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.

3 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.

1 Comment | Election 2011 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Predictions for the November 2011 Election

November 4, 2011

Now that Election Day is right around the corner, here are my guesses as to who will win.  Keep in mind that this is not a list of who I want to win.  It is a list of who I think will win.

Mayor:
Kevin Simms
Amanda Ulman
Dave Wilson
Fernando Herrera
Annise D. Parker
Jack O’Connor

I think Mayor Parker will win reelection.  Although there are many people who will gladly vote for anyone else, there are still plenty of people who are excited to continue voting for Parker.  As of November 3rd, early voting was down by 23%.   This shows that people might not be as excited to rush out to vote for Parker, but it also shows that people aren’t excited to vote against her either.

District A:
Brenda Stardig
Helena Brown
Bob Schoellkopf

CM Stardig will likely win again.  Although Brown raised more money than a challenger to an incumbent is expected to, beating an incumbent is so difficult, and I don’t think Brown did enough.

District B:
Kenneth Perkins
Kathy Blueford-Daniels
Phillip “Paul” Bryant
Alvin Byrd
Jerry Davis
Charles A. Ingram
Bryan Smart

It is really difficult to predict who the front runners are in this one.  There will be a runoff, but I don’t think anyone can predict at this point who will be in that runoff.

District C:
Randy Locke
Josh Verde
Ellen Cohen
Karen Derr
Brian Cweren

I think Cohen pretty much has this one locked up.  The only thing standing in her way is the fact that she and Derr might split votes, causing a runoff between Cohen and Cweren.  Even with a runoff, I think Cohen will win.

District D:
Wanda Adams
Larry McKinzie

CM Adams will most likely win reelection. 

District E:
Mike Sullivan

District F:
Al Hoang
Hoc Thai Nguyen (Nguyen Thai Hoc)
Peter “Lyn” René

I predict CM Hoang will win.  Even if a District F resident is incensed with Hoang’s job (which many definitely are), the presence of two other candidates to choose from will render a splitting of votes, causing Hoang to win.

District G:
Clyde Bryan
Oliver Pennington

Although CM Pennington is an incumbent, many people in District G know Bryan.  Still I don’t think that enough people are upset with Pennington’s performance to change their vote.  Let’s not forget that Pennington beat four other people in 2009 and won with 59.10% of the vote.

District H:
Patricia Rodriguez
Edward “Ed” Gonzalez 

CM Gonzalez will likely win again. 

District I:
Leticia Gutierrez Ablaza
James Rodriguez 

CM Rodriguez will likely win again.

District J:
Mike Laster
Rodrigo Canedo
Criselda Romero

Laster raised the most money.  Although this district is considered a “Hispanic-Opportunity District,” with only 17 of registered voters with Hispanic surnames, I don’t think being Hispanic automatically predicts a win here.  I think Laster will win.

District K:
Pat Frazier
Larry Green
Alex Gonik

Simply, Green has the money and the endorsements.  While that doesn’t always predict a win, I think it will in this case.

At-Large 1:
Stephen C. Costello
James Partsch-Galvan
Scott Boates
Don Cook 

This is a hard one to say.  CM Costello is the one behind the Rebuild Houston drainage fee, and I think most voters know that by now.  Although many are angry about it, let’s not forget that it did pass by the voters in the last election.  Even when you take away the number of people who originally voted for it and are now against it, there are still many who support the fee and who support Costello.  Couple that with the fact that Boates recently stated that he “‘ joined both parties this year as part of this run for office.’”  It’s fine if someone is a moderate (actually that might not be a bad thing at all), but his poor choice of words and the fact that it will be difficult to make headway with either party might cause a clear opening for Costello to win again.  I am fairly confident in many of my predictions, but I really won’t be shocked if Costello loses. 

At-Large 2:
Kristi Thibaut
Elizabeth C. Pérez
Andrew C. Burks, Jr.
Gordon R. Goss
Bolivar “Bo” Fraga
Eric B. Dick
Jenifer Rene Pool
M. “Griff” Griffin
David W. Robinson
Roslyn “Rozzy” Shorter 

This is another one where it is really difficult to predict.  I think there will be a runoff that includes Thibaut, but I am not sure who will be in it with her.  Maybe Robinson, but then again, let’s not discount the fact that for the last couple of months you couldn’t drive anywhere in Houston without seeing an Eric Dick (illegal) sign.  In the end I think Thibaut will win. 

At-Large 3:
Melissa Noriega
Chris Carmona
J. Brad Batteau 

CM Noriega will likely win.  I think those who supported her last time still support her today. 

At-Large 4:
Louis Molnar
Amy Price
C. O. “Brad” Bradford 

I don’t see CM Bradford losing his seat.  He has lots of support from both sides of the aisle and hasn’t done anything that the majority of voters would find alarming. 

At-Large 5:
Laurie Robinson
Jolanda “Jo” Jones
Jack Christie
Bob Ryan 

I really think Christie will win this time.  I think enough people are mad an CM Jones and want her out.  With Christie as the clear front runner with Jones, I think it will end up being just a battle between them with Christie winning. 

City Controller:
Ronald Green

Leave a Comment » | Al Hoang, Brenda Stardig, C.O. "Brad" Bradford, Ed Gonzalez, Election 2011, James Rodriguez, Jolanda Jones, Melissa Noriega, Mike Sullivan, Oliver Pennington, Stephen Costello, Wanda Adams | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

Proposed Texas Constitutional Amendments

October 20, 2011

Here are the proposed state constitutional amendments coming up in the November election.  As a state employee, I do not think it would be ethical to post my opinions about the proposed constitutional amendments.  So instead I have posted an analysis and arguments for and against each proposed amendment.   Post any questions you have in the comments, and I will do my best to get you an answer.

The Texas Legislative Council posts an analysis of the proposed amendments each year.  Their analysis is 69 pages, so for the most part, I summarized their analysis and added a little of my own.  If you want to read their full publication, click here.

Proposition 1: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran.

Analysis: Disabled veterans receive a 100% exemption from their ad valorem property taxes.  Should they pass away, the exemption expires, forcing the surviving spouse to pay the full amount of taxes. 

Support: Many spouses of disabled veterans are not employed because taking care of a disabled person is a full-time commitment.  To recognize their sacrifices and dedication to someone who gave their life to this country, we should extend this gesture to the surviving spouse.  

Opposition: It will cause the state to lose money in a time where so many areas are underfunded.  Also, property taxes are state taxes.  The military is a federal issue, so the federal government should be the one to give tax breaks, not the state. 

Proposition 2: The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding. 

Analysis: In 1957, Texans approved a constitutional amendment authorizing general obligation bonds for water resources and conservation.  Since then, these projects have been expanded and are now administrated by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB).  All previous voter-approved bonds were only approved for a one-time use, meaning once the bond amount was used, nothing else was available.  The proposed amendment would authorize an additional $6 billion in bonds as general obligation bonds on a continuous or revolving basis, rather than on a one-time basis. 

Support: There has been a huge increase in Texas’ population.  With serious drought issues, there is a requirement for an updated infrastructure to meet the current water needs and to anticipate and plan for future needs. Without the additional authority, critical water planning and infrastructure upgrades will be greatly impeded or halted altogether. 

Opposition: This gives more authority and power to an agency rather than the people.  It is irresponsible to give the TWDB complete and permanent bonding authority without having to receive votes from the public. 

Proposition 3: The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students. 

Analysis: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) administers the Hinson-Hazelwood College Student Loan Program, which uses general obligation bonds to finance low-interest loans to eligible students seeking an undergraduate, graduate, or professional education at public and private institutions. The loan program is intended for students with insufficient resources to finance a college education.   Currently, the Texas Constitution caps the amount of general obligation bond authority available to THECB for the loan program. Every four to six years, THECB must seek a constitutional amendment to effectively reset the available bonding capacity to meet ongoing student loan demand.  This amendment will not require the THECB to come back to the voters every time they need more money. 

Support: There is a higher demand for student loans.  Low-interest, fixed rate loans, like this program provides, are the best loans to get. The law requires the program to be self-sustaining and pay back its debt service payments.  The state has never had to contribute any general revenue for bonds issues under this program.  

Opposition: The benefits of the Hinson-Hazelwood program generally are unquestioned.  If any state money is given to people for higher education, it should be a grant and not a loan.  The state should not be in the loan business. 

Proposition 4: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area.  The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates. 

Analysis: The legislature may allow cities to issue bonds for development or redevelopment of certain areas (usually given to blighted areas that need help).  Increases in property tax revenues in that area are used for the repayment of those bonds.  This amendment would allow the legislature to allow counties to do the same. 

Support: Counties should have the same ability as cities to improve areas. 

Opposition: It could lead to eminent domain issues.  Also, it could create an incentive to appraise property taxes in the zone at a higher value. 

Proposition 5: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund. 

Analysis: When counties and cities enter into contracts together, usually for infrastructure or transportation, a tax must be levied.  This amendment would allow the governments to enter into these contracts without levying new taxes. 

Support: It gives local government more flexibility and will not force new taxes when unnecessary.  

Opposition: Contracts between local jurisdictions are great, but there is a reason the entities are separate and have separate governments.  With more incentive to enter into more and more contracts, small cities or counties could turn into huge conglomerate areas. 

Proposition 6: The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund. 

Analysis: The permanent school fund is a perpetual endowment for the support of public schools.  If the permanent school fund’s investment performance allows, distributions are made periodically from the permanent school fund to the available school fund.  This amendment would increase the amount of principal that can be transferred from the Permanent School Fund each year to the Available School Fund. 

Support: Recent legislation allows the General Land Office (GLO) to transfer money under its control in the permanent school fund directly to the available school fund. A subsequent attorney general’s opinion, ruled that the provision is likely unconstitutional.  It is necessary to clarify the constitutionality of this act.  It would also ensure the use of constituent terminology in referring to the permanent school fund. 

Opposition: The permanent school fund is meant to provide interest revenue from investment of the fund’s permanent assets for distribution to the available school fund and, in turn, to the public schools.  Taking money out of the fund in the short-term might be alright, but in the long-run, it will compromise the fund. 

Proposition 7: constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities. 

Analysis: This amendment will allow for El Paso County residents to vote to use property taxes to create a regional park district to improve county parkland. 

Support: The City of El Paso’s park system is underfunded.  This amendment will facilitate the creation and maintenance of a regional park through a method already available in 10 other counties.  It will not raise taxes.  Rather it will allow voters in El Paso County to vote on whether or not this district should be created and be allowed to issues bonds payable from property taxes.  If El Paso residents want to do this, it should be left up to them. 

Opposition: If El Paso County residents agree to it, it will provide an opportunity for further taxing in a property-poor county.  

Proposition 8: The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity. 

Analysis: This amendment would allow land currently used for farming, ranching, wildlife management or logging to be developed for water conservation without changing its tax status.

Support: Promoting water stewardship, especially voluntary conservation, is almost always a good thing. 

Opposition: There are already many tax breaks for land owners.  Another one is excessive.  

Proposition 9: The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision. 

Analysis: In Texas, a person who has committed a violent act or an offense that has significant implications to the victim still has the ability for that crime to be pardoned by the governor.  However, for a lesser offense, for which the courts have ruled that the public is best served by an offer of deferred adjudication to the defendant, the governor has no power to pardon that crime.  This amendment would allow the governor to grant a pardon to those who completes a term of deferred adjudication. 

Support: It is not fair that the governor can pardon someone found guilty of a crime but not those who agree to deferred adjudication.  Those who are pardoned in most cases are eligible for expunction of the criminal record, but those placed on deferred adjudication will always have a record of arrest. 

Opposition: This might not actually efficiently achieve the goal of expunction of a criminal history record because the person still must proceed through the pardon process involving the Board of Pardons and Paroles and the governor, a process that historically has resulted in few pardons.  Rather than allow for a pardon, the law should be changed to allow for those with deferred adjudication to seek expunction without going through the pardon process. 

Proposition 10: The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office. 

Analysis: Texas Constitution requires most county officials to resign their post if they declare they are running for another office with more than one year left in their current term.  This amendment would change the provision to allow office holders to remain in their position if they announce with less than one year and 30 days remaining in their term. 

Support: It adjusts for the new federal filing date enacted to allow more time for the delivery of ballots to the military and others overseas.  Due to the change of filing from January 2 to the second Monday in December, a change to the resign-to-run provision is necessary to preserve the original intent of the law. 

Opposition: It is unfair for the county to have special provisions others do not have.

6 Comments | Election 2011 | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by peckblog

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.