Houston Leadership Vacuum: Transportation

On Tuesday, the Libertarian think-tank The Cato Institute released a policy paper surrounding the infatuation of cities with light, heavy and hybrid rail, and why these systems are not working.

Yesterday, RealClearPolicy published a Q&A with Mr. O'Toole which I thought had some interesting thoughts for Houstonians.

Rail advocates tend to leave out the hidden costs of maintaining railroads over the years. Why are the maintenance costs so high?

Like anything, rails wear out. They have a lifespan of about 30 years. Not just the rails, but the stations, the power-supply systems, the overhead lines, the railcars. Everything wears out after about 30 years. People are familiar with the Washington, D.C., Metro system, which was such a beautiful system when it was first opened. Today, more than 30 years after it first opened, it is rapidly deteriorating. You have problems on an almost weekly basis when sometimes three lines are shut down. The reason is that about every 30 years you have to go back and completely rebuild everything at just about the same cost you spent building it in the first place.

And nobody ever budgets for this.

Certainly, Houston Metro hasn't budgeted for this. Nor have we heard anything about it.  You certainly won't hear anything about it from groups such as Houston Tomorrow, or the Citizen's Transportation Coalition. Nor will you hear this from Metro itself.

Of course, proponents will say that Houston's Danger Train is better than those other cities, that we've bought a world class system that, despite our muggy and damaging climate, won't deteriorate, or be affected the way every other system is being affected.  They say this with full faith and confidence in Metro's sterling reputation on matters of planning and procurement.

Meanwhile, Metro is spending time and resources feeding a line to one of the Chron's more secretarial journalists that they don't have a SWAT team (despite information on their own website that they do. ) (Sadly, the Chron's own archives [which Begley was seemingly to incurious to search] suggested they did as well) And so Metro goes under the (non) leadership of CEO Tom Lambert, who seems content to turn over the keys to the train to board members who are apparently doing most of the heavy lifting these days.

In short, it's another leadership fiasco to add to the Houston Region's tally.

It's getting close to the point where it's fair to ask if there's anyone currently in charge?  Or is Houston just barreling down a weird Kafkaesque path where leaders are there only for photo shoots and political gain while the real decisions are made by the bureaucracy?

Looking to November: How much a political price/benefit on gay rights?

News today from the AP and dutifully reproduced at chron.com suggests that the Texas Republican Party is choosing to double down on the issue of gay rights.

Texas GOP advances reparative therapy for gays. Paul J. Weber & Will Weissert, AP via Chron.com

The Texas Republican Party would endorse psychological treatment that seeks to turn gay people straight under a new platform partly aimed at rebuking laws in California and New Jersey that ban so-called "reparative therapy" on minors.

This comes on the heels of Houston passing it's controversial Equal Rights Ordinance which has lit a fire under social conservatives who feel their "culture" is being slowly eroded by progressive activists who want to see them locked away in re-education centers.

Also today the Chron ran a column by it's curiously nominated Pulitzer finalist interviewing a local gay GOP precinct chairman.

Gay Republican hopes his party does the right thing. Lisa Falkenberg, HoustonChronicle

As with all of Ms. Falkenberg's writing, this column is hidden behind the paper's pay wall so if you don't have a subscription I'm sorry.  I will respect that they want fewer people reading this material and will not blockquote here.

While it's easy to look at all of this and suggest (as many Dems are doing) that it's just the social wing of the party running loose with no collar, a more sober political analyst might wonder why the party leadership doesn't seem too worried about this issue at all.

I will argue that it's a simple matter of demographics. Specifically, Hispanic demographics.

While a recent Pew Research study suggested that a majority (56%) of Hispanics now favor the legalization of gay marriage most of that support is centered around Hispanics with no religious affiliation (71% in support). For evangelical Hispanics, of the type Republicans would target, 66% still stand in opposition to gay marriage according to Pew. Given that 38% of the Texas population is estimated to be Hispanic (with 70% of those being US Born according to estimates) there's a much larger voting opportunity there than with the estimated 3.8% of Texans who identify as LGBT.

In hard numbers: It is estimated that approximately 10MM Hispanics are currently living in Texas, as opposed to approximately 600M who identify as LGBT. If you assume that approximately 70% of those Hispanics also identify as "Christian" (I'm including both evangelical and Catholics) then the targeted voter pool is 7MM versus 180M (30% of LGBT citizens still identify themselves as conservatives, with Democrats getting about 70% of the LGBT vote.)[Source: Gallup]

Analysis of this type is not meant to place value judgments on policy decisions, only to point out the raw numbers behind the thinking that is often omitted from news stories.  As stated before, I am not an opponent of LGBT marriage. I feel that marriage is a contract, and I don't think the government should use it's powers to prohibit 2 consenting adults from entering into legally binding contracts.

Nor do I think churches should be "required" to conduct LGBT marriage ceremonies.

I realize that might seem like a contradiction but there's a very broad First Amendment line between allowing the LGBT community to be viewed as married within the eyes of the State, and requiring them to be married in the eyes of the church.  Issues such as Houston's ERO are much more difficult and are likely to be argued in the same manner as anti-segregation laws were historically.  Trying to establish a "separate but equal" standard for LGBT rights feels like a sticky proposition. I would argue that if you do business in the public realm, you have an obligation to serve the entire public regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation. However, I do feel that the Houston ERO went too far, was too ambiguous on several issues and is an example of bad public policy looking desperately for a problem to solve. As with all things, your mileage may vary.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what comes out in the Texas Republican platform regarding LGBT issues. I've an early feeling that whatever planks are adopted will be strongly worded and decidedly anti-LGBT. However, I also think that a big reason for this is because (some) Republicans see an opening to increase the Hispanic vote, having decided that the reality of increasing the LGBT vote are slim to none no matter how they choose to react.

I should clarify that the "some" in the Republican Party to which I'm referring are not the staunch social conservatives. In most cases, for both parties, I don't feel that the true believers give all that much thought to how the party is going to do, they just want to "win".

Still, the happy warriors over at Battleground Texas have repeated ad nauseam that "demographics is destiny". By this they are referring to Hispanic voters. If Texas Republicans aren't running almost everything they do through that prism they will be losing ground.

Houston Leadership Vacuum: So bad even Mrs. White takes notice.

Over the years on this blog it's been very easy to take the Chron Editorial board to task. Too often the editorial arm of the former newspaper of record in Houston has churned out knee-jerk, half-witted missives that typically call for solving things by rolling out a catapult and hurling large amounts of money at the problem.

Apparently, if the Chron's writing makes you angry, and you respond to them angrily, the catapult gets locked down.

HPD Needs Help, Mrs. White, Chron.com

Experience has demonstrated that money will not solve the problem. Over the last decade, HPD has seen its budget grow from $468 million to $722 million - not including the cost of the crime lab and neighborhood protection departments. In that time, HPD actually lost more than 100 officers. So where did the funds go? That is the question that City Hall needs to answer before it cuts another check to HPD's questionable management.

The rest of the editorial is a scathing indictment of both HPD Chief Charles McClelland as well as Mayor Annise Parker, neither of whom have shown any leadership on this issue.

Credit where credit is due. After the possibly Chron-nominated Pulitzer finalist Lisa Falkenberg borrowed the catapult from Mrs. White in a ridiculous example of apologia it is possible that it was just decided that too much was too much.

Either way, both the reporting and the resulting editorial is a fine, if rare, example of solid watchdog reporting of the type newspapers once mastered. It's nice to see the Chron-crew practicing some actual journalism instead of just dutifly taking marching orders from institutional sources, insulting readers or (amazingly) suggesting anyone (else) is in need of an editor.

There's still way to much secretarial journalism going on over on Texas Avenue, but at least there are signs of life under the new leadership.

Houston Leadership Vacuum: $12 Million and it will STILL be 2nd tier.

Pity the poor Greater Houston Partnership.  For all of their consultants and study groups they still don't understand why people are coming to Houston or how to effectively market the place. By way of example......

No Limits: New image campaign highlights Houston's high points. David Kaplan, Chron.com

The city has gone through a number of image campaigns over the years, including "Houston Proud," "Expect the Unexpected" and "Houston is Hot."

The Greater Houston Convention & Visitors Bureau has two active campaigns, "My Houston," featuring Houston-born celebrities touting the city, and "Houston Is...," spotlighting local chefs, artists and others who are making their mark on the city.

Kaplan also reports that the GHP is planning to spend 12 Million dollars over the next five or six years trying to convince people that Houston is a really great place to........

What exactly?

We know that people are coming here because this is where the jobs are and if you ignore the trendy spots (of the type people in the GHP would like you to live) the Houston region is still very affordable. We also know that there is a lot to do in this city despite our local leaders telling us things to the contrary in an effort to fund trinkets. (The goal of trinkets being to get local dignitaries names engraved on plaques which future generations ignore.)

Houston has parks, shopping, a fairly active social scene, museums, and a host of things to do that are within a day trip from almost any point in the region.  This includes traditional non-Houston things like hiking, biking, camping and kayaking.

The thing is, most of these things are pretty widely known, so what the GHP is really trying to do is a.)justify their existence and b.)continue beating their head against Houston's climate.

Unfortunately, for them, no matter what they do it's never going to be as good as the Houston: It's worth it campaign that was launched outside of the auspices of GHP and has continued to be a better marketer of the city than any of the focus-group driven crap sandwiches produced by the Partnership or it's sister organization the Greater Houston Convention and Visitor's Bureau.

$12 Million for a second-tier product?  Only in a City and region operating in a leadership vacuum is this considered a smart plan.

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.

Houston set to increase hired car city revenue, protect cab companies airport monopolies.

That was my take-away from today's story by Chron secretarial journalist Dug Begley providing details on the proposed city ordinance regulating hire care services such as Uber and Lyft.  If Begley is correct, and I see no reason to assume he's not, it appears that Yellow Cab (and other companies) have leveraged their considerable lobbying monies spent on Houston City Council members to preserve their control over their two biggest profit centers in the region.

The city has to be happy with this as well.  By requiring the licensing of new hire cars the city is going to increase their revenue stream in "devoted fee" form which will not fall under the provisions of the suddenly controversial revenue cap.

Apparently, the revenue cap is so horrendous that rumored future candidate for Houston Mayor perennial candidate Chris Bell felt the need to weigh in, in his trademark, foolish writing style in an attempt to chastise Houstonians for being a bunch of silly prats who are not capable of understanding even the basics of government finance.

Given that attitude toward Houstonians, is it any wonder they don't trust us to handle little things like getting a hire car without government intrusion as well?

Looking to November: How will they Govern? Greg Abbott vs. Wendy Davis (Part 3 of a series)

Previous Posts:

Introduction
Part 1: How will the Democrats campaign?
Part 2: How will the Republicans campaign?

(Updated: 06/02/14 6:21)

Before talking about how either candidate in the race for Texas Governor will actually attempt to govern it is important to take a look at the office itself. Under Rick Perry, whose long tenure allowed him to fill appointments in almost all areas of the bureaucracy with his friends and political allies, the perceived power of the office grew greatly. Perry also wisely used his office as both a bully pulpit and, primarily through his ability to set the agenda for special sessions, as a tool to drive policy.

Neither Greg Abbott or Wendy Davis are going to have the advantage of appointments under their belts and will need to work with former Perry appointees in key bureaucratic positions which would be more of a challenge for Davis than Abbott due to differences in political ideology.

Dealing with large Republican majorities is going to be an issue for Davis who, should she win, would have to discover the fine line between over vetoing legislation that's politically popular and looking as if she's an inept governor by becoming a rubber stamp who happens to occupy the office. Davis is also going to have to exert serious influence on the entire Democratic delegation (something, due to her rock star status in the party which would grow should she pull the upset, she shouldn't have a problem doing) in order to even get a hearing for her policy priorities.

However, I don't think passing policy would be the primary focus of a Wendy Davis administration. I believe that her primary focus would be to use the bully pulpit of the office in an attempt to plea for Texas voters to change the make-up of both the upper and lower chambers of the Texas legislature. In many ways, she'd be a Texas-lite version of President Obama, constantly campaigning and acting unilaterally where she could to circumvent policies she did not like.

Davis issues page on her campaign website is very heavy on education the issue on which, besides women's health issues and abortion rights, she is trying to base her campaign. It's very clear that a Davis administration would try to increase expenditures for education greatly, and based on past campaign rhetoric she will try to advocate for funding these increases by, at first, eliminating several tax breaks and, eventually, possibly trying to advocate for a full overhaul of Texas' tax code. It is reasonable to forecast that a newly-elected Governor Davis would view her election as a mandate Texas voters want fundamental change and would govern in such a manner.

Greg Abbott's issues page also mentions education although his plans and governing style are likely to be vastly different than Ms. Davis' style. For one, it's very clear that Abbott is planning on continuing the style that he perfected during his time as the State's Attorney General. Rather than pushing a laundry list of policies focused on detail, it appears that a Governor Abbott would leave many of the details of legislation to his ideological colleagues.

Instead, it appears that Abbott would lead through vocalization of key anti-Federal issues and use those to push forward his version of a practical platform.  One thing that Abbott is not, is a conservative in the Tea Party mold. Those on the right hoping to see him act as such are going to be disappointed.  Abbott will act conservatively on the issues of the 10th and 2nd amendments however, and he has shown a willingness in the past to take aggressive stands within this space.

One thing that neither Abbott or Davis seem willing to change is the use of both the Texas Enterprise and Texas Emerging Technology funds which should be of concern to both limited government/free enterprise conservatives and anti-corporate welfare progressives. Rick Perry made very effective use of these tools politically, I would think that Wendy Davis would be the more likely of the two, especially in areas of green energy, to use both of these tools to her political advantage than would Greg Abbott given their range of issues and rhetoric.

(UPDATED) It appears that I missed this but Greg Abbott has made some pretty strong statements suggesting that he would not be in favor of using the two funds mentioned above. Clearly, from a limited government/reduction in corporate welfare point of view this is a good thing. My apologies to the Abbott campaign for missing this.

Despite their similarities on the two economic funds Texas citizens can expect two entirely different governing styles from each of the two main candidates. In summary, Greg Abbott should be expected to try and govern like an advocate for Texas against the federal government, while Wendy Davis would try and govern as an advocate for Texas working with the federal government.

In the next part the focus will switch to one of the most consequential and interesting races, the race for Lt. Governor where candidates Dan Patrick and Leticia Van de Putte would seemingly govern in entirely different ways.