With many groups, such as Greater Houston Partnership supporting the Hobby expansion, there has also been plenty of criticism. The most vocal critique was a so-called independent study that said that the expansion would add 10,000 jobs and bring $1.6 billion to the Houston economy.  Many council members said that the study was biased and should be thrown out.  United Airlines, the competitor which flies out of Bush Intercontinental, argued that the expansion would actually cost Bush Intercontinental thousands of jobs and lose $295 million in the local economy.  Of course, both competing companies have their own agendas that conflict with each other.  It seems likely that both studies are exaggerated.

There are so many different theories out there about whether having one central hub for major flights is better than having several options where essentially the city would “compete against itself” as United President and CEO Jeff Smisek says.  However, if companies want to compete, should the government really stand in the way of that?

So far council members supporting the expansion are: Helena Brown, Andrew Burks, Stephen Costello, Ed Gonzalez, Al Hoang, Melissa Noriega, Oliver Pennington, and James Rodriguez.  I would like to know whether the other members just have not made a decision yet or are actually against the proposal.  If they are against it, I am curious as to the reason, as there surely could be more items to consider.

So far it seems like this is a pretty good deal for Houston.  It requires a private company to cover the costs of something the city will have for years to come.  Ultimately even if Hobby does not see an increase in 20 more flights a day as predicted, there appears to be very little risk for the city, so I hope to see this expansion take off.

Let’s take a look at what we know so far:

Positive Aspects:

-          Over two-thirds of the General Fund will continue to be allocated to public safety.
-          Does not include a property tax increase (maintains the existing property tax rate of 63.875 cents per $100 of taxable value).
-          No fee increases.
-          No layoffs/furloughs/ service cuts.
-          Does not borrow money to pay for the pensions.
-          For the most part, it is a flat budget with “with funding levels for all departments at essentially the same levels as last year – with the exception of contractual increases for pensions and increases in health benefits, fuel, electricity, and information technology costs.”
-          The budget replenishes the Rainy Day Fund.

Negative Aspects:

-          Restoring night and weekend hours to the 311 assistance line is a waste of money.  There are so many problems associated with this department.  Calling 311 is often a nightmare for Houstonians.  You have to call several times, and you usually have to get your neighbors to call too before anything is done.  Since nothing will get done no matter what time you call, I see no need to pay for additional hours for this service until this department is more accountable to us.
-          While it is definitely positive that the budget hasn’t increased this year, how do we really know if we are spending the right amount of money in the right areas?  We need a better system to review and automatically remove wasteful spending and unnecessary programs.  Until we have this in place, passing any budget is irresponsible.  Right now it is just a guessing game.

These are just a few items that jumped out at me from reading Mayor Parker’s press release.  I am sure that there will be much more to say about this in the weeks to come as the budget is scrutinized further.  Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the “negative aspects” column will start to grow bigger and bigger… as will the budget once all the council members try to add more to it.

There are many, many things wrong with this ordinance, and I think many of the council members and others have done a great job explaining that.  So rather than reiterate the same reasons why this ordinance is so awful, here is my take on how they should fix the ordinance (IF they HAD to pass something at all – and at this point, I am not convinced of that):

The City of Houston could create a website that allows charitable organizations to sign up on a voluntary basis, similar to the current ordinance.  The website would allow charitable organizations to sign up on a calendar for a date, time, and location for where they are planning on feeding the homeless.  Owners of private land even put their location on the calendar to allow charitable organizations to sign up at their place too.  The difference between this and the current ordinance is that this plan wouldn’t prohibit other groups from feeding the homeless on the same day.  Rather, it would just allow groups to coordinate their efforts, and since the website could run on its own, it would cost very little for the city to help this coordination…. Again, only if the city really thinks that this “problem” is as necessary as they say.

Charities that feed the homeless have to work very hard for the monetary donations they receive.  I am sure that many charities would voluntarily sign up for this website to join efforts to make sure that they aren’t planning a big event to feed the homeless at the same time and place as another group.  Coordinating efforts is helpful and might be welcomed by groups.

This would completely do away with penalties and requiring written permission to feed five or more people.  Charities would be able to see many private locations that welcome their services.  If a private land owner is worried about loitering and littering, there are already laws on the books for them to follow.  We don’t need more!  Also, if a land owner has tried to remove the homeless from his or her land to no avail, they could put up a “no loitering” sign and another sign explaining that food is not allowed on the property.  Surely charities will listen and find another place to feed the homeless.  Charities aren’t here to make enemies!

There are many other cities that have similar ordinances such as Orlando, Dallas, and Las Vegas.  All of these cases ended with lawsuits and many unhappy people, and there is no concrete evidence that such ordinances have helped anyone concerned.  Mayor Parker should rethink the message this is sending to the city.  This ordinance will do little other than making Houstonians angry and criminals out of those who are here to help.

Thanks to the following council members who voted against the ordinance: Mike Sullivan, Helena Brown, Al Hoang, Oliver Pennington, C.O. Bradford and Jack Christie.

Council Members who voted in favor of the ordinance are: Jerry Davis, Ellen Cohen, Wanda Adams, Ed Gonzalez, James Rodriguez, Mike Laster, Larry Green, Stephen Costello, Andrew Burks, and Melissa Noriega.

Entergy wants to increase the Kingwood area of Houston by $14.37/month because it is at the southern tip of their service area.  The city of Houston did a study of this proposal at the request of Council Member Mike Sullivan, who is the council member in Kingwood (District E). According to the study, “‘Entergy’s rate increase request is overstated and not supported by evidence.’”  In fact, the study showed that the rates are actually too high as it is.  When it came up for a vote, Council Member Helena Brown stated that she is in support of the rate increase “because it is justified” (you can view the video here – it is Item 30).  She went on to say the following:

There are just so many problems with this whole scenario. The first is CM Brown’s attempt to use an ordinance to highlight a bigger problem.  Entergy is essentially a monopoly.  There is no free market competition between companies.  Since government has made it into a monopoly, the government is the only form of checks and balances.  CM Brown clearly believes in electricity deregulation and wants the government to have no part in setting prices. I’m not going to get into whether or not she is correct in this belief because that could be a whole blog itself. Whether you agree with this concept or not, she is not going about it the best way.  If she doesn’t want the government to regulate prices, she should work on making it so.  However, until that happens, city council should be responsible to consider the merit of each proposed price increase.  By not considering the proposal at all just because she doesn’t believe the government should have a say, she is doing an injustice to all the Kingwood residents.

Next, CM Brown said,“We have a situation where as a city we just recently passed an increase on the taxicab rate, 13%. We also last year increased water rates by 40%. And now we’re talking about a small energy company, serving its clients well, wanting to do a 13% increase.” I’m really not sure what one thing has to do with another.  Is she really using two other rate increases (one of which, the taxicab increase, she voted against) as means to justify other rate increases? Somehow the government should get involved with taxicab rates but not Entergy rates?

Also, CM Brown said, “They [Entergy] will get the approval of this when they appeal to the Board [Public Utility Commission].  It will be approved, and so this is just delaying the inevitable.” Although CM Brown has been in office only since January, she has done more than her fair share of tagging. (Tagging is when a council member delays an ordinance’s vote for a week). When all council members and the mayor are in agreement except for her, isn’t she just delaying the inevitable by putting it off for a week?  You are supposed to vote yes or no on issues based on merit and not just to delay the inevitable of a future vote.

Next, CM Brown said that a rate increase is justified even though a study showed that it is not. Council Member Bradford made a good point by questioning if the study didn’t support this increase, what did the study show to be necessary? Apparently the study showed that no increase is justified and that rates should actually be reduced. If Council denies the increase, Entergy can take it to the Public Utility Commission.CM Brown said that the increase is justified based on what information? It is irresponsible to make an assertion like that without basing it on anything and basically saying that if the company believes it is necessary, it must be.

Mayor Parker and her chief development officer, Andy Icken, are expecting the program to cost nearly 20% more than the current system, which is run by the police department (see here).  As I’ve said in this blog before, cuts across the board are not ideal because every department/program is unique.  Some should be cut more than others (and some should be cut completely).  Then there are these rare situations where maybe we have to spend a little more money to get the outcome we need.  While I don’t advocate spending more money on anything needlessly, this isn’t needless.  After three mayors and ten years of battling this problem, something needs to change, and creating more independence for the lab might just be the something that needs to happen.  This is a public safety issue, and public safety is one of the few things that the government should be in charge of handling.  Of course, the change in the program will bring its own set of problems; however if Mayor Parker stays steadfast in fixing these problems as they occur and truly makes sure that the lab is independent, it just might work.

With that being said, I am, however, reluctant to support this program 100% until I see more details.  This is essentially creating a new department and a new bureaucracy, and that is rarely ideal.  I would like to see the breakdown of the budget to know fully why it is going to cost more money. I would also like to see her plan on how the current problems will be fixed under the new system.  Why is it that the nonaffiliated scientists will suddenly be objective, but they couldn’t be under HPD?  Will the independent board really be independent?  What would it cost to privatize this program? What about a private system with some government oversight (since it is a public safety issue)?  Clearly there are items to work out before I would be comfortable with the city moving forward, but I am optimistic that this change might be for the best.

One item to note: Mayor Parker preferred to have a regional crime lab (see here) in conjunction with Harris County; however, the city and county couldn’t come to an agreement on the financial aspect.  I think before the city implements the crime lab, Mayor Parker should continue to work with Harris County until that option has been completely exhausted so that they can share necessary information and save money.

The new ordinance, if passed, will:
• “Limit feeding of the homeless on public property to Tranquillity Park, Peggy’s Point Plaza Park and a park on Chartres Street just north of Minute Maid Park. Written authorization of the property owner would be required for feedings on private property.
• Require feeding organizations to register with the city and to take a food safety training class.
• Require that the food be served within four hours of preparation (or removal from temperature control).
• Mandate that the feeding site be left “in a clean, waste-free, litter-free condition.
• Make violations a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $50 to $2,000.”

Although many people are outraged by this proposal, this isn’t the first time that the city has taken on the homeless.  You might remember that in 2005, former Mayor Bill White made huge changes as well.  He encouraged people to give money and food to organizations rather than directly to the homeless, and he launched a campaign to let the homeless know that depending on donations on the street would no longer be an option.  The biggest change he made, however, was his ordinance that prevents anyone from standing in the middle of the street (or walking in the middle of the street) to collect donations. This is now Article V, Sec. 36-74 Solicitation on Public Streets. Then in August 2011, Mayor Parker amended the Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance (Article I, sec. 28-46).  It originally prohibited panhandling within 8 feet of ATMs, pay phones, parking meters, or parking fee collection boxes.  The ordinance was amended to include outdoor dining establishments.

Despite efforts from both mayors, I have only noticed only small changes in the number of homeless people I see in the middle of the street or at outdoor restaurants.  What makes this new ordinance different is that it targets those trying to help rather than those being helped.  The reason behind this change is probably that takes a long time and lots of effort to notify the homeless of new laws whereas charities and people who are used to giving out food will hear about it right away.  Regardless of how easily they will be able to get the message out, I don’t think that this is the right message to send out.  Yes, it is true that some homeless people have food allergies.  Yes it is true that there might be litter associated with the current system, and yes, there is a huge lack of coordination among the homeless in the current system.  But, no, this is not the way to solve it.

The problem with having three sites to disperse food comes with two major problems: 1. If the homeless had the means (and unfortunately sometimes the mental capacity) to get around Houston easily, they would likely go to shelters or other locations already in place that hands out food. 2. For argument’s sake, let’s say they are able to concentrate the homeless to these three areas.  This will become a mecca for crime and deterioration.  I’m not saying that homeless people commit crime.  Rather, businesses in the area will suffer when people are too scared to go to these locations.  The area will start to go downhill, and then crime will begin.  We have seen this time and time again.

Does the city really expect people to give out food and then monitor the homeless person as they eat it to make sure that there is no trash left behind?  Does the city really expect people to take food safety training classes??  I think ultimately the intention behind this ordinance was good.  They want an organized, safe, trash-free way of feeding people, but I just don’t see this as the best way to do it.

In the council meeting yesterday, CM Brown tried to remove current Board member (who was up again for consideration), Victor Alvarez, and add another person, Randy Simms, in his place.  CM Brown commented that Simms would be better for the “Korean community.”  Here is how the rest of the meeting played out (or watch the video here  - Item 2 on the agenda):

- Mayor Parker explained that Brown can’t do this.
- CM Brown asked for clarification from the city attorney who ruled with the mayor.
- Long rigmarole of procedural questions.
- After much discussion, Mayor Parker said to CM Brown, “I’ve been attempting to schedule a meeting with you for about two and a half weeks now.  I’ve made multiple requests, and I have resorted to communicating with you by email in order to discuss a range of items. You have consistently refused to meet with me, and had you had the opportunity to meet with me we may have been able to deal with this privately.”
- CM Brown said, “Mayor, I will not be bullied. You have made a request via one of your assistants for a meeting two weeks ago for which I specifically asked for specifics so I can decide whether the meeting is to be merited. And I don’t appreciate you announcing what is supposed to be our business before the whole city of Houston.  I’m a duly elected council member, and I will not be bullied.”
-Mayor Parker said, “I certainly apologize if you feel in any way bullied by my request that you meet with me privately in my office.”
- After the vote, Mayor Parker’s nominees were confirmed.

There are many things wrong with the scenario that played out in the council meeting.  First, Victor Alvarez is a supporter of former Council Member Brenda Stardig.  In fact, he let her use his garage apartment for her campaign headquarters (see full story here).  Many may remember that CM Brown beat Stardig last year, and Mayor Parker was a big financial contributor to Stardig’s campaign.  CM Brown brought nothing to the council meeting to show why Alvarez shouldn’t be on the Board other than saying that he sent “negative communications” – whatever that means.  If she had really disconcerting evidence, she should have explained further.

Next, I am a little confused why CM  Brown would want to delay a vote where two weeks won’t make a difference, but in other circumstances, she will not delay a vote to hear her constituents out (see here).  In January, some of her constituents asked her to hold off on selling 8,840 square feet of land in the district for $41,990 to a body shop owner.  The constituents have been trying to have a park built in that location for a long time.  She could have tagged it for a week just to have time to discuss it with her constituents.  Maybe in the end the outcome would have been the same.  Regardless, she should have tagged that item, but she didn’t, and she never said why she refused.  Somehow that vote was not ok to delay, but this is?

Finally, CM Brown really should have met with Mayor Parker before this hearing.  The mayor doesn’t ask to meet with you so she can say, “ha ha.  Too bad that you disagree with me.”  She calls a meeting so she can get someone’s input and have a discussion.  Maybe in the end Mayor Parker would have still disagreed with CM Brown, but at least they could have discussed it.  CM Brown accused Mayor Parker of bullying her.  If anything, CM Brown is the bully in this scenario by bringing this up in front of everyone to make Parker look bad and telling everyone that Mayor Parker’s meeting may not have been merited.  ALL meetings with the mayor to explain your point of view is merited!  CM Brown should have met with Mayor Parker, and if Mayor Parker still didn’t agree, that’s when Brown should have informed the other council members about Alvarez’s “negative communications” within the two weeks they had to discuss it.  As Council Member Andrew Burks said, “Who is Randy Simms?  Is he in the room today? … How can I make an intelligent decision on this?  I can’t. If Victor Alvarez has some problems, I’d like to know.”  How did CM Brown expect the other council members to agree with her if they knew nothing about the situation?  Either she didn’t think this through, or she brought it up to serve some other purpose (maybe to make Mayor Parker look bad?)  Either way, she didn’t handle this in the right way.

Whether you agree or disagree in general with Mayor Parker, she is still the mayor, and being disagreeable is NOT the way to get the job done.  I understand being the voice of opposition and trying to shake things up in a system that isn’t ideal; however, this is not the way to do it.  The way to do it is to work within the system to get things done and then try to work within the system to change it.  Voting no EVERY time just because it was brought up by the mayor is just as bad as voting yes every time.  What disrespect to one’s constituents to not even give an ordinance the proper time and consideration just because of politics.  With a strong mayoral form of government, she is never going to get any of her items on the agenda.  She needs to vote no when a no is warranted (and vice versa), but she needs to be respectful.  The point is that she needs to learn how to be an effective council member, and so far I haven’t seen it from her.

Other notable quotes:

Council Member Melissa Noriega said, “Forgive me.  I must object strenuously to this.  I think that it has not been our practice to single out individual appointments, nor has it been our practice to hammer them out at the table.  It is a lot of work and a lot of exposure and a lot of things for folks to do these jobs, and I am both uncomfortable and in opposition to the idea that we are going to handle it this way.”

Council Member James Rodriguez called it “unprofessional” to call out someone who is not there to defend themself.  He also said, “To pin two different cultures against each other is unprofessional.  I’m not going to stand by it, and I’m not going to support the motion”

2012 CIP Public Meetings Schedule

The City of Houston will conduct combined public meetings on the City’s FY2012 Annual Operating Budget Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and 2012 Annual Consolidated Plan.  Since 1984, the City has held public meetings to obtain citizen input before preparation of the operating budget and capital improvement plan.  These meetings provide citizens the opportunity to participate in the budget process by contributing comments and suggestions about needed services and improvements. The City of Houston will provide reasonable accommodations to citizens with disabilities/special needs upon request. Citizens are encouraged to call the Citizens’ Assistance Office at 832.393.0955 for arrangements.

District A CouncilMember HelenaBrown
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Spring Woods High School (Main Auditorium)
2045 Gessner  Drive
Houston, Texas 77080

District B CouncilMember Jerry Davis
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Northeast Multi-Service Center
9720 Spaulding
Houston, Texas 77016

District C CouncilMember Ellen Cohen
Monday, February 13, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
The Metropolitan Multi-Service Center(Gymnasium)
1475 West Gray
Houston, Texas 77006

District D CouncilMember Wanda Adams
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Judson Robinson Jr. Community  Center
2020 Hermann  Drive
Houston, Texas 77004
Residents of District D can attend either the District D or E (Clear Lake) meeting

District E CouncilMember Mike Sullivan
Clear Lake
Monday, February 27, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
University of Houston-Clear Lake(Forest Room)
2700 Bay Area  Blvd
Houston, Texas 77058
Joint CIP meeting for residents of District E and D

Kingwood
Thursday, March 22, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Creekwood Middle  School  (Auditorium)
3603 West Lake  Houston Parkway
Kingwood, Texas77339

District F CouncilMember Al Hoang
Wednesday, March 7, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Tracy Gee Community Center
3599 Westcenter  Drive
Houston, Texas 77042

District G CouncilMember Oliver Pennington
Monday, March 19, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Paul Revere Middle School (Auditorium)
10502 Briar  Forest Drive
Houston, Texas 77042

District H CouncilMember Ed Gonzalez
Monday, March 5, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Jefferson Davis High School (Atrium)
1101 Quitman
Houston, Texas 77009

District I CouncilMember James Rodriguez
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
The E.B. Cape Center
4501 Leeland  Street
Houston, Texas 77023

District J CouncilMember Mike Laster
Thursday, March 8, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Sharpstown Community  Center
6600 Harbor Town  Drive
Houston, Texas 77036

District K CouncilMember Larry Green
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 | 6:30p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Westbury High  School
11911 Chimney  Rock Road
Houston, Texas 77035

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!

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.