had not been property vetted within the public square. It was a mess of an overreach and a bad piece of legislation that should have been sent to the scrap heap from the beginning.

On the other hand (as I've stated before) I understand that discrimination exists and that it should be a core mission of a community to try and minimize it wherever possible. For the conservative with a libertarian streak in me the idea of a municipal ordinance runs counter to my core beliefs. To the human in me, the idea that driving while black is a very real thing is concerning.

As such, I'm going to punt. Yes, I realize that this is a cop out but that's what I'm going to do.  All I'm going to say is that whoever wins between Sylvester Turner and Bill King needs to try and bring ALL of the affected groups together in order to determine the path forward. Whether that path is a revised ordinance that fixes many of the errors from HER Ordinance or just letting things be I have no idea.

What is to be done about the sorry state of political polling in Houston?

One thing is for sure: The polls that came out before the election were awfully wrong. Every poll that I saw had HER Ordinance winning. It lost by a count of 2-1. In the Mayoral election almost every poll had King and Garcia statistically tied at somewhere around 9-13%. King got over 25% of the vote while Garcia only mustered around 16%. One poll even had Chris Bell within shouting distance of the run-off. He finished behind Ben Hall with around 7% of the vote and was a non-factor.

I believe there are two factors at work here:

1. Houston utilizes a limited pool of pollsters who bring partisan ideals to their polling methods. Bob Stein is a Democrat whose wife (Marty Stein) was a long-time Democratic staffer at City Hall. I've long brought up issues with his sampling methods and the fact that I believe he underrepresents social and fiscal conservatives in Houston. As I stated before, the Greater Houston Partnership is an extension of City Government and any polls that they released should be viewed from that angle. Their polls are akin to a campaign's internal polls, which are typically little more than propaganda. Houston Public Media is a far-left media outlet, as is Public Policy Priorities.  Going forward there's going to be a need to take all of this into consideration when viewing voter polls for Houston Municipal Elections.

2. Telephone polls have become all but useless.  Houston personality Reg Burns made this (correct) comment to me on Twitter last night. The fact is most phone polling is conducted during business hours when people who lean conservative are at work. In many other cases caller ID means that people don't answer the phone when they see a poll.  What this means is that the pool of respondents are one of two groups of people: a.) Activist partisans - whose answers are typically not reflective of the electorate as a whole. b.) The jobless - whose answers are typically not reflective of the electorate as a whole. Regardless of which group it is, polling companies are going to have to find new ways to connect to the electorate if polls are going to continue to be viable.  I will say that this is more relevant at the local level than the National, where there is a large enough voting pool that polls still can carry meaningful weight (see: the 2012 Presidential Election)

How do we treat local media coverage of Houston Elections going forward?

Now is typically the time where you would expect me to start bashing on the Houston Chronicle. And while they're certainly a part of this problem they are not the sole culprit, or even the main driver.

1. ALL of the media coverage surrounding HER Ordinance leaned toward the pro-side. All of it. The local media seemed content to repeat the mantra of HER Ordinance supporters that the opposition was "spreading lies" about men in women's restrooms. Every Houston Chronicle story on the matter repeated the claim that HER Ordinance provided protections to 15 classes of people, which came directly from supporter's playbook.

Celebrities, or personalities, speaking out in favor of HER Ordinance were treated as heroes, while those speaking out against were treated as villains. It was white-hat/black-hat, yellow journalism at it's worst. Too much attention was paid to out-of-state celebrities (who typically are ignored in Texas elections) making pleas in support while Bob McNair and Lance Berkman were persecuted relentlessly online for conscientious objections. It was enough to make one wonder if there was an internal HER Ordinance memo that circulated among the media or if the super-secret "roundtable" just came to a de-facto agreement regarding the same.

In addition, the chumminess between reporters and public officials in Houston is getting out of hand. That a KTRK reporter is allowed to report on her husband's political activities and statements without disclosing the relationship is beyond the pale and the fawning of certain reporters over Sylvester Turner felt at times like ad-hoc donations rather than news.

Finally, the Houston Business Journal, on election day, allowed the Greater Houston Partnership to basically run a campaign ad, for free, in their publication and treated it as a news story. There was no attempt to provide the opposition extra time.

I realize that many don't believe that the media has a bias problem, but they do. It's not partisan, but ideological, in nature and it's resulting in a loss of public trust in the media. On HER Ordinance, it was palpable and led to many people being shocked at a result that probably should not have been all that shocking.

There should have been a lot more attention paid to the schism that developed between Mayor Parker and the Black Pastors Association. A real, but unreported story, coming out of this election is that many of the people who voted for Sylvester Turner (a HER Ordinance supporter) probably cast "no" votes on the ordinance itself.

A second story going unnoticed is that this fight probably marks the end of Annise Parker as a viable candidate for elected office. Her subpoenas of church sermons has probably effectively destroyed her support from the black community, something that she would need to win what is presumed to be a run for Harris County Judge.

Why are the media falling asleep on these stories?  I have no idea.

2. Every media outlet treated Marty McVey as a "credible, front-line" candidate for Mayor. At the end of the day McVey received 1,376 votes, or 0.53% of the total.  This placed him on almost equal footing with Demetria Smith (1,232 votes 0.47%) and Victoria Lane (908 votes 0.35%). Neither of those candidates received ANY media coverage. This also placed him behind Hoc Thai Nguyen (2,321 votes 0.89%) who also received zero media coverage.

Despite this performance McVey was invited to every Mayoral Forum, while the other three were, for the most part, not, he received a glowing puff-piece from the Houston Chronicle, and all four of Houston's prominent local TV stations provided him air-time and coverage. How did this happen?

Either McVey was given credence because he dumped his own money into the race, or the news outlets provided him with stature because he was a Caucasian Democrat with business connections to the correct people. In no poll did McVey even register as a blip on the radar, but he was viewed as "top-tier" for no other reason than the media said so.  Even worse, he was allowed to make ridiculous claims (that he had turned around over 60 struggling businesses in Houston) despite no evidence to support his claims and information in the public record that seemed to bring that into question.

When one media member did question McVey, he responded with personal attacks.

Outside of that, missing from the coverage was almost any solid analysis of the race for Controller (which is now in a run-off between Bill Frazar and Peter Brown's son Chris) or any serious discussion of the City Council races.  (And here is where I go after the Chronicle) As an organization that presents itself as the "local newspaper of record" there is an obligation that comes with claiming that. The Chron should have, at minimum, conducted forums for each of these races and live-streamed them, or contracted with Houston PBS to air them on TV. As a matter of fact, as a PUBLIC broadcasting station, Channel 8 should have pushed for this as well.

Instead we got a couple of articles that were nothing more than whimsical overviews and some endorsements from the Editorial Board which were made based on secret discussions with some (not all) of the candidates. In a city the size of Houston this is not only unacceptable, it's bordering on journalistic malpractice.

That's all I've got for now. 

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: 2015 Election - Some quick thoughts.

Results can be found here

As I'm writing this around 65% of the results are pretty clear. All percentages below are the numbers at 65% reporting.

1. Houston Mayoral Race: There will be a runoff between Sylvester Turner (32.20%) and Bill King (25.89%). Adrian Garcia (15.58%), Ben Hall (9.62%) and Chris Bell (7.22%) have meaningful blocs of supporters who will determine the outcome.  If Hall and Garcia break toward King (a possibility) then Turner has no chance. As it is this is another chance for Turner to prove whether or not he can expand his appeal beyond his base.

As a side note: A LOT of candidates worse than I expected. Clearly the attacks on Garcia damaged his chances, and Ben Hall, while never a serious challenger, shed a lot of social conservatives to King. Turner was about where I thought he would be (and I think he might be pretty close to capped here) while Bell did slightly worse.

Marty McVey is hovering around .54% which, in a normal world, would make him rethink future runs. I've a feeling he's got a little Chris Bell in him and we'll see both of them trying (and failing) to win a race somewhere down the road.

2. HER Ordinance: In the end, it wasn't close. (61.14% Against 38.86% For) This led Mayor Annise Parker, and other HER Ordinance supporters to angrily declare that most of Houston was (I'm paraphrasing) a group of hate-filled backwater no-good, awful, horrible mouth-breathing people who don't like the gays.  What Houston needed was leadership, what Parker provided was a three-year old's temper tantrum.  The City cannot get rid of her fast enough.

Going forward however there are going to need to be some clearer heads than those possessed by the angry set to try and craft a new ERO, one that's better written and takes into consideration the wants and needs of all communities, not just the one favored by Parker and friends. As a long-time GLBT activist, Parker certainly deserves a seat at the table, what she has proven is that she is incapable of occupying the head seat.

One final note: I said this on Twitter but it bears repeating. Parker angrily reacted to the results and called a lot of people a lot of names. It should be noted that many of the people who voted against HER Ordinance (including those who she called names) voted for her 3 times for Mayor, despite her being openly gay. Perhaps it's time for supporters to realize that the problem, for most, was not minority rights themselves but this horribly crafted ordinance?  Once HER Ordinance supporters can get to that point, then we can move forward. Until then no progress will be made.

3. Other races:

 - Houston Controller: There will be a run-off between Bill Frazar and Chris Brown. I expect to see Frazar and King pool resources.

 - Term limits passed, so whoever wins will (likely) serve 2 4-year terms.

 - No real big surprises in City Council races, but some incumbents will face run-offs.

 - All of the County Bonds passed and, as I predicted, the parks bond had the lowest percentage of favorable votes at around 60%

 - All of the State-wide propositions passed easily.

 - The run-offs will likely be either December 5th or December 12th, so there's still a little more than a month to go.



One final note: The under vote for HER Ordinance was higher than the under vote for Mayor (although it was close). This suggests that the media narrative about HER Ordinance driving the vote was a little overblown.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: Annise Parker's parting gift and the importance of electing competent officials.

Today, is the day. Election day, and while you'll hear a lot about the wonders of "democracy" and how good it is to live in a "Democracy" realize that the latter, is false. America is a representative Republic, not a "Democracy" although we do have a democratic process to elect our representatives.

At the municipal level, the process is deeply flawed. Part of this is due to public apathy and a large portion is due to the fact that most people don't receive much helpful information in regards to municipal elections from a media that is more interested in page-clicks and Nielson ratings than fulfilling it's public responsibility. Kevin D. Williamson of National Review Online did a pretty good job of outlining the issue here where he also posited that HER Ordinance is a symptom of the larger problems.

Mr. Williamson also pointed out a big problem, in Houston, as it relates to out-going Mayor Annise Parker:

With its bathroom ordinance, Houston takes leave of it's municipal senses. Kevin D. Williamson, NRO.com

Instead of a competent city-builder who is also gay, Houston got a culture warrior whose parting gift to the city is a deeply stupid fight over “HERO” — the Houston Equal-Rights Ordinance — which among other things would create a new body of local civil-rights law (the lawyers cheer with one voice) covering transgender/transsexual people in the matter of public accommodations, meaning public toilets and the like. This wasn’t preceded by some crisis in the matter of toilet accommodations for men in dresses, but the issue is critically important to some people: Namely, to people who are in their affluence and comfort able to maintain a state of graceful blindness to the actual nuts-and-bolts problems facing Houston.

It is fair to consider HER Ordinance to be Parker's parting gift to the damaged political system she has helped to foster in her 20ish years of public political activity as a member of City Council, an ineffective City Controller and eye-off-the-ball Mayor. Parker ran as a pragmatist, a "get things done" Democrat whose identity as a member of the GLBT community was personal, but not reflective of her political proclivities.  She said many times, in her first run for Mayor, that she was not running "as a gay activist". Houston took her at her word.

In her final term, absent the looming threat of the ballot box, Parker has reversed course and put back on her GLBT Activist hat, in direct contrast to her previous public persona. It has also been revealed that she is somewhat of a blind emperor, clueless as to her lack of apparel in regards to the wonkish policy issues she claimed to champion.

For example, while Houston is receiving much national attention for HER Ordinance it's going almost unnoticed that 2 Million gallons of raw sewage inundated parts of the city during the last round of storms. This is a much bigger problem, in the minds of those paying attention, than anything brought up under HER Ordinance and the question should be why a Mayor, who ran on a platform of common-sense fiscal management, has pushed more pressing issues to the back-burner in order to force a referendum on an issue that is (in her words) "personal".

A more important question, for Houston's future, is how the city is going to deal with some of the pressing financial, structural and infrastructure issues that it is currently facing. Those questions are going to be answered in the Mayoral race, the Controller's race and the races for various positions on City Council. 

How Houston eventually decides to vote on HER Ordinance is a temporary problem, one that can be addressed by either trying again, this time bringing in all interested parties to craft an ordinance with input from all (and not just copy and pasting partially from San Antonio's ordinance) or tweaking what is there to reflect the many concerns over the existing ordinance.

How Houston decides to attack its fiscal challenge, either through repealing the pillow-soft, voter-imposed revenue cap and raising taxes, issuing bonds to cover needed infrastructure repair and replacement, reducing expenses and "belt-tightening", a combination of all of the above and dealing with pension reform are going to be the overriding, important questions that will be (in part) answered today. How those questions are answered could be the difference between a long, slow descent into a Detroit-like erosion or a vaulting of Houston into the national spotlight as it, along with the world, transition bumpily into the new economy that is going to come whether local leaders and businesses like it or not.

The core of this election is Houston's future as a city were business gets done and wealth is created, not it's transition into a progressive Houtopian dreamland where sewage courses through the streets and bayous during rainstorms and lawyers capitalize on navigating businesses through a Minotaur's maze of a newly created municipal legal morass.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: A Couple of things to watch for tomorrow night. (And utterly useless predictions)

Finally, tomorrow, our long local nightmare will come to an end, we'll get our televisions and radios back (sort of) and we'll know who the run-off candidates are for most local races. Yes, there will still be ads from those left standing but, in the mayoral race anyway, it will be coming from two people instead of 4 or 5.

As the action unfolds tomorrow evening here are a couple of key points to watch out for, if you pay attention to these, you should have a pretty good idea how things are going to turnout.

1. Bill King and the "No" vote on HER Ordinance should start out with early leads.

Republicans early vote with more frequency than Democrats, this is a fairly standard occurrence. Because of this I think King might actually start off in the lead. I expect Turner, who has an effective GOTV organization, to pass him fairly quickly. The question is going to be whether or not Garcia's GOTV work is sufficient to move him past as well.

HER Ordinance should start off with a sizable lead that gets whittled down as the night goes on. I've already said that I think it barely passes because its supporters have done a better job fixating on the "no men in women's restrooms" stuff from the opposition than they have the more substantive problems with the ordinance.

Whether we like it or not municipal elections, despite what you typically hear, are predominantly low-information voter driven. There's a lot of Name ID and "well I heard or read it somewhere" that goes into the thought process behind ballots. Even people who considered themselves "clued in" don't pay much attention. How else do you explain Mayor Parker, who has had a horrible last term, still ranking high in popularity polls?

2. Weather.

I don't think I can overstate this enough.  Tomorrow is supposed to be beautiful. Partly Cloudy with a high of 78 and (relatively) comfortable humidity.  This bodes well for turnout on election day, which plays in Garcia's favor.

About the worst thing that can happen, for some, is rain on an election day. It, more than anything else, suppresses turnout as people take a look outside and say "forget it" stay in and don't venture to the polls.

3. Problems at certain polling locations.

There will be these, as people head to the wrong precincts or don't have proper identification. There will be cries of voter suppression and racism which the media will dutifully cover. On some matters, if the vote is close enough, expect these to be mentioned in a lawsuit should certain items not fall the way the ruling class would like to see them go.

We are currently in the middle of a program to destroy any and all confidence in the voting system. First it was attacks on paper ballots, then the voting machines, now it's voter suppression as people try and convince us that our democracy is not only biased, but horribly rigged.  They will say this despite the fact that, in Houston, they control the levers of power.

4. Bad Predictions.

There are going to be a lot of these. The local media, needing to work overtime to find local "experts" to provide analysis will parade out a few political bloggers who will make some sage sounding comments, half of which are 100% wrong. The fact is no-one really knows how this thing is going to go.  With that said, here are my bad predictions on what I think we're going to see tomorrow when all is said and done.

Houston Mayor:

Sylvester Turner: 34%
Bill King:  21%
Adrian Garcia: 20%
Chris Bell: 9%
Ben Hall: 6%
Stephen Costello: 6%
Other: 4%

Houston Controller:

Carroll Robinson: 31%
Bill Frazar: 29%
Jew Don Boney: 15%
Chris Brown: 12%
Other: 13%

HER Ordinance:

Approve:  51%
Disapprove: 49%

Houston City Council:

I'm making no call on the City Council races other than to say I think all of the incumbents win. In the open-seat races it's all about name ID and who's done the best job in that respect.

County Bonds:

I predict that all of the bonds pass with around 60% support. The "Parks" bond will have the lowest support because there has been some press emerge regarding it's vague nature but it will still pass.


That's all I've got, and I'm sure that it's all going to be 100% wrong.  But, as they say: Predictions are for fools so consider the source.

If you haven't gone out and voted yet, do so tomorrow.  I think, for Houston, this is a pretty vital election.

Houston Leadership Vacuum: The Final Run-off Handicapping (Place your Bets)

On Tuesday, the voters of Houston will head to the polls to determine (probably) who will be the top 2 candidates to face-off in a run-off for Houston Mayor.  Over the past few months I've undertaken a mock handicapping exercise giving my opinion on where the candidates stand in relation to the others. I've decided to complete their odds in the manner of a Las Vegas sports book. 

So, without further ado......



1. Sylvester Turner (1/5) - I still see Turner as a shoo-in for the 1st run-off spot.  It seems that most of the other candidates in the race do as well. No one has seriously attacked him, outside of a few fringe conservative groups, and he's done nothing silly to jeopardize his chances. Barring a complete and total bombshell (and maybe even then) I think Turner has one spot sewn up.



2. (tie)  Bill King and Adrian Garcia (5/1) - The conventional wisdom is that the conservative vote is coalescing around King, and that the attacks against Garcia have started to sting. This is evidenced in the fact that Garcia is starting to spend a bunch of money trying to blunt these attacks. While Garcia's campaign is putting on a brave face poll results are saying that they need to be worried. Add to that early voting numbers that show high turnouts where King is supposed to do well, and you might not be surprised to find that local bicyclist, and Democratic political analyst Bob Stein, has gone on record saying King will be in the run-off in his opinion.

There are a couple of reasons that make me not as sure:

1. Republicans typically vote early at a higher rate than Democrats: While the early vote numbers look good for King, the real story will be told on election day.

2. Local election polling is sometimes.....meh. We'll see. Houston is a majority Democratic city and while the elections are ostensibly non-partisan that really only affects the Republican vote. Most times Republicans in Houston choose the moderate looking Democrat (Bill White) over a lesser Republican Candidate (Orlando Sanchez) will they rally behind a stronger candidate in King?


3. Everyone else (1000/1) - I just don't see anyone else challenging here. While Ben Hall and Stephen Costello have spent money, I think voters are ultimately going to break for other candidates. Chris Bell is the scolding uncle that everyone tolerates, but no one likes and Marty McVey has proven himself to be not ready for the big stage.


I think we're now down to a 3 candidate race.  So, cue the bugler and place  your bets.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: How will they Govern? (Bill King)

Wrapping up the last in the series we take a look at the candidate whom I feel has the only remaining serious shot at winning a spot in the run-off.

How would Bill King Govern?

Mayor Bill King would enact a full-court press on slimming down the City of Houston City Government and cutting back what he considers to be "non-core services" in favor of public works, mobility and pension reform.

King has made this very clear not only in his stump speeches, his website and in the several candidate forums but also at every level of the current campaign.

King's issues page on his website focuses on three main areas:

1. Public Safety: King has specific proposals that he is proffering in order to both decrease the crime rate and increase the crime clearance rate in Houston.

Close the HPD Crime Lab - King would work with the County to combine operations and close the struggling lab in a move that he says would cut costs and increase efficiencies.

Disband the mounted Patrol - King states that mounted horse patrols are a relic of a by-gone era whose resources are better utilized by increasing patrol cars which also would save costs by no-longer having to maintain a fleet of horses.

Use modern training and data-driven policing techniques - Think "Broken Windows" policing.

Fix the pensions - In a policy bleed from his city finances page King is focused intently on fixing the pension problem. It's clear that he views the financial drain from this issue to be a key reason the city cannot afford to meet basic police needs such as number of officers.

Use outside reviews and zero-based budgeting. - External audits/reviews and a change to zero-based budgeting is a common theme among some of the current candidate for Mayor, most notably Chris Bell.

Right-size the command structure - The idea that HPD is top-heavy is one that has been around for a while now. There have been many calls to change this but none have been successful. It is unclear what, if anything, King would do differently this time to make this a success.


2. Pensions: Pension reform is at the top of King's "to do" list from a policy perspective. Reading all of his material it is very clear that he is the most well-informed of all the candidates on this policy issue. Even the Houston Chronicle, in their endorsement of Sylvester Turner, admitted such and suggested that whoever wins the Mayoral election should provide him 'with a seat at the table' when pension negotiations occur.

Like others, King offers up a two-pronged plan: One part that maintains the 'promises made' to individuals currently on the plan, but he breaks from the pack by suggesting a full switch to defined benefit compensation* plans for future enrollees. To accomplish this King would need legislative action by the Texas Government, which could occur no sooner than 2017. King does understand that getting the legislature to act on changes of this type will be an uphill slog. The Chronicle, again, in their endorsement of Turner, raised questions as to whether or not Bill King will have the ability to bring the various parties together (Read: John Whitmire et. al) to pull this off.

3. Infrastructure: King has indicted throughout the campaign that fixing Houston's streets, drainage and crumbling infrastructure will be a hallmark of his administration. To do this he proposes that the controversial ReBuild Houston program be scrapped and a series of bonds be submitted for voter approval to address the needs. Critics have countered that this runs counter to his claims that the city has unsustainable debt. King counters that debt for infrastructure repair is a separate, and less serious, issue than debt to cover budget short falls. He also believes that city government is currently diverting too much of it's budget to "non-core" services (such as one-bin recycling, subsidies for artists lofts, etc.) that could be put to better use in public works.

One hurdle that Mr. King will have to over come should he want to enact his plan is the fiefdoms that naturally exist in council. It is unclear whether or not he will be able to persuade them to do away with pet projects in their districts in favor of public works expenditures city-wide.

King would also, presumably, drastically alter the make-up of the Metro board (to which the Mayor have a majority of appointees) to push the agency away from rail and bus-rapid transit to a more bus-centered approach. King believes that the bus network should be the core of Metro's service and should be expected to name members to the board that will follow that vision. He has also expressed support for commuter rail, as opposed to light rail.


Other:

King's elephant in the room, for a portion of his candidacy, was HER Ordinance. For several weeks he declined to state whether or not he supported the ordinance, choosing instead to focus on public finance and infrastructure issues. In recent weeks he has come out in opposition to HER Ordinance based primarily on many of the technical issues that I have previously discussed here although he and I are not in lockstep on this issue. King has not expressed any interest in seeking to make changes or alterations to the ordinance should it pass.

Overall Expectations:

While it seems that King is starting to consolidate the Republican vote around him it is unclear, if he should win, how effective he will be at turning an electoral win into policy success. Despite some early campaign stumbles, which led some to question whether he was the type of manager who could bring Houston "Back to Basics" as he claimed, King's campaign has shown message discipline that has many thinking he might sneak into the number 2 slot in the run-off.

King will need that discipline to make wholesale changes in a City Hall that's become used to running in a certain way, with little financial oversight and without many of the checks and balances one might find in a private enterprise. King's challenges will be two-fold: One, find support internally with a municipal employees union that is 100% against the changes he is making and two, finding support at the State level to provide him with local autonomy on the pension issue.

Whether or not he can do this will determine much about how his Mayoral tenure is viewed. Of all of the current candidates, King probably has the biggest hill to climb in that he is the only candidate who is running uphill against the current bureaucratic structure. He will be helped, by a Bill Frazer victory for Comptroller and, as a matter of fact, a loss by Frazer might hamstring his ability to get things done at all.

Voters can expect that Mayor Bill King would hit the ground running with a reform agenda. His big question is whether or not he can herd all of the cats that make up the various interests into seeing the reform needs to happen.






















*Thanks to James C. Lennon who pointed out this error on Facebook. He now joins my growing list of uncompensated editors.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: Can we Calm Down Just a Bit on HER Ordinance?

I have, until this point, largely avoided wading too deep into the sordid, churning waters that make up the debate surrounding the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance or HER Ordinance, if you've been reading here for any period of time.  Sure I have commented on it and poked fun at both sides regarding their positions, but I haven't really taken the time to sit down and go through it at a level that would constitute a full review.  I've read it, in full, to be sure, but I haven't put my thoughts to keyboard and computer screen until now.

The reason that I've decided to weigh in is simple. Crap such as this. While Mimi Swartz is certainly allowed to write whatever drivel she wants on the issue but, she's utterly wrong and, in true TLSPM style, suffering from a mad case of hyperbole. The entire HER Ordinance debate has been drowned in a sea of hyperbole and downright idiocy that has both sides partaking in more projection about the motives of the other side than actual debate over the ordinance.

In one sense, this is to be expected. Debate overall in this country has devolved toward fake "gotchas" and snark in 140 characters or less than actual constructive dialogue. If you want to point a finger of blame you could look all over the place, but a good place to start might be members of the Chattering Class including Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow and a host of others.

Let's just calm down for a minute and look at the actual text of HER Ordinance and see if there's anything actually written in there that would cause concern. Now, granted, if you're pro HER Ordinance your default answer is "of course there's not" and if you're anti-HER Ordinance then you will shout "there sure is!"  I get that.  But, and here's the kicker, have you read it?

Because I'm willing to bet most people on both sides have not.

Before I get started let me first say this: I am not a voter in the City of Houston, I live in unincorporated Harris County.  As such I am going to have no say on this matter. I do however work, and manage people for a company inside Houston's City Limits. On my staff of approximately 25 people I have a wide range of races, sexes, political views. I might even have a variety of sexual orientations on my staff. The point is I don't know, and I really don't care. What I look for are talented accountants, regardless of race, creed, religious preference, sex, sexual orientation etc. I imagine that most companies, especially large ones, are like that, but I'm not naïve enough to believe that discrimination doesn't exist solely because I keep it away from my group.

And that's the first point to concede here: Discrimination, even in modern day society, exists. Unfortunately, we live in a world, nation and state where "diving while black" is a thing, where the 'little lady' mentality still holds sway, where the 'good ol' boys club' is accepted and where being a member of the GLBT community is considered a pox on your person and an abomination against all that is good and Holy. I get that. I don't like it, but I get it that these things exist.

Because, if you don't believe any of that then you might as well stop reading. I understand, and accept, that there are bad things that go on in the world that need to be remedied. I also understand that the United States has Federal non-discrimination laws and Texas has State non-discrimination laws that hold sway over the City of Houston. It is important to note that none of these laws hold sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes.

This then, is the root of the problem.  Quoting from the "definitions" portion of the Ordinance:

Gender Identity means an individual’s innate identification, appearance, expression or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not correspond to the individual’s body or gender as assigned at birth.

This is the controlling language that is driving most, if not all, of the controversy.  It appears in this Ordinance and is rife with problems.

1. The phrase "Innate identification" has not been full litigated as to provide a legal threshold for application.

In legalese, words have very specific meanings and can lead to very, very specific and harmful legal remedies if not fully vetted. It is very hard to determine, on the part of a business owner, if someone is being truthful and honest in their claims of identification which could lead to needless litigation. This is clearly a gift to the GLBT community by Parker, as it codifies a legal term that, as of yet, has little to no case law that provides a definition.

The Houston Baptist blog for the School of Humanities as a good write-up on this here. Where they also mention the following:

2. Gender assignment language is an odd thing to include in an ordinance of this sort.

The phrase "gender assignment" assumes a position that the GLBT community rejects out of hand, that our sex is 'assigned' to us at birth, like a 'kick-me' sign plastered on our backs. I'm unsure what exactly the authors were striving for here but it does seem to be another try at over-broadening the rule to allow for a freer interpretation of gender identity than is offered in any city's existing ERO.

It's this focus on gender self-identification, and the troubling legal fuzziness of the terms used, that has led most of the opposition to focus on the hysterical claim that a "man could enter a ladies bathroom and expose him(her)self to young girls."  Supporters point out, rightly, that sexual assault and exposing yourself to a minor is still a crime in Houston, Texas and America (and most of the rest of the world for that matter, with a few exceptions) but fail to acknowledge that the coarse wording in the ordinance could potentially make it more difficult for a place of business to prevent a person from entering the restroom to commit a crime.

The biggest defense to this is that 'the right just doesn't understand transgendered men' which is probably true, but the counterargument to that is that the left is willfully ignoring the sometimes single-mindedness and determination of those who are intent on breaking the law. It should also be pointed out that many of the people the anti-HER Ordinance groups are concerned about here are not actual transgendered people. That seems like a rather thin distinction, but I do believe it to be an important one.

Is there a better way to word this?  Most certainly.  And while I don't claim to have all of the answers it would behoove both supporters, and opponents, to try and sit down in a room and try and work out a compromise. This is true even IF HER Ordinance passes.

The second area where I have concerns regarding HER Ordinance is procedural in nature.  HER Ordinance states that there are several steps to remedy of a complaint:

1. The Inspector General begins an investigation.
2. The Inspector General requests evidence.
3. If evidence is not received, the Inspector General, in conjunction with the City Attorney, can request a subpoena.

It is at this point, without the actual collection of any evidence, that a business could find itself in municipal court with very few prescribed remedies for relief of cost. The article does say that it would be a criminal act for a complainant to file a false claim, but does not mention that they may be liable for the costs incurred by the complained.

This is, by any measure, a very fast track to court which could tie-up the system and lead to a lot of businesses being brought in for simple misunderstandings. In fact both the Inspector General and Municipal Courts are given broad discretion in the matter of determining intent. It is unclear to what level "intentionally discriminates" will be elevated. If you're familiar with any civil action at all, the defined thresholds for a violation to incur are vital to the success of any rule's success.

It also feels like an employer, who had two choose between (as an example) a gay job applicant and a black job applicant could find themselves a victim of a discrimination claim no matter which one they picked.  That's my biggest problem with this law, is that it seems to assume discrimination where none exists. HER Ordinance assumes, by text, that if someone says discrimination is happening then it is. As we know, from real-world experience, that is not always (or even usually) the case.

It's also very clear that Parker and Co, when crafting HER Ordinance, didn't bother to talk to any stakeholders outside of the GLBT community. Whether HER Ordinance passes or fails it would behoove the next mayor to bring in all the affected groups and work to tweak this bad piece of legislation to fix these errors.

To be honest, I don't take issue with anything else written into HER Ordinance.  As I stated earlier, I concede that discrimination happens and I believe that it is in the best interest of the community to try and tamp it out whenever possible.  That said, speech is still free in America, just, so within those boundaries I think that sometimes it's not wise to try and suppress discriminatory speech, but to point it out and mock it in the public square. This also lets us know exactly where the bigots are hiding. On ALL sides of the political spectrum.

None of what I wrote above should mean to suggest that I'm advocating a vote for, or against, HER Ordinance. The citizens of Houston will ultimately go to the polls and cast ballots which will do this job quite well. My only point here is to try and remove the hyperbole, look at the text of the ordinance itself, and identify potential pratfalls.

Finally, one of the biggest arguments used by supporters of HER Ordinance is that "other cities already have these and Houston doesn't."  This is both true, and untrue.  A look at the GLBT language in some cities reveals missing details that made them not quite as controversial as HER Ordinance:

1. Dallas: " (a)   Employers.  It is unlawful for an employer, because of sexual orientation:

      (1)   to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any person;

      (2)   to discriminate against any person with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; or

      (3)   to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive a person of employment or employment opportunities, or that would otherwise adversely affect a person's status as an employee.

This one is fairly straight-forward, as Dallas has excluded gender identity altogether from it's list.

2. San Antonio: It shall be the general policy of the city to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability, as set forth in the divisions following, unless exempted by state or federal law or as otherwise indicated.

Definitions: Gender identity means a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth.

San Antonio's Ordinance is almost directly in-line with Houston's and, to be fair, is even more chunkily worded than HER Ordinance. That ordinance is still creating divisions within the San Antonio Community. but does not appear to have faced any serious legal challenges. However, one thing the San Antonio Ordinance has for it is a.)It's not 36 pages long and b.) it does a better job laying out how claims are dealt with, where HER Ordinance leaves open the door to a LOT of otherwise innocent people being pulled into a meat grinder of a system because of some fairly fuzzy definitions of evidence.

There are other cities with ERO's in place but, on a post that's already overlong, I'm going to spare you the details and let you look them up yourself.  Again, I have no preference when, or how, you vote on these matters, it is not the job of this blog to endorse.  I view my job as one of presenting the facts, with an admitted conservative spin.  In that respect you should understand that I am 1.) A Republican 2.) A Christian and 3.) A Caucasian Heterosexual Male, happily married for over 17 years.  In other words, the very type of person that Parker and Co consider to be among the WORST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.  Does this skew my POV? Yup, but at least I throw it out there for your to see. I believe that we should all have all of the facts when debating, or deciding on any issue.

If you're a citizen of the City of Houston, and are planning to vote, then you are going to have a say on this issue. Regardless of whether HER Ordinance passes or fails (and I think it will pass FWIW) the next administration should consider looking at some of the weaker parts of the ordinance and shoring them up. As we've seen with the Affordable Care Act, any complex piece of legislation, no matter how well intended, is going to be littered with unintended consequences. The way to address those consequences can take one of two forms: Tweak the bill and fix the problems or kill the bill altogether and start from scratch.  For HER Ordinance I think the best solution is a tweaking, but voters might have to kill the thing in order to get there.

And for goodness' sake STOP paying attention to the clown show. If Mimi Swartz or any other member of the Houston/Texas Lock-Step Political Media tells you they're embarrassed of Houston tell them "Good, we were trying for complete shame and horror but will settle for embarrassed just as well." Maybe then she'll go back to Austin and we won't have to deal with inward looking clap-trap like that any longer.

Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: The Curious Case of Marty McVey's "60 Businesses"

One of the main talking points of Houston Mayoral Candidate Marty McVey has been his claim to have turned around "over 60 struggling companies".  This is a fine record, if true, and an achievement of which a candidate should be proud.

However, when asked to provide details, McVey has responded vaguely. Worse than vaguely (rudely) in many cases and has steadfastly refused to provide even a partial list based on "client privacy" concerns.

This seems like an odd tack for a candidate whose primary qualification claims are based on his business acumen, an acumen that he has suddenly become unwilling, or unable, to provide. It could be that there are legitimate privacy concerns on the part of his clients. There could be non-disclosure contracts or other clauses in his engagement contracts that prevent this disclosure, things that a release could easily resolve if a candidate needed to provide support for a remarkable claim such as this one.

One would think that there are at least a handful, among the 60-plus struggling companies he has bailed out, that would be willing to sign such a release in support. Even more curious, Mr. McVey has a page where you can endorse his candidacy but not a page where you can view who has endorsed him previously.

I attempted to reach out to the campaign but their "contact us" page does not list an e-mail. Another odd oversight from a campaign. A review of the other campaign's websites finds endorsements to be rather prominently listed so it's unclear why Mr. McVey is keeping his so tightly under wraps.

The other possibility is that Mr. McVey does not have a list of "60-plus struggling companies" that he has turned-around because said list does not exist. Or that he was not highly involved with that number of companies at all.  Unfortunately, because Mr. McVey seems content to cast dispersions at those asking, we may never know where the truth lies.

While I don't foresee this mattering in this election (based on polling the candidate will be lucky to break the 2% barrier in actual votes) it could become more important should he choose to run for another office such as City Council in the future.

In 2012 the inability of Rick Perry to name the 3 Federal agencies that he wanted to cut resulted in one of the biggest campaign gaffes in modern history and effectively marked the end of his serious political career. In 2015 you would think that an inability, or unwillingness, to substantiate a claim as significant as the one McVey is making would mark the end of his as well.

This blog is going to reach out to the McVey campaign and request some support for this claim.  Should have provide it, we will update with a new post as applicable.