Thinking Outside the Bars

February 7, 2012

Council Member Ed Gonzalez, a former Houston police officer for 18 years, proposed a new idea for Houston’s jails.  Instead of incarcerating people for public intoxication, the city might start putting them in a sobering center, or a “drunk tank” instead.  CM Gonzalez said, “‘It would just be a simple opportunity to allow them to sleep it off.  It would be a low amount of time that they’re in there – it’s not an extended period. And an opportunity I hope we could insert in the process is at least creating a point of access for recovery services as well.’”

Apparently it takes a police officer two or more hours to take a person to jail, but it would take about 15 minutes to turn them over to a sobering center.  Without the arrest record and court appearances, meals, and medical attention, it is likely that it would cost the city a little more than half of the $5.8 million currently spent annually on public intoxication.

I think this is certainly an idea worthy of consideration.  Surely there would be many questions to answer and bugs to work out before implementing something like this, but ultimately, if they do it right, I think it could really be beneficial to the city and to the residents here.  Sometimes people make mistakes and drink too much, and as long as they are not behind the wheel or doing something that hurts someone else, there is really no reason to give them a criminal record (especially on the first offense).  This might also go a long way towards fixing the overcrowding in the jails as well.

We will see how this idea pans out, as it looks like it has been in the works for a long time – at least since March 2011.  Great job, CM Gonzalez!

Leave a Comment » | Ed Gonzalez | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Home is Where the Hut Is

February 6, 2012

There is a group out of Atlanta called The Mad Housers that provides 6′ x 8′ x 10′ huts to the homeless, and Council member Jack Christie wants to bring this concept to Houston.

Before going any further, I need to clarify that I am NOT against helping the homeless.  In fact, I have helped negotiate for several people, who were facing foreclosure, to keep their homes so that they would not be homeless.  

In this case, however, I think this idea is ridiculous.  There are so many issues with these shacks that I almost don’t even know where to begin.  

1.  According to their website, Mad Housers doesn’t own the land to which they build the huts.  From their site:

  “Do you get permission to build at a site?

When we can. The issue of land ownership is very delicate.

We don’t create camps. We find existing camps and make improvements, namely shelters. If a camp has been at a site for a long time, then either:

  • the owner is either aware of their presence and okay with it;
  • the owner doesn’t know that they are there, or;
  • the ownership of the land is in dispute and homeless individuals are living there until things are straightened out (which could be years or decades).

So, do we ask? Only if there is an existing communication between the camp and the landowner. Otherwise, we might wind up getting a camp broken up, all with the best of intentions.”

So the first clear problem is where would these huts go in Houston?  Will it be city-owned land, or are we really going to allow a group to come in and start building things on land they don’t own?

2. Mad Housers basically builds the huts and then leaves.  There is no upkeep in anyway.

3. According to their website, “Each hut has a pitched roof, a sleeping/storage loft, a locking door, and a wood burning stove for both heating and cooking.”  So in the hot Houston summers, the homeless will still need to use a shelter to cool down.

4. It costs $400 (about 90% of that is the cost of lumber) to build one hut.  CM Christie mentioned that he didn’t see this money coming from the city.  He did not mention where the money is to come from nor did he mention why he wants this to be a city project if it appears to be both funded and handled from a non-profit group.

5. CM Christie said that these huts will be “less unsightly to the city” than current tents that many homeless use.  Look at a picture of one here.  I don’t see how this is less unsightly at all. 

So basically I am confused all around.  I just don’t see how this is helping anyone.  I know shelters in Houston are not idealized, but I just can’t see this being any better.  It seems like a better use of money to fix existing shelters, build new ones, and work with the homeless to find jobs, when available. 

As with all the new council members, I will give him the benefit of the doubt with this one for a little while until more details pan out.

1 Comment | Jack Christie | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Houston Debt is $900 Million… I mean $692 Million… Uh, $210 Million Maybe?

February 1, 2012

A year ago, it was estimated that Houston is owed $900 million in outstanding fees and fines (See here).  The estimate was eventually changed to $692 million since the original estimate included millions of dollars in citations that had not yet been cleared up in court.

Although the estimated debt amount has been reduced, I have serious doubts that the city will ever collect the money.  Nearly 70% of the debt is more than two years old, so odds of collecting at this point are slim to none.  Also, the city is owed $295 million in unpaid ambulance rides.  Most of that money came from uninsured and indigent individuals.

Even when you take away the $295 million in ambulance fees and the $25 million in red light camera fees (another fee that people are unlikely to pay), the city is still looking at $372 million.  Then consider that the city hardly, if at all, goes after debt older than two years.  So when you account for that, the real number is closer to $210 million.  Although it is a loss of $482 million from what the city should be paid, $210 million is still a lot of money.  In my opinion it is unlikely that we will see much of that money collected.  Here’s why:

1. So many people know that there will be no action taken against them if they do not pay.  If you don’t pay the red light camera fee, you can still renew your vehicle, and you will not be taken to court.  It is similar with many other fees people owe.  If you don’t pay, you can still obtain permits from the city and receive all the same benefits the city has to offer as someone who owes nothing.  For the most part, the city doesn’t even report debt to credit bureaus!

2. People don’t take it seriously when the mayor or any elected official declares that it is time to “get tough” and “crack down” on debtors.  Said time and time again, this concept fizzles and fades.  No one will take it seriously until there is real action taken.  If people don’t take it seriously, they will not pay.   

3. The different databases among city departments are not integrated.  So if a Houstonian has debt in one department, he or she can partake in another city function in a different department (receive a permit, for example) without anyone ever knowing.

The obvious solution here is to integrate city databases and refuse certain city services to those who owe a debt.  With that being said, the city should also not penalize someone for being poor.  We should make it easy (yet necessary) for people to pay their bills.  Allow easy payment plans and then open city services to those who are following their payment plan.

Furthermore, I’m guessing a lot of these fees are pretty unnecessary in the first place, so taking a serious look at which ones we can do away with altogether is never a bad idea.

Leave a Comment » | Houston City Council | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Red Light on Red Light Cameras

January 25, 2012

It looks like the Houston red light camera ordeal has finally come to a…red light.  American Traffic Solution (ATS), the company that the city contracted with to administer the lights looks like it will get a total of $4.8 million ($2.3 million up front), a cut of collections from delinquent fines, and $240,000 for technical assistance – if City Council approves.  This will be in exchange for dropping the breach of contract claim and taking down the 50 cameras that are still up (but not issuing tickets) within 60 days.
 
City Attorney David Feldman said, “‘This settlement is going to be funded by the people who ran the red lights… We would not agree to any settlement that would result in the taxpayers generally having to bear the burden.  It had to come from the violations themselves.’”
 
Don’t get too excited about that though.  His statement is only sort of true.  If the city doesn’t collect any more money from delinquent fines, the city will still have to pay the $2.3 million (over three years) out of general fund.  Considering many people know that nothing happens to them if they don’t pay the fine, I doubt we will see many citizens stepping up to pay.
 
Houston City Council tagged this item on the agenda, so the vote will be delayed for two weeks.  I hope that this will be a lesson for City Council when making contracts in the future so this doesn’t happen again.

2 Comments | Red Light Cameras | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Looming Pension Problems in Houston

January 12, 2012

Although some Houstonians were relieved after the last budget cycle that the city seemed to bounce back, it looks like the new budget shortfall will be worse than ever – perhaps $47 million (although with increasing sales taxes and property tax revenue, it might be slightly less).

Mayor Annise Parker has done about as much as she can do when it comes to making cuts across the board.  It is now time to dig deeper and find real places to cut and evaluate every penny in each department.  Doing so will surely find many areas to cut, do away with, and maybe even places where money has been lacking.  We just don’t know until we do a thorough analysis.

With that being said, there are problems looming around the corner that need to be addressed.  Public safety accounts for roughly 60% of the budget.  That probably will never be cut, and I’m not advocating for that.  Public safety, in my opinion, should be the number one priority of the city government.  So with the exception of probably much needed reevaluation and reallocation of the public safety budget, it’s not going anywhere and for a good reason.  

This leads to the next problem.  If public safety accounts for 60% of the budget, that means that we only have 40% of the budget to do EVERYTHING else.  This includes the huge, looming fiasco called the city pension.  Houston’s pension is broken up into three areas: Police, Fire, and all other municipal employees.  Year after year, the city does not put as much money into the pensions as they are supposed to because they don’t have the money.  If this is the case, clearly some changes need to be made to the system as a whole.

Politicians don’t usually like touching the pensions because it is such a heated topic among just about everyone, and both political parties have strong opinions and even differ within the party on how to solve the problem.  Right now the pension issue is just an agitation that manages to get stifled each budget cycle.  Until it becomes a real dilemma, getting anyone to try to solve the problem will be difficult to say the least.

Parker has attempted to start looking into it and making changes, but she still has a very long way to go.  State law mandates defined-benefit plans as well as many other requirements.  Although the city usually has autonomy on many cases, this is one where Parker is going to have to work with the state to have more leeway because this system will become unsupportable very quickly.

One solution that needs serious consideration is completely changing the system for all NEW employees.  To be very clear, anyone who is a current employee or retiree should get exactly what they were promised.  To guarantee something and then take it away is unquestionably dishonest.  While there are surely changes that can be made to the current plan, anything promised needs to remain.  However, anyone new coming in to the system needs a completely different plan that is comparable to the private sector.  Otherwise we are just being dishonest with the next generation.  We can’t continue to make promises we know we can’t keep.

Leave a Comment » | Pension | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

New Committees​, New Power, Same Problems

January 11, 2012

Mayor Annise Parker announced the new City Council committees and their chairs and vice chairs (see below or here).  There are some interesting points to note about the new committees. 
 
First, Council Member Mike Sullivan is no longer the chair of the Ethics, Elections, and Council Governance Committee, and he is not the chair or vice chair of any committee.  While there are fewer committees this time, he is an experienced member who knows how to effectively run a committee. Although CM Sullivan is known as the conservative vote of “no”, Mayor Parker has picked conservatives to be in powerful positions before.  Council Member Anne Clutterbuck was picked to be the Mayor Pro-Tem by Parker, and Parker also chose her to be the chair of the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee. Clutterbuck later resigned as Mayor Pro-Tem, perhaps at the request of Parker?  Maybe that was a bit of foreshadowing for what was to come.
 
Other items to note: Council Member Stephen Costello is the new chair of the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee.  In general he might be a neutral pick – not too far to the left or the right.  Before I get hate mail on that comment, yes, I know he was the driving force behind Rebuild Houston.  What I mean is that in general terms, he doesn’t seem to side with one party or the other.  He appears to vote issue by issue.  This will be good in some situations and bad in others.  We will have to wait and see.  I am uneasy with him being on the TRANSPORTATION, TECHNOLOGY & INFRASTRUCTURE (TTI) Committee.  While he has valuable expertise with this subject, he should not be allowed to vote on anything in the committee that benefits his company.  Finally, Bradford isn’t the chair of the Public Safety Committee?  He used to be the Chief of Police, so his expertise might have been useful there, but at least he is on the committee. 

See anything else interesting about the committees?  Comment below, or send me an e-mail.
 
BUDGET AND FISCAL AFFAIRS (BFA)
Chair: Costello
Vice Chair: Bradford
Members: Brown, Davis, Cohen, Adams, Sullivan, Hoang, Pennington, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Laster, Green, Burks, Noriega, Christie
Will Review: Finance, Human Resources, Office of Business Opportunity and Fleet Management Departments, TIRZ budgets. 
 
ETHICS, ELECTIONS AND COUNCIL GOVERNANCE (EECG)
Chair: Bradford
Vice Chair:
Members: Brown, Davis, Cohen, Adams, Sullivan, Hoang, Pennington, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Laster, Green, Costello, Burks, Noriega, Christie
Ad Hoc Committee to Review: Chapter 18, Chapter 2 and any issues related to the conduct of local elections on an as needed basis.
 
HOUSING, SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT (HSGD)
Chair: Adams
Vice Chair: Laster
Members: Davis, Sullivan, Pennington, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Green, Costello, Burks, Noriega, Christie
Will Review: Administration & Regulatory Affairs, Solid Waste Management, Housing & Community Development, Planning & Development Departments, Homeless Initiatives, Veteran’s Affairs and items related to both domestic and international economic development.
 
PUBLIC SAFETY (PS)
Chair: Gonzalez
Vice Chair: Cohen
Members: Brown, Davis, Adams, Hoang, Pennington, Laster, Costello, Bradford, Noriega, Christie
Will Review: Houston Police Department, Houston Fire Department, Houston Emergency Center, EMS, Mayor’s Office of Homeland Security, and Municipal Courts.
 
QUALITY OF LIFE (QoL)
Chair: Rodriguez
Vice Chair: Hoang
Members: Brown, Davis, Cohen, Adams, Sullivan, Pennington, Gonzalez, Green, Costello, Burks
Will Consider: Department of Neighborhoods, Parks and Recreation Department, Houston Public Library, Health and Human Services and items related to Houston’s local International Community and Cultural Affairs.
 
TRANSPORTATION, TECHNOLOGY & INFRASTRUCTURE (TTI)
Chair: Noriega
Vice Chair: Pennington
Members: Davis, Adams, Sullivan, Hoang, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Laster, Green, Costello, Christie
Will Review: Information Technology, General Services, and Public Works and Engineering Departments, Rebuild Houston Water & Sewer, Rebuild Houston Streets & Drainage, and water resources and conservation.

3 Comments | Al Hoang, C.O. "Brad" Bradford, Mayor Parker, Mike Sullivan, Stephen Costello | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Giving Up Power for Electricity Deal

January 6, 2012

On Wednesday Houston City Council voted 16-1 (CM Mike Sullivan was the only “no” vote) to give Mayor Annise Parker complete power to close a $550 million electricity deal.  I am ok with Mayor Parker being the one to negotiate the contract (as is the situation in most cases).  What I am not ok with is allowing her to sign the final contact with no approval from Council.  Usually city contracts are negotiated by the mayor but then must be ultimately approved by Houston City Council.  Council voted to usurp their power to make the final decision.
 
Council members generally said that these contracts move so quickly, so there is no time to bring it to a council vote and just asked to be “kept in the loop.”  They mentioned a few times that although there is still 18 months left on the current contract, they need to take advantage of a low rate if given the opportunity. 
 
I understand that contacts move quickly.  Electricity rates change all the time too, but I seriously doubt that any company would want to close the door on a huge, multi-million dollar contract so badly that they couldn’t wait a few days (at least 72 hours because of the Texas Open Meetings Act) for council to vote.  If they want to move quickly, instead of giving Mayor Parker so much power, they should have voted to take away tagging power for this item (when a council member tags an agenda item, it delays the vote for a week.  Members do this when they need more information to vote on an item or to want to get more feedback from constituents before voting).  This would have allowed for a much faster vote.  
 
I almost can’t fault Council Member Andrew Burks’ vote.  From the questions he asked, I don’t believe he fully understood what he was voting on (I’m not trying to be mean, but he just kept asking again and again if council members would be able to ultimately vote on the contact.  No, they can’t!  That’s the whole point of this vote!  Let’s move on.) 
 
Council Member Helena Brown is one of the 16 members who voted in favor of the item only to turn around and write a memo basically saying that she made a mistake.  I guess that is better than making a mistake and then just going along with it to not look bad.  Just like CM Burks, she is new, so I’ll give both of them the benefit of the doubt here and hope that they both make better decisions in the future.

1 Comment | Andrew Burks, Helena Brown, Houston City Council, Mayor Parker | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Redefining Urban and Suburban: Proposed Chapter 42 Changes

December 8, 2011

Many people know that Houston has no formal zoning, but the misconception many have is that Houston is completely unregulated and unplanned.  This is not the case.  Houston’s Chapter 42 Ordinance defines “urban” as the area inside the 610 loop and “suburban” as outside the 610 loop (see more info about this here).  Two years ago, the City of Houston began to look into changing this ordinance and move the urban area out to Beltway 8.

This change would allow developers within Beltway 8 (used to be Loop 610) to subdivide lots to build smaller homes.  Developers have been able to do this inside Loop 610 since 1999.  This ordinance will be a big change.  To see a good summary of all the proposed changes, see Houston’s Planning and Development Website.

This is a very heated topic and rightfully so.  It will have a huge impact on current and future homeowners and Houstonians.  Interesting, 53.7% of Houstonians favor zoning, according to the Houston Area Study.  Also, 79.9% favor redeveloping older areas rather than continue building new suburbs.  Then why do so many people oppose this proposed ordinance?  As it turns out, when asked where you prefer to live, 56.8% would choose to live in a single-family home with a big yard rather than a smaller, urban home.  So people like the sound of zoning and building smaller homes, but they don’t want to live there.  It becomes a Not in My Backyard problem. 

I think this change could be a valuable addition to Houston, but there are some stipulations to this.  First, any existing neighborhood should be given the choice on whether or not they want to make this change.  If the neighborhood likes being a suburban area, they are homeowners and have the right to keep their area the way they want.  If they want to be a mixed-use area and build townhomes and smaller units within their neighborhood, they should have the right to do that as well. 

Another caveat I have to this ordinance is that Houston must be responsible to its citizens.  I don’t favor complete zoning (this plot of land must be used for a house; this one must be a commercial development).  People are more willing to invest in a market where there are no restrictions; however, investors also need predictability.  Developers and homeowners need the predictability of knowing that they can use the roads to get to their homes and that if they need the police or firefighters, those departments will have access to their homes as well.  Placing a new townhome community in an area where the roads, sewers, infrastructure, police, fire, etc. cannot sustain it is not responsible.  Irresponsibility now means financial disaster later when the city’s infrastructure cannot support the decisions made (kind of like what is happening now).

The city should be the responsible and neutral party to give permits to buildings if they are able to be sustained by the area.  Now before anyone yells at me and says that this is not being very republican because this allows the city to pick winners and losers, let me say that this is not the case!  Rather, the city should say yes EVERY time the independent study shows the building can be placed there and no EVERY time it cannot.  This cannot be based on who the developer is and how much money they gave to the mayor or a council member.  This must be independent, responsible, and predictable. 

The proposed changes to Chapter 42 have a few items that need to be fixed, but ultimately I think it could be beneficial in the long run.

Leave a Comment » | Planning and Development | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Votes Are Down: What This Means for Candidates

December 7, 2011

Runoff elections are usually plagued with the same problems: low turnout, apathy in the news/media, and less funds for the candidates to get their names out.  This Houston runoff election has low turnout, not a whole lot of media coverage, and not much money coming in.  So what makes this election unique?  It is just how low the turnout is this time.
 
Only 13% of registered voters voted in the general election.  Although it was projected that 8% (75,000 people) would vote in the runoff, it is now projected that the turnout will actually be about 50,000.  Only 15,690 people voted early in person with another 7,340 by mail.  The 2009 runoff had roughly 152,000 people.  Although there was a mayoral runoff in 2009, and that will usually bring out more voters, 50,000 votes is nothing when you consider the positions at stake here. 
 
So what does this mean for the candidates?  Let’s take a look at the races:
 
District A:
The Trini Mendenhall Sosa Community Center on Wirt is most likely where all the early voters in District A voted.  This location only received 1,868 votes so far.  In 2009, CM Brenda Stardig received 9,273 votes in the runoff with 16,382 total votes.  It doesn’t look like the numbers will be anywhere close to these numbers this time around. Stardig has $81,023 on hand, and challenger Helena Brown has $4,409.  I don’t believe that the cash on hand will necessarily predict the winner here.  Stardig grew up in District A and has many friends in the area who will vote for her no matter what.  They will also come to the runoff to vote for her.  It has yet to be seen if Brown’s supporters are as enthusiastic to come back.  Although people either love Stardig or hate her (and not many people are willing to change their mind either way), it is surprising that she hasn’t spent more money lately. 
 
District B:
Alvin Byrd (raised $23,700 with $6,027 cash on hand) received a lot of grassroots support.  Although Jerry Davis (raised $37,350 with$29,435 on hand) raised more money, Byrd (barely) beat Davis in the general election.  Money may not play a role in this election.  It is really a matter of who can bring out more voters.  With the turnout so low, both candidates will have a long couple of days ahead of them.
 
At-Large 2:
Andrew Burks has been running for office since the 1990s.  Although there is some name recognition there, I don’t think it is enough to beat Kristi Thibaut.  Low voter turnout or not, I think Thibaut is going to pull through despite the fact that Burks beat her in the general election.  I think some of Thibaut’s support went to Jennifer Pool and a few other candidates.  With them no longer in the race, Thibaut will likely prevail.
 
At-Large 5:
Both CM Jolanda Jones and challenger Jack Christie raised and spent about the same amount of money.  I believe low voter turnout will impact this race more than the others.  Those going out to vote in the District A race will likely pick Christie, while those voting in the District B race will likely back Jones.  Past that, we will see many strong Jones supporters coming out as well as strong Jones opponents.  The Jones opponents might not be Christie supporters, but they will vote for him.  At this point it becomes a battle of who turns out to vote.  This one will probably be very close.

Leave a Comment » | Brenda Stardig, Election 2011, Jolanda Jones | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Post-Election Analysis

November 9, 2011

Here is an analysis of the race and a recap to see if my predictions were correct.  Note: numbers are taken from www.HarrisVotes.org.

Mayor:

 

Votes

Vote %
Annise Parker

59,920

50.86
Jack O’Connor

17,265

14.8
Fernando Herrera

16,799

14.36
Dave Wilson

13,858

11.73
Kevin Simms

8,197

6.67
Alanda Ulman

1,882

1.57

As I predicted, Mayor Parker won without a runoff.  Perhaps if there was one clear frontrunner with Parker, things would have been different.  Without one, the other candidates blended.  This reminds me of the political term called the Bandwagon Effect.  People want to be on the winning side.  They will often vote for the person they perceive to be the likely winner if they don’t know who the other candidates are.  With the blending together of the other candidates, many likely perceived Parker as the winner and wanted to jump on that bandwagon. 

Also, if there was a clear frontrunner, he or she would have garnered more attention, causing people to believe more and more that others were going to vote for this person.  This is also known as an Information Cascade (Candidate X is getting a lot of attention.  I guess people like this candidate.  I was going to vote for the incumbent, but if everyone likes Candidate X, I must be wrong.  Therefore I will vote for Candidate X).  

I’ve heard from some pundits today that the fact that Parker’s win was so close likely leaves her vulnerable for a tough election next time around.  I think it is way too early to know that for sure.  If she does a great job the next two years, people will forget all about Renew Houston and the red light cameras. 

District A:

 

Votes

Vote %
Helena Brown

3,727

47.17
Brenda Stardig

3,248

41.11
Bob Schoellkopf

926

11.72

Although I wrongly predicted that Stardig would win, I am not surprised by the results.  Well, I am only surprised that Schoellkopf received as many votes as he did.  I thought that he would get no more than 3%.  Having run in this district in 2009, I’ve heard the complaints about Stardig.  I received many e-mails today asking why I didn’t run this year.  To quickly clear it up – I have even been asked by many to run against her over the last two years; however, with so much going on for me this year, it just wouldn’t have been fair to my prospective constituents since I wouldn’t have been able to give them my undivided attention.  I will run again when the time is right. 

I think what happened in this race is a lack of marketing on Stardig’s side.  She isn’t quoted in the paper often, not many can name any ordinances that she’s created, and the only time we hear about how she voted is when we don’t like it.  With a lack of knowledge of what she is doing and the lack of name recognition that usually comes with an incumbent, it was almost as if there were two newcomers running rather than an incumbent and a newcomer. 

Also, I think voter turnout had a lot to do with it.  In many cases it is easier for a candidate to lose someone’s vote than to keep it.  Voters can be fastidious (You voted “yes” on this one issue – I don’t remember what it was, but it made me mad, so I will never vote for you again).  Incumbents tend to win because those who don’t pay attention (which happens often on a city level) just vote for the name they have heard.  So few people voted in District A this time that those who went to the polls were more likely than not those who pay attention.  When it is easier to lose a vote than gain a new one, Stardig lost some of her former support.  I think it is too soon to know who will win the runoff.  It is still anyone’s to win. 

District B:

 

Votes

Vote %
Alvin Byrd

2,264

25.11
Jerry Davis

2,198

24.38
Kathy Blueford-Daniels

1,625

18.02
Kenneth Perkins

937

10.39
Charles Ingram

679

7.53
Phillip “Paul Bryant

537

5.96
James Joseph

434

4.81
Bryan Smart

343

3.8

As other pundits, I couldn’t predict who would make it to the runoff.  Byrd and Davis will probably have a close race.  I think Byrd might pull ahead, but it is too soon and too close to call at this point. 

District C:

 

Votes

Vote %
Ellen Cohen

11,306

53.57
Brian Cweren

5,735

27.17
Karen Derr

2,711

12.84
Randy Locke

837

3.97
Josh Verde

518

2.45

As I predicted, Cohen won. 

District D:

 

Votes

Vote %
Wanda Adams

10,554

81.72
Larry McKinzie

2,361

18.28

As I predicted, Adams won. 

District E:
Mike Sullivan was unopposed.  

District F:

 

Votes

Vote %
Al Hoang

2,656

55.96
Peter “Lyn” Rene

1,238

26.02
Hoc Thai Nguyen

853

18.02

As I predicted, Hoang won. 

District G:

 

 Votes

Vote %
Oliver Pennington

11,905

76.83
Clyde Bryan

3,591

23.17

As I predicted, Pennington won. 

District H:

 

 Votes

Vote %
Ed Gonzalez

4,340

68.22
Patricia Rodriguez

2,022

31.78

As I predicted, Gonzalez won.

 District I:

 

 Votes

Vote %
James Rodriguez

4,045

64.47
Leticia Gutierrez Albaza

2,229

35.53

As I predicted, Rodriguez won. 

District J:

 

 Votes

Vote %
Mike Laster

2,793

67.27
Criselda Romero

901

21.03
Rodrigo Canedo

458

11.03

Although this was supposed to be a Hispanic district, the only non-Hispanic won.  I rightly predicted that Laster would win.

 District K:

 

Votes

Vote %
Larry Green

6,308

65.08
Pat Frazier

2,500

25.79
Alex Gonik

884

9.12

As I predicted, Green won. 

At-Large 1:

 

 Votes

Vote %
Stephen Costello

48,940

51.16
Scott Boates

21,525

22.69
Don Cook

17,296

17.99
James Partsch-Galvan

7,759

8.17

Although this one was difficult to predict, Costello ended up winning as I guessed he would. 

At-Large 2:

 

 Votes

Vote %
Andrew Burks, Jr.

17,512

17
Kristi Thibaut

15,808

15.87
Elizabeth Perez

14,367

14.37
David Robinson

12,115

11.75
Bolivar “Bo” Fraga

9,567

9.6
M. “Griff” Griffin

8,301

8.27
Eric Dick

7,410

7.42
Jenifer Rene Pool

7,133

7.13
Roslyn “Rozzy” Shorter

6,970

6.7
Gordon Goss

1,895

1.88

I thought Thibaut would make it to the runoff, but I wasn’t sure who would make it with her.  I think she will beat Burks, but we will see closer to the election if that still holds true. 

At-Large 3:

 

Votes

Vote %
Melissa Noriega

54,246

55.58
Chris Carmona

25,581

26.44
J.Brad Batteau

17,807

17.98

As I predicted, Noriega won. 

At-Large 4:

 

Votes

Vote %
C.O. “Brad” Bradford

67,306

67.87
Amy Price

20,771

21.21
Louis Molnar

10,626

10.9

As I predicted, Bradford won. 

At-Large 5:

 

Votes

Vote %
Jolanda Jones

42,386

38.32
Jack Christie

35,600

33.38
Laurie Robinson

21,402

19.84
Bob Ryan

9,057

8.46

I thought Christie would have a slight edge over Jones this time, but I was wrong – wishful thinking maybe?  It could really go either way in the runoff.  District B’s runoff will draw democrats and African-Americans who will likely vote for Jones.  District A will bring republicans and moderates who will likely vote for Christie.  The big question left is which candidate Robinson voters will turn to.  Robinson is a democrat.  Will her voters turn to Jones because she is a democrat too, or will they vote for Christie because they don’t like Jones?  Either way it will probably be a close race.

Leave a Comment » | Election 2011 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.