Today is December 31, and a piece of the Robinson Warehouse is still standing, but the end is clearly in sight. I'll be surprised if there's anything but debris to be picked up and carted off in a week's time.
Not much left, is there? Click on for more.
I'll start with the southwest view, which gives a good perspective of the progress that's been made just this week. Note that there are only four windows left on the second floor, compared to seven when last we looked. And it's even farther along than that as you'll see here:
The south wall isn't much more than a facade right now. Much of the interior is gone. I think the cleanup that's currently going on in the basement is the bigger job now. While I think the demolition may be completed this week, I think it'll take another week to finish the debris removal.
The view from the driveway, which is pretty much empty now.
No trucks blocking my view from Allen Parkway this time. Again, you can see just how little there is to go.
And as one building dies, another is born. This is a view from across the adjacent empty lot of a new apartment complex going on on West Dallas. The building on the far right of that shot is next to the still-empty future retail site. The crane in the background is a part of the apartment construction. Who knows how long that will take - maybe it'll be done by the time the retail construction starts, maybe not. More to watch in the new year.
The latest news in the Speaker's race is a letter written by most of Tom Craddick's committee chairs to the House membership asking for their support in giving Craddick a third term. The letter is here (PDF); four chairs - two Republicans (Jim Pitts and Robert Talton) and two Democrats (Allan Ritter and Craig Eiland) - declined to sign. This is the sort of thing that I think Team Craddick should have done from the beginning, not releasing nebulous and ever-shrinking pledge lists or demanding to know who has pledged to someone else, both of which strike me as signs of weakness. This is the first positive reason to support Craddick I've seen, and not a minute too late for Craddick. Not that it impresses me, of course - I'd sooner see Dan Patrick in charge of things - but at least it's a sign that Craddick recognizes the position he's in.
Others have their own take. Hal doesn't think this letter will fool anyone, though he does have some sympathy for the Democratic signers, a position with which McBlogger disagrees. Vince thinks this letter could be the death knell of the anti-Craddick rebellion. Paul Burka is unwilling to call it one way or the other at this point. I'm somewhere between Hal and Burka on this. I see Craddick is being seriously wounded, but not dead yet. We'll know soon enough.
UPDATE: Just because it was my last post for this year on the Speaker's race doesn't mean it was everybody else's:
BOR cites a Quorum Report story in which Democratic Rep. Craig Eiland, one of the four committee chairs who did not sign the letter on behalf of Craddick, says that Craddick can't win at this point. From your lips to God's ears, Rep. Eiland.
Rep. Pena says he's ready to call the Speaker's race, but doesn't say who he thinks the winner is.
Muse comments on Rep. Pena's postings and wonders if Pitts and McCall might be combining forces.
Lisa Sandberg says things are a wee bit too quiet in Austin right now.
It's already 2007 in some parts of Utah.
[A]t least two [Utah] cities will eagerly embrace 2007 a full 24 hours before it actually arrives in order to appeal to Mormons.The premature celebration does not reflect a new emphasis on revelry, church officials assure. It is simply that New Year's Eve this year falls on a Sunday, the Sabbath, and the two cities, St. George and Provo, know that in a state with about 1.75 million Mormons, faith can trump Father Time when it comes to planning a party.
"It's cultural slash religious, but primarily it's economic-based," said Marc Mortensen, the coordinator for First Night St. George, the city's alcohol-free New Year's Eve celebration. "We're just not going to get good enough attendance if we hold it on Sunday."
Works for me. I started a tradition of "New Year's Eve In January" parties back in college, because the only way I could have a New Year's Eve party with all my friends was to do so after the winter break. I say one shouldn't be too closely wedded to the idea of a single New Year's Eve, and as such, I applaud the city of St. George for thinking outside the box. Happy New Year, Utah!
Here's a disturbing story from last week that had slipped past me.
Shoddy health care, substantial neglect and harmful treatment techniques have jeopardized the lives of Lubbock State School residents, federal investigators said in a report that criticized nearly every part of the facility.The U.S. Department of Justice report paints a nightmarish picture of the facility that cares for about 350 people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities.
One man died of an illness that could have been prevented if his doctors and nurses had done something as simple as modifying his diet. Another woman developed excruciating ulcers on her buttocks after lying in urine-soaked diapers. A third resident was grabbed, choked and thrown on the floor when he resisted receiving a shot.
"LSS's provision of health care falls alarmingly short of professional standards of care," said the report, which was issued Dec. 11 but was not posted on the department's Web site until Thursday.
That report is here (PDF).
Michael Jones, a spokesman for the state agency that oversees the state school, said he could not comment on the report's contents because "it's still a potential legal matter." But he would say the facility has a new management team that has worked hard to improve training and hire more medical professionals.Many of the problems stemmed from severe staffing shortages and training issues, the report said.
[...]
The investigators documented scores of problems, including 17 deaths in a year and a half and possible violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
That law says states must treat individuals in the most integrated setting possible. But rather than seeking to move obviously capable residents into the community, officials seemed eager to keep them in the facility, the report said.
Emphasis mine. Seventeen deaths in a year and a half, due in large part to staff shortages. Why were there such staff shortages? Take a wild guess.
State Rep. Delwin Jones of Lubbock, who helped get the school built in the 1960s, said he saw some of the report Friday and said state budget cuts put the school in a difficult position."A shortage of personnel put them in a tough spot in trying to deliver the quality of care people deserve," he said, adding he would support efforts to upgrade the quality of care.
Budget cuts. Seventeen deaths. Any more questions about why some of us get so pissed off when we don't hear about restoring the draconian cuts of 2003 now that we have a larger surplus than we did a deficit back then?
Oh, and another thing we tend to get upset about, from that same session, is how this agency came to be:
The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) was established in September 2004 as a result of House Bill 2292 (78th Texas Legislature), which consolidated:
- mental retardation services and state school programs of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
- community care, nursing facility, and long-term care regulatory services of the Department of Human Services, and
- aging services and programs of the Department on Aging.
Yes, HB2292, also known as the bill that threw 250,000 kids off of CHIP and gave us the excellent adventure known as Accenture outsourcing of THHSC. It's a gift that keeps on giving. Rick Perry may not want to talk about what his legacy will be, but I'll tell you that stuff like this is a big part of it.
My thanks to Citizen Able for the heads up on this.
So House Speaker wannabe Brian McCall says he has enough pledges to beat Tom Craddick next week. Which is great, even if by now most legislators have committed themselves multiple times. What really fascinated me in this article was the approach that Team Craddick has decided to take to woo back its wayward supporters:
Lawmakers who met with Craddick in a room off the House chamber are calling those on his list to ensure they're sticking with the incumbent, said Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, one of the participants."You divide the names up and call and make sure everybody is still where they are," said Chisum. "That's what we're doing." He estimated there were 30 or more people in the meeting.
During the meeting, voices along with laughter and applause could be heard from behind the closed doors by tourists and others who wandered into the chamber.
Chisum -- along with Republican Reps. Frank Corte of San Antonio and Phil King of Weatherford, and Democratic Rep. Norma Chavez of El Paso -- said after the meeting that those who claim support should show their list of pledged backers.
"If you have support, then show me your list," Chavez said.
The lawmakers also said there is a question of honor at stake in secretly pledging support to more than one candidate. They said lawmakers who change their minds about supporting Craddick should be upfront about it.
"Your word is all you have," King said.
Corte said, "It's about honor."
Chavez said, "Veteran members know how important giving your word is in this process."
Yes, publicly questioning people's honor has always been an effective means of ensuring loyalty.
What an utter load of crap this is. "Veteran members" know fully well that pledge cards are meaningless. They're no more bound to that than a respondent to a pollster is to vote for the candidate they claimed they support. This isn't aimed at veteran members, who've been around the block and know the score. It's aimed at freshmen - in particular, Republican freshmen - who as I said before have to make a choice without having as full an understanding of the consequences as everybody else will. This has all the sincerity of a daytime TV commercial selling some kind of dubious supplemental insurance to worried senior citizens.
McCall and Pitts have said they don't want to put lawmakers in jeopardy with the incumbent by releasing names prematurely.McCall voiced concern about "bullying and strong-arm tactics." McCall also said he is trying to attract more supporters, not release an exclusive list. Pitts is seeking to be a consensus candidate.
Corte said, "There's no fear and intimidation here."
"We just want to know who all the dirty turncoat traitors are so the kneebreaking - I mean, the healing - can begin," he did not add.
Truly, I am astonished at how tone deaf the Craddickites are. They have no idea what is driving this rebellion, so they have no viable response to it. Have none of them read a newspaper, or asked a non-Craddickite friend (assuming they still have any) what the hate is all about? The level of disengagement is positively Bushian.
On a related note, here's a little blast from the past that saw this coming from quite a ways off. Extra kudos to The Red State for foreseeing the rise of Brian McCall.
I really don't think I can sum up why Tom Craddick's hold on the Speakership is in trouble better than this article has done.
Lawmakers backing House Speaker Tom Craddick plan a strategy meeting here today to map "a new course "in the wake of a challenge to his re-election by fellow Republicans, a key participant said Friday."We're going to plan and strategize and map out a new course for the whole state of Texas," Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, said as he drove to the Amarillo airport late Friday to catch a flight to the state capital.
Craddick spokesman Chris Cutrone and consultant Bill Miller said they didn't know anything about a meeting.
Though Chisum said he believes Craddick will successfully fight off challenges by Reps. Brian McCall, of Plano, and Jim Pitts, of Waxahachie, "it was kind of an assault on his leadership style, so we've got to talk about that. ... You've got to sit down and say, 'OK, how can we do better?' Or maybe we need to get all on the same page if we're going to do the right thing for the people of Texas."
Chisum suggested there would be "a change of style, a little bit" to involve more lawmakers.
"We'd like to get ... back to having the House more run by the members," he said.
[...]
[Chisum] said he wasn't certain whether Craddick would attend the meeting, which he said would be at the state Capitol, but added, "I know some of his staff people will be there."
[...]
Chisum said the group wants to figure out why lawmakers are so set on change.
"We want to see why we had so many ... especially Republicans that would go out and seek the company of Democrats to unseat the speaker," he said, referring to the support from both parties claimed by each challenger in the GOP-majority House.
"That's kind of concerning because they lay their political career on the line when they do that," Chisum said. "It's kind of just a little self-examination time, and hopefully lay out a plan that we can kind of get this behind us pretty quick, because a real hard-divided House is not going to be fun."
How clueless and out of touch can you get? There's dozens of books on leadership at your local Barnes and Noble that will tell you how effective leaders communicate with their charges so they can understand their problems and frustrations, and how they get out in front of issues like this so they can head them off before they become full-blown crises. Maybe someone should give Craddick a copy of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People as a belated Christmas present. With any luck, he'll have more free time this session to read it.
Elsewhere, Eye on Williamson has an update from Travis County and a good explanation why some Craddick Dems may indeed go down with the ship. Check it out.
UPDATE: Want more evidence that Craddick is clueless? Here you go.
Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick released a list Thursday of the state representatives who were supposedly supporting the Midland Republican's effort to retain his leadership position.One of our first clues that the list wasn't rock solid (other than the fact it included Waxahachie Republican Jim Pitts, who the same day announced that he would challenge Craddick) was that Craddick didn't correctly spell the names of some of the lawmakers he claimed had pledged their loyalty. We figured that if they were truly aligned with him, he would at least know their names.
No word on whether Dallas Democrat Helen Giddings (on Craddick's list as "Helen Gidding") or Corsicana Republican Byron Cook (listed as "Bryon Cook") are still supporting Craddick.
Oops. Link via BOR.
Former Yankee center fielder Bobby Murcer is in Houston this weekend, but not for a good reason.
Yankee legend Bobby Murcer is scheduled to undergo surgery [Thursday] in Houston for the removal of a brain tumor.Murcer, 60, a Yankee institution as a player and broadcaster for 40 years, had been experiencing headaches and a loss of energy in recent days and, after an MRI on Christmas Eve, the tumor was discovered. It was then decided that he would seek treatment at the MD Anderson Hospital in Houston, one of the foremost cancer facilities in the country.
"I'm feeling OK and we're just going to have to see what this surgery will bring," Murcer said by phone last night. "I'm hopeful that everything will turn out OK and I'm thankful to have so many friends who are rooting for me."
Link via David Pinto. Thankfully, the surgery appears to have gone well.
Bobby Murcer emerged in good spirits yesterday from six hours of surgery to remove a brain tumor and, according to close family sources, the Yankee legend's doctor was "completely happy" with how the operation went.According to former Yankee publicist Marty Appel, who spoke last night with Murcer's wife, Kay, Murcer was actually talking and joking following the procedure at the renowned University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where Dr. Jeffrey Weinberg performed the surgery.
[...]
"They removed it all and everything went great," Appel said Kay Murcer told him. "The doctor was completely happy with the way it went and Bobby came out of the recovery room talking and even asked the anesthesiologist, who he remembered by name: 'How did I do, Tom?'"
It will take a few days before doctors can fully analyze the pathology reports on the tumor, but initial signs all appear to be positive. Kay Murcer said, "Bobby fully expects to be in spring training in March."
As of now, barring any complications, Murcer, 60, is expected to remain in the hospital over the weekend and likely will be discharged on Monday, when he would return home to Oklahoma City for his recovery period.
I'm very glad to her that. Murcer was one of the few bright spots on the Yankee roster in the late 60s and early 70s, and he's always been a favorite of mine. Get well soon, Bobby! Second link via Bronx Banter.
I knew I had officially entered Old Fogeyhood a couple of years ago when I realized I didn't really care if I stayed up to usher in the New Year. As such, I was completely unaware of last year's new New Year's Eve "tradition" in Houston, which apparently will be taking this year off due to technical difficulties.
It was supposed to be a signature event for Houston, planners said, a budding New Year's Eve tradition that might one day rival the Big Apple's midnight drop. There was heady talk of eventually broadcasting it nationally or even worldwide.But the 9-foot star that was hoisted to the top of downtown's Binz Building to celebrate last Dec. 31 will languish in a warehouse this year as planners regroup for what they promise will be a far grander spectacle in 2007.
"It takes a couple of years to get a project like that up and running and to get people educated about it," said City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado. "Last year was a start."
[...]
The hitch in planning may reflect that Houston is still learning how to create a sense of shared community -- something that wasn't necessary when a surging, oil-based economy was all the city needed to consider itself successful, said Rice University sociology professor Stephen Klineberg, a longtime observer of Houston culture.
Political and business leaders increasingly are focusing on creating a distinct identity for Houston, Klineberg said, but such transformations take time.
"It's a tricky thing," he said, "to create a tradition that doesn't already exist."
Hey, in the MOB we just declare that anything we've done more than once is a tradition. Saves a lot of time that way. Give it a try and see for yourself.
The Jordy Tollett era is coming to an end.
Gerard J. "Jordy" Tollett announced today that he is leaving his post as president and CEO of the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau.He said he has decided to pursue other ventures.
He will serve as a consultant until 2008.
GHCVB chairman Doug Horn and chairman emeritus Don Henderson will coordinate day-to-day operations at the GHCVB.
The executive board of the bureau voted in November to search for a possible replacement for Tollett.
Considerable pressure was applied on the board's 28 members, who cast secret ballots when deciding whether to follow up on Mayor Bill White's recommendation to enlist a national executive search firm to find candidates when Tollett's contract expires in February.
[...]
Tollett doesn't need a job - he still earns $111,000 a year from his city pension. But this is a job he had wanted to keep, he said in November, because it defines him.
I recommend finding a hobby. Try needlepoint, or maybe blogging. You'd be amazed at how much personal fulfillment is available if you look for it. And hey, now you have the time to do just that.
Miya has more.
UPDATE: Here's today's fuller story.
If you'd like to affect an election that's maybe not as important as the House Speaker's race but is by far more fun, you have until tomorrow night to vote for Stephanie Stradley as the Ultimate Texans Fan. Here she explains why your vote matters:
Here's a stat you won't find anywhere else. The Texans are 2-1 when I run out on the field through the tunnel as one of the finalists in the Ultimate Texan Fan contest. My buddy Mark thinks the team won't turn the corner until I win. Interesting theory, and one I'd like to see work. Voting ends soon. If you would like to see our videos, you can click here. If you would like to just vote, click here.
Steph notes that the Texans have never won Game 16 in their history, so we'll see how her mojo is working for them this time. They'll announce the winner at the two minute warning of the first half. Good luck, Stephanie!
It's really hard to keep up on all the developments in the Speaker's race. Let's see what I can do to bring you up to speed.
Here's the Chron story on the latest entrant into the fray, Waxahachie Republican Jim Pitts:
Jim Pitts, 59, the affable Republican from Waxahachie whom Craddick appointed to chair the influential Appropriations Committee in 2004, said he decided to challenge the 63-year-old speaker from Midland because he is convinced he can win.While refusing to name names or discuss precise numbers, Pitts said at an afternoon news conference that he'd done the math and, unlike either of his opponents, had come up with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans backing him.
"I wouldn't be standing here today if I didn't feel that I would win overwhelmingly on Jan. 9," he said.
I've already said that Pitts would be okay by me. Now I'm going to say that Pitts may be a stalking horse for Craddick. He may be the not-McCall candidate, rather than the not-Craddick candidate. A major consideration here for some Republicans is that being part of a power-seizing coalition that's three-quarters Democratic might be hazardous to their health in a future primary. Pitts could win simply by getting the bulk of Craddick's support, plus some Republicans who currently support McCall. That's a Republican-dominated coalition, which achieves the end of ousting Craddick, but does so in a way that's sufficiently palatable to those involved. Mind you, this would still be an improvement over Speaker Craddick. The question is whether the choice is between Pitts and McCall, or Pitts and Craddick.
On the other hand, if Leo Berman is any indicator, then maybe it's not so simple for Pitts after all. Like I said, it's hard to keep up with all of this.
Best quote of the entire affair:
Craddick, meanwhile, insisted he held a decisive lead and released a list of 84 members that his consultant, Bill Miller, called "solid hard," "in our pocket" supporters, people who had been called "two and three times" to reconfirm their support for him, including Pitts.Craddick spokeswoman Alexis DeLee appeared stunned that Pitts had entered the race.
"We have not heard that," DeLee said about an hour after Pitts confirmed his candidacy. "He told us he's in our camp. Well, that's just one less person on the list."
You can see why nobody is taking Craddick's pledge lists seriously any more. How can you when he doesn't even know who really supports him and who doesn't?
From where I sit, which isn't in Austin and which isn't connected to all this, it feels to me like the longer this gets drawn out, the less likely Craddick is to survive. Power is as much about perception as anything, and right now Tom Craddick looks weak. If fear plays any role in keeping some of his support in line, then the weaker Craddick looks the less there is to fear from him. Remember, a vote for Speaker can be called during the session. Even if Craddick wins on January 9, he's not free to go back to his old ways.
Describing himself as "the consensus candidate," Pitts said he had been "inundated with calls over the last five days" from House members seeking a candidate who would work both sides of the aisle and do so without the "arm twisting" he and others allege occurred under Craddick's leadership."I would never insist or twist arms or intimidate members to vote against their district," Pitts said Thursday, standing beside his son Ryan, 20. "I will go out and help 150 members get re-elected whether they're Democrats or Republicans."
If you want to know where that fear of Craddick comes from, it's in the strong challenges that various members have faced over the past couple of cycles, in particular in Republican primaries. Unfortunately for him, a few too many people have survived them, and now know that they don't have to be afraid.
And of course there's a bunch of freshmen this session - Democrats who need only follow Senfronia Thompson's lead, and Republicans who may or may not have any reason to feel a kinship with Craddick. Some of those Republican freshmen will have a really tough decision to make, and they'll be making it without really knowing the players involved. I don't envy them the task.
In the Take It For What It's Worth department, I'm hearing that there's some real ugliness looming on the horizon for the speaker's race. If what I'm hearing is accurate, look for things to get personal and nasty very soon.
Other takes:
Burka looks at the Craddick defectors and the Dems who still remain in his camp. I'll address two of those people, and make a more general point. I'm hearing that Chuck Hopson is with McCall, so he's another person that Craddick may be counting on that he shouldn't be. As for Aaron Pena, I join Burka in wishing that Pena would address this matter on his blog. I hate to call someone out in this fashion, but one thing about blogging is that people will come to expect you to talk about certain topics. I don't doubt that this is as hard for Pena as it is for many others, but this is one of those topics that he needs to address. I sympathize with the spot he may be in, but as long as he's on Craddick's list, even as meaningless as that list may turn out to be, people will wonder about it.
That said, getting to my more general point, I think if Craddick ultimately loses most of those folks will wind up supporting the winner. It may be simply a matter of knowing which way the wind is blowing and not wanting to go down with the ship, but I'll be very surprised if there's more than a handful of Dems stick with Craddick in a losing effort.
McBlogger and Vince are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the challenge to Craddick. I see where Vince is coming from, but I'm with McB. Sometimes the only way to move forward is to risk being thrown for a loss. It's increasingly hard to sympathize with the Craddick Dems.
BOR is calling out several of those Dems, especially Austin Rep. Dawnna Dukes. Dukes, sadly, has other things in her track record to worry about. Supporting Craddick may be the backbreaker, but she didn't get into that position by happenstance. As for the rest of BOR's list of potential primary targets, for better or worse I don't see Sylvester Turner as being in any real danger. I think Burka has the right take on him. Turner is very good at what he does, and he'll do what's best for him. Remember my general point above? Think Sylvester Turner as you read that. Kevin Bailey, on the other hand, needs to watch his posterior.
South Texas Chisme is keeping score in the Valley. Have I mentioned that calling your own Rep and asking him or her to support Brian McCall is a good idea? Yes, I think I have.
Sal Costello says that Jim Pitts would oppose the Trans Texas Corridor.
Muse reads Rep. Leo Berman's email and says he's making a very serious charge. She has the relevant law pertaining to the Speaker's race and explains what she means by that.
UPDATE: DallasBlog says Pitts' candidacy is going nowhere. Bay Area Houston airs grievances against Craddick.
UPDATE: Rep. Pena weighs in.
UPDATE: More from Easter Lemming, who fills in what I left blank regarding the nastiness, and Hal.
Anybody watch the Texas Bowl? I'll say this, having attended my first-ever bowl game last week: There is something cool, something special about bowl games. Just being in another town with your fellow fans, wearing your school's colors, hopefully in greater numbers than the other guys, and knowing that the locals you encounter know why you're there, was pleasing in a way I didn't expect. Maybe that wears off when going to a bowl game becomes a habit and an expectation, but for this time, at least, I enjoyed the heck out of it.
Anyway. In yesterday's story about the latest version of a Houston-based bowl game, an old familiar theme cropped up:
Rutgers vs. Kansas State is a fortuitously attractive matchup between two rags-to-riches programs with devout followings. A crowd in excess of 50,000 is expected for the 7 p.m. kickoff, and officials predict the economic impact for the community to exceed $30 million.Thousands of hotel rooms are said to be full of people wearing clothes in Rutgers scarlet or K-State purple.
"It's the equivalent of one of our major conventions, like the Offshore Technology Conference," said Wayne Chappell of the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau. "And because (the visitors) don't have to go to meetings, they're out having fun and spending money."
Reading this makes me kinda wish I'd been at work for some of this week so I could offer my own evidence about these statements. I'd be interested to know where these folks spent those discretionary dollars of theirs, because as I've said many times before, there are not many attractive dining options near Reliant Stadium. Did anybody else encounter some of these folks? If so, where was it?
And of course you can't have a story like this without the issue of the game's economic impact on the city arising. I've beaten that horse to a pulp (see here and here for two examples), and I've yet to see a postgame study of the actual numbers. I doubt this time will be any different.
Be that as it may, the game did draw over 50,000 fans, many of whom presumably came from out of town. I'm not doubting that there was some economic impact (though whether this year's attendance level will be normal or anomalous is open to debate), I just want something other than some Houston booster's self-interested pregame guess as a metric. Is that so much to ask?
Shortly after Olivia was born, I wrote about how we picked her name in part on the belief that it wasn't a trendy choice. That belief turned out to be false, but looking back, I don't think we care any more. We love the name Olivia Rose, and as an extra added bonus, we haven't encountered any other Olivias at Esperanza, as we thought we were going to. All in all, we're very happy with that choice.
Still, all things being equal, we'd rather not run with the crowd. As such, I'm pleased to see that the name we've selected for baby #2 is not in the top ten for 2006. It does appear in the top 100 list, but I can live with that. We're not looking to be pioneers, either. A happy medium works for us.
(No, I'm not going to tell you what it is yet. You'll know when she makes her debut.)
On that note, I've been amused by the debate in this week's Dear Abby about unusual baby names (see here, here, and here for the background). For what it's worth, I side with the MYOB crowd on this one. Among the reasons why we don't disclose our baby names prior to baby arrivals is too many stories from people who told others what they'd be naming their impending progeny only to get a negative reaction. That never seems to be a problem for an already-born child, just for those who are still in utero. I guess maybe these folks think that if the kid isn't here yet, they can change the parents' minds about its name. We'd just as soon not deal with people like that, so we avoid the issue. But for the record, as far as I'm concerned the only acceptable, polite reaction to the disclosure of a forthcoming baby's name is a pleasantry. If you don't like the chosen name, you are cordially invited to lump it. I don't care who you are or what your relationship is to the kid's parents. You have no say in the matter, so keep your criticism to yourself.
This is not to say that I think some names are better choices than others. As my friend Ellen likes to say, if you can't imagine your kid's name (in particular, your daughter's name) on the door of a CEO's office, you might want to explore other options. I'd just never say such a thing out loud to anyone, as it's none of my damn business.
Finally, I just want to say that the chapter on children's names in the book Freakonomics, especially the bit on the brothers named Winner and Loser, is excellent. If you've not yet read the book, consider this a good reason to seek it out.
Earlier this week, I received a comment on this post about red light cameras from a fellow named Reed Berry, who said he'd had a radio debate with local camera opponent Michael Kubosh. I've had a pleasant exchange of emails with Mr. Berry since then, and am awaiting an MP3 of the broadcast, which I will post for you when I get it.
In the meantime, Berry also sent me these two links (PDF) on the subject of how red light cameras affect accident and injury rates. I'll quote a bit from the latter, which is taken from a statement before the Ohio Senate Committee on Highways and Transportation given by Anne T. McCartt of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:
The key question is, would wide use of such cameras improve the safety of our urban streets? Findings from Institute research indicate they do. Significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras in Oxnard, California. This is the major finding of the first U.S. research on the effects of camera enforcement on intersection crashes.5 Injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent after camera enforcement began in Oxnard in 1997. Front-into-side collisions - the crash type that is most closely associated with
red light running - were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced 68 percent. Crashes declined throughout Oxnard even though only 11 of the city's 125 intersections with traffic signals were equipped with cameras. Previous studies of red light running violations in Oxnard and elsewhere found similar spillover effects. That is, the violations dropped in about the same proportions at intersections with and without cameras, attesting to the strong deterrent value of red light cameras and their ability to change driver behavior.Institute research based on a review of the international literature provides further evidence that red light cameras can significantly reduce violations and related injury crashes. A detailed assessment of international studies of camera effectiveness indicates that red light camera enforcement generally reduces violations by an estimated 40-50 percent and reduces overall injury crashes by 25-30 percent.
A 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven communities (El Cajon, San Diego, and San Francisco, California; Howard County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore, Maryland; and Charlotte, North Carolina). The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe and more costly than the additional rear-end crashes that can occur, the study found a positive societal benefit of more than $14 million. The authors concluded that the increase in rear-end crash frequency does not offset the societal benefit resulting from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras.
A 2003 report conducted for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation evaluated a two-year pilot program using red light cameras in six communities in Ontario. The study found a 6.8 percent decrease in fatal and injury collisions and a 18.5 percent increase in property-damage-only collisions. As with the Federal Highway Administration study, the researchers found that the positive societal benefits resulting from the decrease in fatal and injury crashes was not offset by the increase in property-damage-only crashes. The report concluded that the program "has been shown to be an effective tool in reducing fatal and injury collisions, thereby preventing injuries and saving lives" and recommended its continuation. Based on the results of the pilot program, Ontario's Transportation Minister authorized the use of red light cameras throughout Ontario.
There's quite a bit more there, so check it out. I find they're way too blase about privacy concerns for my taste, but the information about collisions is something I've been very interested in. I still want to know what the effect is here in Houston, so I hope some similar research is done. Let me know what you think about this.
Previously I noted that there was a petition drive in Farmers Branch to force a repeal of the anti-immigrant law that was passed by its City Council in November. It appears that drive was successful.
Opponents of a city ordinance prohibiting landlords from renting to illegal immigrants have collected enough valid signatures to force the City Council to repeal the measure or put it to a city vote.The petition drive gathered at least 908 valid signatures, more than the 721 required, city spokesman Tom Bryson said.
[...]
The petitioners needed to collect the signatures of at least 5 percent of the voters registered for the May election.
Bryson said the council will discuss the petition at its Jan. 8 meeting. The city charter requires that the council now reconsider the measure or call a special election on the issue.
Bryson said that if the issue goes to a vote, it would be placed on a May 12 ballot.
If I were in charge of the campaign to repeal this stupid law, I would be sure to emphasize that its nullification would (among other things) result in the dismissal of the lawsuits that have been filed against the city. (Not all of them, perhaps - one such suit alleges that the Council violated state open meeting laws.) Needless to say, that would save the city a ton of money in legal fees. There are certainly better reasons to vote for its repeal, but that's one that I think most people can relate to. I'm guessing that Council will not reconsider its action, so mark your calendar for May 12 when this goes to a vote.
Things continue to heat up in the Speaker's race. First, according to the Quorum Report, onetime Speaker candidate Robert Talton has thrown his support to Brian McCall, thus making him the first Republican to officially break with Tom Craddick. BOR prints Talton's statement.
Meanwhile, the Chron's Lisa Sandberg reports on Texas Politics blog that Senfronia Thompson has also thrown her support to McCall. She claimed to have about 60 pledges.
That leaves Craddick and McCall. Well, it did leave them until Jim Pitts announced his candidacy.
"I told Speaker Craddick that I didnt think he could get the numbers that he needed (to be re-elected as head of the House). I dont think Brian (McCall) is getting the numbers. And I've got a consensus group that has asked me to run," Pitts said in an interview minutes after he mailed his paperwork for the race.Pitts said he would have a news conference at the Capitol later today to announce his race.
He disclosed his plans soon after a consultant for McCall, R-Plano, said his client had been endorsed by Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena - who had been considering a run for speaker - and Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, who filed to run against Craddick.
All I've heard about Jim Pitts suggests that he'd be as good an alternative as McCall would be. If he can get over the hump, he'd be fine by me.
Meanwhile, Paul Burka says what he knows about McCall and his chances. Craddick released a list of 84 pledges to the Quorum Report, which you can see here (Word doc) and beneath the fold. That list includes Jim Pitts, so take it for what it's worth. Finally, BOR has a Numsum spreadsheet comparing Craddick's original pledge list to his current one, minus Pitts, with both lists taken from what Quorum Report has published. Have I mentioned that this is going to be a fun few days? Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Burka reports from Pitts' press conference.
Craddick's list, according to Quorum Report:
Republicans1. Anderson, Doc
2. Aycock, Jimmie Don
3. Berman, Leo
4. Bohac, Dwayne
5. Bonnen, Dennis
6. Branch, Dan
7. Brown, Betty
8. Brown, Fred
9. Callegari, Bill
10. Chisum, Warren
11. Christian, Wayne
12. Cook, Bryon
13. Corte, Frank
14. Crabb, Joe
15. Craddick, Tom
16. Creighton, Brandon
17. Crownover, Myra
18. Darby, Drew
19. Davis, John
20 Delisi, Dianne
21. Driver, Joe
22. Eissler, Rob
23. Elkins, Gary
24. England, Kirk
25. Flynn, Dan
26. Gattis, Dan
27. Goolsby, Tony
28. Hamilton, Mike
29. Hancock, Kelly
30. Hardcastle, Rick
31. Harless, Patricia
32. Harper-Brown, Linda
33. Hartnett, Will
34. Hilderbran, Harvey
35. Hill, Fred
36. Howard, Charlie
37. Isett, Carl
38. Jackson, Jim
39. Keffer, Jim
40. King, Phil
41. King, Susan
42. Kolkhorst, Lois
43. Krusee, Mike
44. Macias, Nathan
45. Madden, Jerry
46. Miller, Sid
47. Morrison, Geanie
48. Mowery, Anna
49. Murphy, Jim
50. Orr, Rob
51. Otto, John
52. Parker, Tan
53. Patrick, Diane
54. Phillips, Larry
55. Pitts, Jim
56. Smith, Wayne
57. Smithee, John
58. Solomons, Burt
59. Straus, Joe
60. Swinford, David
61. Taylor, Larry
62. Truitt, Vicki
63. Van Arsdale, Corbin
64. West, Buddy
65. Woolley, Beverly
66. Zedler, Bill
67. Zerwas, John
Democrats
1. Kevin Bailey
2. Norma Chavez
3. Joe D. Deshotel
4. Dawnna Dukes
5. Harold Dutton
6. Ismael "Kino" Flores
7. Helen Gidding
8. Ryan Guillen
9. Chuck Hopson
10. Tracy O. King
11. Armando "Mando" Martinez
12. Ruth McClendon
13. Aaron Pena
14. Robert Puente
15. Richard Raymond
16. Patrick M. Rose
17. Sylvester Turner
Some of those Dems I'd consider solid for Craddick - Bailey, Chavez, Dukes, Dutton, Flores, McClendon, Puente, Rose, and Turner. Others, maybe not so much. At this point, assume most of what is being said today as being written in the sand as the tide comes in.
I'm not usually one for caption contests, but with a picture like this, I can't resist:
I'll open the bidding with "The Bad, The Worse, and The Ugly", but surely you can do better than that. Have at it in the comments. Thanks to Kriston for the catch.
Oh, and you can buy a copy of this photo, which was taken by Christopher Morris in 2004, for as little as one thousand dollars. In case you need a post-Christmas gift for someone, I suppose.
Dwight brings an update on Corpus Christi's WiFi rollout, which he says still has a few bugs in the system. It's still under construction, so the final chapter has not been written yet. As Earthlink is their vendor and one of two possibilities for Houston's setup, and as Corpus has been cited as a model for Houston, this will bear watching.
Scott picks up on this Chron editorial endorsing the recent proposal to spend $267 million to build more jails in Harris County, and points out all of the bothersome details that they failed to address. I'm not going to re-plow this ground again, but I am going to say this: Let's accept for argument's sake that Harris County really does need all of this new prison space, that none of the issues with overcrowding we face now are problems of mismanagement. Where is the plan to hire enough guards for all these new prisons? As we've already seen, the county - which already faces a shortage of guards - will be competing with HPD and the armed forces for its job applicants. What are they going to do to increase the size of that pool, and to win enough of them over? It seems to me that one logical way to do this is to sweeten the deal for prospective jailers. Is that being considered, and if so, what effect will it have overall on Harris County's finances? Commissioner's Court is awfully quiet on this point. Tell me what that plan is, and then we can talk about the wisdom of this scheme. Until then, I see this proposal as little more than vaporware.
It was a very weird election year in Texas. Why should the Speaker's race be any different?
Tuesday brought yet another twist in the speaker's race: Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, another conservative Republican, announced he would decide by Thursday whether to become the third person to challenge Craddick, after McCall and liberal Democrat Senfronia Thompson of Houston."I think members of the House ought to run the House," Talton said, voicing a common refrain of discontent. "I think there needs to be changes. I told the speaker that shortly after the election."
[...]
Thompson, for her part, said she remains in the running, at least for now.
But she said if too many candidates run against Craddick for speaker, it could divide the "disgruntled" vote.
She said it would be "very difficult" for her to support Talton but she'd have "no problem" supporting McCall under certain circumstances.
"He's in the same position I'm maybe in. Can we garner enough votes on both sides of the aisle to make a cut? That's what it really boils down to," she said.
So let's see, we have an unpopular Republican incumbent running for re-election against three candidates who can combine for a majority of the vote but who may let the incumbent slip back in with a sub-majority because none of them can consolidate the anti-incumbent voters behind them. Is it just me, or has anyone else seen this movie before already? Though I must say, having Talton play the Kinky Friedman role in the remake is some pretty inspired casting.
Anybody know if the vote for Speaker requires a majority - in other words, is there a runoff if no one gets 76 Yeas? The Constitution did not address this point.
Few House members, and no committee chairpeople contacted for this story, appeared willing to openly discuss breaking ranks with the man who has decided committee assignments and chairmanships, and the fate of major bills."I'm focusing on getting support for a secret ballot," said Rep. Tommy Merritt, R-Longview.
Sticking with Craddick, for example, are Democratic Reps. Robert Puente of San Antonio and Ismael "Kino" Flores of Palmview, who chair, respectively, the committees on Natural Resources and Licensing & Administrative Procedures.
Flores said Craddick's reputation for strong-arm tactics could be undeserved, but he wasn't about to test it.
"If you don't put him in a corner and if you don't punch him, he'll work with you," Flores said. "Now, has anyone opposed him and survived? I don't know. If you're asking me if I'm going to take that chance, (the answer is) no."
I've touched on this before. The number of Puentes and Floreses there are out there will determine how many anti-Craddick Republicans will be needed to complete the coup. Expect there to be a lot of head-counting in the next two weeks, because no one is going to want to be on the losing team if they can avoid it.
It's good on a number of levels that Senfronia Thompson is in the race. The main reason why is because she gives all Democrats an unimpeachable reason for supporting someone besides Craddick.
Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, said Sunday that he has pledged to support Thompson when the balloting occurs."My first obligation is going to be try to support the Democratic candidate," he said. "If we're released from our pledges, that's a different story."
Emphasis mine. Rodriguez is someone I'd expect to do the right thing regardless, but note his rationale. How can that be a wrong thing for any good Democrat to do? If it turns out Craddick doesn't have a majority from who's left, well, then a little shopping around couldn't hurt, could it?
And if all else fails, there's always the threat of a primary opponent. Would you like to have to explain to Democratic primary voters why you supported a Republican over a Democrat in the Speaker's race? I wouldn't.
Who knows what happens next? It'll be all over before you know it, so stay tuned.
Former President Gerald Ford passed away yesterday at the age of 93.
Former President Gerald R. Ford, who declared "Our long national nightmare is over" as he replaced Richard Nixon but may have doomed his own chances of election by pardoning his disgraced predecessor, has died. He was 93.The nation's 38th president, and the only one elected to neither the office of president nor vice president, died at his desert home at 6:45 p.m. Tuesday.
"His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country," his wife, Betty, said in a statement.
Ford was the longest living former president, surpassing Ronald Reagan, who died in June 2004, by more than a month.
[...]
Ford was an accidental president. A Michigan Republican elected to Congress 13 times before becoming the first appointed vice president in 1973 after Spiro Agnew left amid scandal, Ford was Nixon's hand-picked successor, a man of much political experience who had never run on a national ticket. He was as open and straightforward as Nixon was tightly controlled and conspiratorial.
Ford took office moments after Nixon resigned in disgrace over Watergate.
"My fellow Americans," Ford said, "our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works. Our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule."
And, true to his reputation as unassuming Jerry, he added: "I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your president by your ballots. So I ask you to confirm me with your prayers."
He revived the debate over Watergate a month later by granting Nixon a pardon for all crimes he committed as president.
That single act, it was widely believed, contributed to Ford losing election to a term of his own in 1976. But it won praise in later years as a courageous act that allowed the nation to move on.
I'll let history judge Ford's actions in pardoning Richard Nixon. I think Atrios provides a little perspective on that to counterbalance the story line that you'll read in most of the obits. Make of it what you will.
For what it's worth, I barely remember Ford's presidency. I remember Nixon's resignation, and I remember Carter's election, but there's nothing about Ford that stands out in my mind (well, okay, there was Chevy Chase's portrayal, but I don't think I saw any of that until years later). I recall participating in a fifth grade class project on the 1976 election, and deciding that I supported Carter because I didn't think it was right that a guy who hadn't been elected President or Vice President should be President, but that's about it. Like everyone else, I always perceived him as a decent enough fellow. I don't have much beyond that.
Rest in peace, Gerald Ford.
UPDATE: Jim Henley and Steve Benen have interesting takes as well.
It was a beautiful day after Christmas yesterday, and as you can see the work on the Robinson Warehouse is continuing. I don't know how much time they deliberately took off, or how much they might have lost to inclement weather, but they were hard at work yesterday. It's getting hard for me to distinguish at a glance of pictures like this between the remaining structure and the condo complex behind it. I still don't think they're going to finish by the 31st, but they'll be darned close.
Click on for more.
Here's the closer look. It's weird how little there is left, isn't it? I've been watching this for weeks now and it gets less and less real in some ways to me. It's like the memory of the place is going along with the bricks and rebar.
I don't know what exactly that crane was doing, but I'll take any excuse to show the basement again. Have I mentioned lately how amazed I am that no one has told me to get lost?
The driveway is a warren of activity.
The southwest view. I measure the progress here by the number of windows in the second floor. Here there's seven. Last time, there was thirteen. That's progress.
I was blocked again from taking a picture on Allen Parkway - there was a big truck blocking the view, and I wasn't crazy enough to sneak inside the fence for the shot. So, I climbed the grassy hill just east of the warehouse property for this shot.
I'll check back again on Friday. If the weather stays nice this week, there may not be much left.
Tiffany's family does a gift exchange on Christmas Eve. It used to be ornaments only (I didn't get the Derek Jeter that way, but have collected some other cool ones from that), but this year was a White Elephant exchange. You could only contribute things that you already had - no bought gifts allowed. As with the ornament exchange, everyone draws a number to determine the selection order. The rule is that you can pick from the pile of unopened gifts, or you can steal someone else's gift; if a gift is stolen, the person who lost it gets to pick or steal, with the turn ultimately ending when a selection is made from the pile. A gift can be stolen three times, after which it's the property of the last person to swipe it. At the end, the person who went first gets a chance to steal. It's great fun, and we all whoop it up the whole time.
Anyway. There were some interesting objects available at this year's exchange. One was a little doohickie that Olivia acquired - by stealing, I should point out - that she is fascinated by and we're tolerating grimly. It's a little stuffed monster that, well, see for yourself. I figured I'd capture it on video so we'll remember why we eventually threw the thing out a window.
It actually does one other thing besides that:
What can I say? Olivia spent the better part of the day yesterday making it do its thing. Now you can share in the joy.
To no one's surprise, the city of Farmers Branch has been sued for its recent anti-immigrant actions.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund is asking a federal court here to block the suburb from enforcing an ordinance banning apartment managers from leasing to illegal immigrants. The rental measure, which would fine apartment owners up to $500 a day for violations, was passed last month and is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 12."The power to regulate immigration belongs to the federal government, otherwise you'd have cities, counties, town, and other entities creating their own immigration laws, which would be unenforceable," said Lisa Graybill, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.
"The Farmers Branch law is a botched attempt to force landlords to police immigration," Nina Perales, southwest regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said in a release.
She said Farmers Branch is wasting taxpayer money trying to drive out Latinos.
Calls to Farmers Branch officials were referred to City Attorney Matthew Boyle, who declined to comment, except to say it was expected. "They've been threatening us with litigation since August or September, so it was our understanding that this would be filed," he said.
When this stupid law was first passed, one of its architects predicted they'd be sued. I don't know about you, but if I were a resident of Farmers Branch, I'd want to know why my tax dollars were going to be spent defending these suits. You'd think they'd have more pressing needs than that.
The ACLU/MALDEF suit alleges that Farmers Branch places landlords in the untenable position of acting as federal immigration officers. It also complains the ordinance is poorly drafted and excludes even some immigrants with proper legal status from renting in Farmers Branch apartment complexes.Ten plaintiffs in the lawsuit include two adult Latino tenants who are legal residents but whom have family members who are not; five unidentified children whose parents are affected by the law and three apartment owners.
The suit alleges, among other things, that the ordinance denies citizen apartment dwellers their First Amendment right to free association because it bars them from living with relatives who are not legal residents.
It also alleges the ordinance discriminates against Latinos because 42 percent of Latino-headed households in the city live in apartment complexes. By contrast, only 14 percent households headed by whites live in apartment complexes.
The ordinance, which exempts rental houses and duplexes, fails to cite any studies, reports or statistics that support the conclusion that citizenship certification is necessary for the safety and welfare of Farmers Branch residents, the plaintiffs allege.
I can't wait to see what the city's defense is. There are two other suits against them for related matters as well, so at least they'll get some practice.
Also, opponents have submitted a petition seeking to force a public vote on the measures. If the city verifies 726 signatures, a vote is likely to be scheduled for May.
More fun to look forward to. Stay tuned.
Ready or not, that new cigarette tax is coming soon.
Texas smokers will pay significantly more for cigarettes starting Jan. 1 when the excise tax increases by $1 a pack in a move that health experts hope will discourage folks, especially teens, from lighting up.The state tax increase - from 41 cents to $1.41 per pack - also will help pay for school property tax cuts.
[...]
"The cigarette tax, more than anything, will have the most significant impact in stopping kids from ever starting smoking, because they are so price-sensitive," said James Gray, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society, Texas chapter.
The Texas tax increase will push the price of a single pack of cigarettes to around $4.50.
An estimated 143,000 Texas adults will quit smoking, and a projected 284,000 teens never will start smoking as a result of the tax increase, Gray said, citing various studies. About 3.3 million Texans currently smoke, based on a 20 percent adult smoking rate in the state, he said.
[...]
[Lawmakers] could not resist raising cigarette taxes in the spring when searching for more revenue to cut property taxes. The $1-per-pack increase should generate roughly $700 million a year more in taxes, according to projections by the comptroller's office: $682.6 million in fiscal 2008 and $722.8 million for fiscal 2009.
All of that new tax revenue will go to reduce property taxes. But Senate Health and Human Services Chairwoman Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, said she will renew efforts in the upcoming legislative session to allocate a modest portion for smoking prevention programs aimed at teenagers.
"As a mother and a grandmother, it's very important for me that we stop a whole other generation of kids from being hooked on tobacco," she said. "The cost is just too great."
She said she wants lawmakers to set aside 5 percent of the new tobacco tax revenue for anti-smoking programs.
"Every month you can keep a person past 14 from smoking, chances are they won't become a smoker," Nelson said.
Here we arrive at the crux of the issue I have with this tax. I'm okay with using a cigarette tax as a means to discourage smoking, and I'm okay with using it to fund anti-smoking efforts. The problem is that if you're doing these things, you should expect the revenue from said tax to decrease over time - at least, that should be a goal. As such, using it to fund a longterm program with sure-to-be-increasing needs like a property tax cut makes no sense. What will we do when the revenue from this tax starts to decline? As far as I can tell, the answer from this Legislature is "Let that be someone else's problem".
El Pasoans will save $5 in excise taxes on every carton by shopping in neighboring New Mexico, while Texarkana shoppers could save more than $8 per carton in Arkansas."The impact will be disproportionate along those areas of Texas that border other states, because the consumer will readily cross the border to save that much on cigarette taxes," [Chris Newton, president of the Texas Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association] said.
He said he fears that more smokers will turn to the Internet for tax-free cigarettes, Indian tribal retailers or black market cigarettes.
The convenience store industry will urge Texas lawmakers and the comptroller's office to beef up enforcement efforts.
"Our association has encouraged its members to promptly report any signs of illicit activities or other tax-evasion schemes to the comptroller's office or their local law enforcement authorities," Newton said.
I'd love to know what assumptions the Comptroller's office made about the black market when determining the revenue for this tax. How much will we lose to non-taxed sources (legal and otherwise), and how much will we spend trying to enforce the collection of this tax? All I can say is that I hope someone follows up on this in a year's time.
And the race for House Speaker gets more interesting.
The lawmaker running against House Speaker Tom Craddick said today he's confident he's already secured the votes to be the next speaker, though he wouldn't say how many pledges he's gotten from members."I'm getting a very good response," Brian McCall, R-Plano.
McCall said he's been calling fellow lawmakers since Friday to win backing for his candidacy and that he's been promised support from many of the 109 members who signed pledge cards for Craddick last month. Seventy-six votes are needed to win.
He also said people are fed up with what he characterized as Craddick's "(my) way or the highway" style.
McCall filed the necessary papers for the speaker's race on Friday.
The 16-year House veteran described himself as a social conservative who agrees with Craddick on major policy issues. But he said under his leadership, members would be treated with more respect with him as speaker.
"Members would be allowed to vote their districts and their conscience," he said. "The speaker would take a back seat."
As with Craddick's claim of 109 pledge cards, it's hard to know how seriously to take what McCall is saying here. It's been said that with a secret ballot, Craddick would be deposed easily, but that's not how it's done. Someone - more than one someone, really - is going to have to be the first Republican to throw down for McCall, and be willing to suffer the brunt of whatever negative consequences there may be if McCall loses. When and if that happens, we'll know where we stand. If that happens, I fully expect to see enough people follow in that person's wake to effectively seal the deal. If not, I expect we're stuck with Craddick for two more years.
Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, is one of the most liberal House members, but he said he would vote for McCall if speaker candidate and fellow Houston Democrat Rep. Senfronia Thompson releases him to do so.''Clearly there's momentum for change, and that's what's important here," he said. ''Even though Brian is conservative and a lot more conservative than I am, I think he'll be fair as speaker.
Coleman echoed others who said they are sick of Craddick's ''autocratic'' style.
''Speakers ought to be people who, if the members elect you, you serve the members and the interests of the members,'' he added. ''Craddick has not served the member's interests. He's served his own interests. The members are disposable.''
It's been pointed out to me that Democratic caucus rules require a vote for a Democratic Speaker candidate if there is one. I don't know what enforcement mechanism exists for that, but I'm certain it will be used to get the Craddick Dems in line. The more successful that effort is, the better the odds of Speaker McCall.
Republicans now hold an 81-69 majority in the House.
Actually, even though the runoff in HD29 is between two Republicans, the winner of that race won't be seated until after January 9. That means that for the purposes of the Speaker's race, it's 80-69, not 81. That in turn means that 75 votes are enough to depose Craddick. Who's to say that won't matter?
One more story from last week to catch me up on current events: The state's Health and Human Resources Commission has finally realized what everyone else knew to be true months ago and cut bait on Accenture.
Texas is drastically cutting a private contract for social services because of backlogs and errors in processing applications, state officials said Thursday.The $899 million contract with Accenture to operate call centers to determine benefits eligibility will be reduced by $356 million and ended in 2008, two years early, said Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins.
Under the restructured contract, the Bermuda-based company will be largely relegated to data entry, leaving judgments about whether Texans qualify for food stamps, Medicaid and other welfare programs to state workers.
"We didn't draw the line between vendor work and state work in the right place," Hawkins said. "As we rebalance the roles between the state and the vendor, we will be drawing that line in a different place."
For example, if a client applying for benefits fails to list an asset such as a car, and a check of public data indicates a car is registered to the family, the situation will be investigated by state employees, not Accenture workers.
Additionally, a planned expansion of Accenture-run call centers from two Central Texas counties to other areas of the state will not occur, Hawkins said.
[...]
The announcement was received as good news for state workers and groups that work with low-income Texans. Hawkins said 900 temporary positions in eligibility offices will be converted to full-time to stabilize the state work force.
"We're glad to see that HHSC is acknowledging that its call-center experiment didn't work," said Mike Gross, Texas State Employees Union vice president.
Gross said the commission should restore staffing levels at its local benefits offices to levels that existed before the contract was signed in June 2005.
[...]
Scott McCown, executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin group that has advocated a more cautious approach to privatization, said Thursday's announcement served as a reminder that not all duties performed by state workers can be transferred to the private sector.
"I think the Legislature significantly underestimated the value of what the public sector did. There's a tremendous amount of expertise and skill in the public sector that the private sector could not replicate," he said.
There's not really much to add to this, as I've been saying it all along. I'll simply point you to this Chron editorial, Father John, and HHSC Employee for more.
On a related note, Eye on Williamson flags an Express News story about a different aspect of THHSC that's broken and in need of a complete do-over.
Since mid-2005, investigators at the state Health and Human Services Commission have been unable to determine the level of fraud in a pilot program that officials have touted as the future of entitlements in Texas.The findings of a state audit released last month potentially put in jeopardy millions of dollars the federal government sends to Texas as its part of public assistance programs in Hays and Travis counties.
Those counties were chosen by HHSC to test a complex system for processing the applications of needy people before rolling it out statewide.
The state auditor's report comes almost a year after problems at the commission emerged in its move to privatize social services, an effort Gov. Rick Perry has endorsed.
The problems included the inability of a troubled computer system, called TIERS, to function properly.
The federal government also has raised concerns about a nearly $900 million contract the state agency signed with a Bermuda-based firm to manage TIERS, which stands for the Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System.
In a report that pulls few punches, the audit found TIERS is a faulty computer system and that incomplete or unavailable data had squelched the state's ability to monitor the level of recipient fraud in state programs that disburse millions of dollars in federal benefits.
The report said information "that is critical to pursuing investigations of fraud and overpayment is not readily accessible to investigators through TIERS, and the data that is accessible is not sufficient to legally pursue criminal proceedings for fraud."
We first heard about this last month. I'm still waiting to hear an official reaction from the state's leadership. At the very least, there should be some action on this front in the Lege. Stay tuned.
James Brown, the Godfather of Soul, has passed away at the age of 73.
Brown's music - funky, cool, soulful, passionate and gritty - had broad appeal. His raspy voice, clipped grunts and immediately recognizable songs made irrelevant distinctions such as age, race and class that create genre and subgenre distinctions in music. He was a uniter, tagged "the Funky President.""God had a special job for me," Brown wrote in 1991 in the liner notes to his career-spanning Star Time box set.
"He gave me a special talent to relate to people of all cultures. I found that the common denominator among all people was love. Because regardless of all the obstacles which we fight, the social problems and the poverty problems, it all boils down to the love factor. And I believe I was able to create that in my life."
Indeed he did. Rest in peace, James Brown.
Former Attorney General Dan Morales is out of the pokey and in a halfway house.
Morales was transferred last month from a federal prison in Texarkana to a halfway house in San Antonio, according to his brother, Michael Morales.[...]
The regional office of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons in Dallas would not say when Dan Morales, 50, was transferred from Texarkana, but acknowledged he was in a halfway house in the region covered by the bureau’s Community Corrections Office in San Antonio.
“The last 10 percent of the sentence - not greater than six months - can be served at a halfway house,” said Mitch Huffman, acting regional public information officer for the BOP.
Speaking generally, Huffman said inmates approved for transfer from prisons to halfway houses usually get sent back near the community from which they came.
“You want to get them as close to home as possible,” Huffman said.
Looking back in my archives, Morales was sentenced to four years in October of 2003 after copping a plea in July. If there's really less than six months left on his sentence, I presume he either got some credit for good behavior or for time already served. I don't know how these things work, so if someone can clarify, please do.
Eye on Williamson has the latest development in the case of the city of Round Rock versus its high school students.
Four parents of Round Rock students charged with misdemeanors during an immigration demonstration last spring sued the City of Round Rock and the Round Rock school district on Thursday, saying the charges violated the teenagers' constitutional rights of assembly and free speech.The federal lawsuit is a class action suit, which means it also seeks fair treatment on behalf of other Round Rock students who were detained and issued tickets during the protests in March, said Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, which is representing the parents and students.
The suit accuses the city and school officials of conspiring to deprive students of their right to assemble and protest during protests against proposed immigration laws on March 30 and 31.
At a Thursday news conference, Harrington noted that the immigration protests were nationwide and said the Round Rock school district "instead of reacting punitively . . . should have done what almost all school districts around the country did and use the protests as a 'teaching moment' to help students learn about leadership and dissent in a democracy."
[...]
Harrington said Round Rock police overreacted when they gave Class C misdemeanor citations to 204 students, accusing them of violating the city's youth curfew or disrupting class on the second day of demonstrations. The ordinance says anyone under age 17 must be in school between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. It also says exercising First Amendment rights can be used as a defense in court.
"The curfew ordinance itself said First Amendment rights were an absolute defense," Harrington said. "With all the signs that were present, it had to have been obvious to the police that the kids were just exercising that right."
I don't blame the cops for handing out the summonses. It's the District Attorney's responsibility to exercise prosecutorial discretion and do the right thing. The fact that he finally scored a win in one of these cases doesn't change that. It's a shame that this will ultimately be settled through the civil justice system, but sometimes you have to smack people upside the head to get their attention. I'll keep an eye on this one.
I received an email last week from Charlotte Aguilar of the Examiner telling me that former CD07 candidate Jim Henley will be filling in as a guest columnist while Molly Ivins takes a sabbatical. His first effort is here, on the topic of Iraq. I look forward to seeing more of his efforts while he fills in for Molly. Check it out.
It's gonna be a chocolate Christmas. I'll have a chocolate Christmas tree.
Chocolate reindeer pull a chocolate sleigh full of chocolate toys for me.
I'll bite off chocolate Santa's head and nibble his chocolate feet,
Wash him down with chocolate milk and go right back to sleep.And dream about chocolate ice cream and a German chocolate cake.
He knows if you've been bad or good so be good for chocolate's sake.
Chocolate stars in a chocolate sky, chocolate people walking by.
I'm so happy I could cry. It's Chocolate Christmas time.I'm talking 'bout a Chocolate Christmas,
A cha cha cha cha Chocolate Christmas,
It's gonna be a Chocolate Christmas.
Well, it's Chocolate Christmas time.I'm gonna decorate my chocolate house with chocolate Christmas lights.
Hang a chocolate wreath on a chocolate door and call it paradise.
Between the double chocolate brownies and a batch of chocolate fudge
I'll be so full of chocolate that I can barely budge.But you're standing under chocolate mistletoe,
oh now give me a little chocolate kiss.
I'll take my chocolate fishing pole and catch a big chocolate fish.
If my chocolate wish comes true I'll share my chocolate dreams with you.
I love chocolate. You do, too! It's Chocolate Christmas time.I'm talking 'bout a Chocolate Christmas,
A cha cha cha cha Chocolate Christmas,
It's gonna be a Chocolate Christmas.
Well, it's Chocolate Christmas time.
Merry Christmas, everybody. See you all tomorrow.
(Oh, and Merry Christmas to you, too, Texans fans. Amazing how much better a quarterback David Carr is when he has an effective running game behind him, isn't it?)
As has been a tradition around here, every year at this time I link to my favorite Christmas story, featuring Mel Torme and Mark Evanier. I do it every year because every year it's worth reading again. Click through and see for yourself. And Merry Christmas, Mel Torme, wherever you may be.
By now you've heard, as Paul Burka first reported, that Republican Rep. Brian McCall has announced his candidacy for Speaker of the Texas House.
McCall has a reputation of getting along with different factions. If elected, he is expected to bring a more even-handed approach to the role, allowing members to vote the interests of their districts, rather than succumb to the dictates of the speaker.Rumors have been swirling around the Capitol for weeks about a possible challenge, but some doubted anyone would dare take on Craddick.
The race is expected to be a nasty political battle, played out mostly behind the scenes before a vote is taken when the Legislature convenes Jan. 9.
McCall, a nine-term legislator, filed the necessary papers for the speaker's race Friday.
[...]
Some compare Craddick's style with DeLay's.
''He's basically been the face of the Republican Party in Texas, and that has resulted in significant Democratic gains in the Texas House, and Republicans tell me they are sick and tired of that," House Democratic Caucus Chair Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, said.
[...]
McCall is seen as more even-handed.
''He is a fair-minded person and has a track record of encouraging members to make up their own minds," Dunnam said of McCall.
Obviously, from my perspective as a Democrat, having Senfronia Thompson as Speaker would be optimal. Assuming that's not a likely outcome, then put me on the Anybody But Craddick bandwagon. I don't know much about Brian McCall, but if Jim Dunnam is saying nice things about him, he's good enough for me.
Actually, I don't have to rely on Rep. Dunnam's perspective. Rep. McCall ran for Speaker in 2003 as well, and he wrote a letter (first published in Quorum Report) that quite clearly delineates how his approach to the Speakership would be different. What he has to say there is definitely good enough for me. I've reproduced it beneath the fold so you can see for yourself.
It's very simple. Tom Craddick is a bad Speaker. He's bad for Texas. Brian McCall, by all available evidence, would be a much better Speaker. You can construct all kinds of game-theoretic political scenarios where having Craddick as Speaker makes it easier for the Dems to make more gains in the House in 2008, but they'd all be a load of crap. Texas can't afford another legislative session in which Craddick wields the gavel. We deserve better, and this is our chance to get it.
One lawmaker who has spoken to McCall said McCall and his supporters hope to make a formal announcement Tuesday or Wednesday."The numbers are there. If he gets written commitments from the people who have given verbal commitments, then it's done," said the member who did not want to be identified.
[...]
One veteran Republican legislator who also asked not to be identified said McCall should have waited until the eve of the session before emerging with his candidacy.
''I think they are blowing it. They are giving everybody in the state the chance to buy off the ones they think are the conservative vote," the GOP lawmaker said of the expected push by Craddick to stay in power.
I dunno. I suspect, as Rick Casey reported, that this secret was kept for a pretty long time, something that's not easy to do in the Capitol. Burka first reported on the rumors on Thursday, so McCall may as well have mailed in his papers after that. I'll say this: The doubts about Craddick have swirled since Election Day. If there wasn't already a campaign to put pressure on members to keep Craddick in power, then you could write his obituary today. I don't think the timing of this announcement changes that part of the dynamic that much.
''There are folks who are very much invested in the current leadership. People are fearful that their legislation won't pass, that they may lose committee posts," said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio.[...]
Democrats said they can deliver up to 60 votes for McCall, with only some of the so-called Craddick Democrats — essentially those he rewarded with committee chairmanships — willing to stick with the incumbent. They don't want to surrender their grasp of the gavel.
However, there is pressure on them to side with McCall, or they risk losing their position and standing should they stay with Craddick and McCall wins.
House Border and International Affairs Chair Norma Chavez, D-El Paso, declined to discuss the dilemma she faces. Rep. Robert Puente, D-San Antonio, another Craddick ally and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, did not return a call.
Dunnam said he and many Democrats support Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, who announced her challenge against Craddick early this year. No woman has ever been elected speaker of the Texas House. Thompson, who could not be reached Saturday, has said in the past that she would release her pledges if someone else could defeat Craddick.
''If Miss Thompson releases me from my pledge, certainly I would be more favorable to Brian McCall," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. ''Texas needs a new speaker of the House so that we return to meritorious policymaking and true bipartisanship."
Gallego said he thinks the chances of McCall defeating Craddick ''are in his favor if he puts on a full-court press."
''The discontent (under Craddick's leadership) has been pretty strong for a long time," Gallego said.
Republicans in the House will of course have some hard decisions to make. It's easy to be the 76th vote for McCall, but those votes in between will be hard won.
A key point here is just how many Republican votes will be needed to get to 76. To cite Burka again, Houston Republican Robert Talton is apparently making calls on McCall's behalf. Talton could deliver a decent-sized bloc of votes in a tight Speaker's race. That may be the difference between the status quo and Speaker McCall. If that happens, Dems will owe Talton, and the one thing they can give him is a pass in 2008. I'll be the first person to tell you that Talton's seat is well within reach for Dems in 2008, and that they're going to need his seat if they ever hope to regain a Democratic majority. All of us who want Craddick out are going to have to come to terms with the possibility that some decisions we may not like may have to be made to make that happen. I don't like it one little bit, but we need to be aware of it. I'll say it again: Deposing Craddick is worth an awful lot. Whatever you think about this, make up your mind quickly, because it'll be all over before you know it.
Having said all that, maximizing the Democratic support for McCall means minimizing the need to deal with the likes of Talton for victory. Muse lists Craddick's strongest Demcratic allies, to which I'd add Kevin Bailey. If one of those reps is yours, I'd strongly encourage you to give him or her a call and extoll McCall's virtues. There will be time to put the squeeze on these folks, as Muse suggests. For now, I'd advise using honey to catch some flies.
Houtopia and BOR also weigh in. Click on for Rep. McCall's letter.
In less than 30 days, Texans will be making a momentous decision about the make up of the Texas House. In less than 90 days, we will be making an equally important decision about whom we elect as our Speaker.All understand the arithmetic that will have to come into play for there to be the first Republican Speaker in 128 years. The time has come now to frankly discuss the other criteria important to the decision we will be making as we determine who will preside over our Chamber. If the math is there for the Republicans, you may have the opportunity to choose between the current Republican frontrunner and me.
As a small David to a big Goliath in this Speaker?s race, I have the responsibility to tell you why I believe that you should cast your vote for me and to contrast what I believe the differences to be.
The person elected to preside over the House in 2003 will be leading this Body in a time of delicate balancing needs. In order for us to do our jobs, the order of the day should be consensus-- not partisanship. We will not reach wise decisions and avoid legislative gridlock by implementing the agendas of the few and the powerful, (thus creating partisan debts); but rather, by allowing debate and facilitating negotiations between many. Contrast that.Texas has moved from a state where rural/agrarian and petroleum-based economies were the driving force to one where urban/new economies are the dominant factors. Not only do I best understand the problems of the urban/suburban economy and have the constituent base to support me in that understanding (and having grown up in a ranching family), I am the candidate that is better able to bridge the gap between the former agenda, and the agenda of the future. Contrast that.
My leadership style is based on a history of inclusiveness, knowing all the members of our House and making an effort to get to understand them for who they are and the unique challenges of the areas they represent. My record is one that demonstrates my ability to lead to solutions and decisions from which we can all walk away with dignity. Contrast that.
The economic and social priorities of our various districts are vastly different. A capable Speaker must be able to address each member?s concerns and needs without a partisan political agenda, yet firmly guide the process to resolution with fairness and respect. Contrast that.
I have never given a wink and a nod to those little groups who would through rumor and misrepresentation seek to defame any member of the Legislature. Instead, I?ve stood up to them, defended my peers (regardless of party or position), and taken my own hits. I take no comfort from the fire set to burn "them" in order to warm "us". In any legislative body, "us" and "them" are in constant flux. Contrast that.
I am indebted to no one in my efforts to be our Speaker. There are no big funders, members of Congress, or party operatives who have made calls or implied consequences to those unpledged to my candidacy. There is no predetermined "team" that will require me to divert from what I believe is best and most fair for decisions that reflect the best interests of the House. Contrast that.
You know me. You know that this is a difficult letter for me to write to advocate my election as Speaker. But the time has come to draw the differences. To those uncommitted (and to those who are feeling they have leaned their ladder against the wrong wall), my message is plain. If -- between Tuesday, November 5th, and Tuesday, January 14th -- it becomes apparent that a historical change is in the offing, I urge you to consider whom you can trust to best lead the House to bring about understanding and solution through a period where truly a House divided will not stand . . .
I would value your support and appreciate your trust.
With highest regard, I remain
Very truly yours,
Brian McCall
OK, so now we know what the proposed routes are for the Universities line. I'll leave it to Christof and Tory to discuss the merits of each possibility, as they pretty much cover all the relevant points.
We also now know, as if there were any doubt, that Rep. John Culberson says he will only support the route he proposed, which mostly stays off of Richmond. As has been his way throughout this process, he says it's because the ballot language forced the route to be on Westpark. METRO naturally disagrees with this, as do the Chron and I as you all well know.
So what I still want to know is simply this: Is there anything METRO can do to change Culberson's mind? It's clear that the ridership and cost projections favor a Richmond route. The Cummins option has the most riders for the lowest cost, and it avoids Afton Oaks, which will satisfy one group of noisy dissenters. The stretch of Richmond from Montrose to Kirby remains contentious, but almost entirely on Richmond itself - the neighboring areas appear to be fine with that route, and indeed the Culberson plan would arouse great opposition from the Neartown folks. I don't think there's any further net reductions in controversy to be had here.
So let me ask this way: Given the removal of Afton Oaks from consideration, is Culberson's opposition to Richmond at this point principled ("The voters approved Westpark so it must be on Westpark!") or practical ("The business owners on Richmond fear they will suffer during construction")? If it's the former, then there's nothing much to talk about. METRO will continue down its path, and will either accede to a suboptimal route (which I maintain will ultimately mean it won't get built), or they'll pick a better plan and hope to beat Culberson in hand to hand combat down the line. Culberson may subsequently face a more strongly financed opponent in 2008 or beyond, one who will be helped monetarily by those who want the rail line to go through Greenway Plaza, but that's putting the horse before the cart. Bottom line as I see it is simply that if Culberson won't support any other plan under any circumstance, then from here out it's war, until either Culberson loses power (by losing an election or getting removed from the House committee) or METRO admits defeat.
I don't know about you, but that's not a very appetizing scenario to me. My hope (and on Christmas Eve we're all allowed some hope, right?) is that Culberson is simply speaking for the people on that stretch of Richmond who still fear what will happen to them, and that there are things METRO could do to assuage those fears and get Culberson to go along with that route. Maybe METRO could agree to a construction schedule similar to that of some road projects, where there's penalties for missing deadlines. Maybe they can fund a small business loan pool to help affected shop owners with their cash flow. I presume that most of them have some specific list of concerns that could be dealt with (if it all boils down to "we don't want it here!" then we're back at option 1). If so, and if METRO agrees to deal with them, then what's left to hold things up?
That's how I see it today. Things can change, and as I've not done any deep research, it's possible that there have already been proposals made and rejected by one side or the other to alleviate Richmond business owners' woes during construction. As I say, in the spirit of Christmas I'm writing this with the hope that something can be done. There'll be plenty of time to get to the other possibilities later.
Among other things that the new year will bring is the long-awaited trial in Travis County of Tom DeLay on conspiracy and money laundering charges. Back in September, the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed to hear Travis County DA Ronnie Earle's appeal of the dismissal of one of the conspiracy charges. That hearing will take place in January, though when a ruling will come is anybody's guess. I think, based on what the Third Court of Appeals had said and the fact that the pro-prosecution CCA didn't have to take this appeal, that there's a decent chance they'll reinstate the charge, though I wouldn't necessarily bet my own money on that.
Here's a brief summary of the case. We'll see what happens.
UPDATE: Miya has more.
My best wishes to Rep. Nick Lampson as he recovers from his recent angioplasty.
"He's doing great - laughing and joking about getting out of Christmas shopping," said Lampson family friend Dave Matthiesen, a Houston-based lawyer who visited with Lampson and his wife in the congressman's private room at St. John's Hospital. "He's looking forward to getting up to Washington Jan. 4 to begin his term in Congress."Lampson, D-Stafford, first went to the hospital Thursday night after complaining of illness at a friend's party.
Doctors at St. John's Hospital in Nassau Bay ran tests on Lampson that night and Friday.
During a routine test about 3 p.m., doctors confirmed earlier tests that had indicated a blockage in one vessel and decided to go ahead with the angioplasty.
Cardiologist Ghyath Samman inserted a wire-mesh stent, put a balloon into Lampson's vessel and inflated it to remove the blockage. Lampson was awake and alert throughout the procedure and is expected to make a full recovery, Samman said.
Samman added that Lampson should follow a low-cholesterol diet, but otherwise his activities won't be restricted.
All things considered, that doesn't sound too bad. I feel confident that Rep. Lampson will be his usual energetic self in no time. Here's an email he sent to supporters since the story was first reported:
Dear Friend,In the coming days we will gather with family and friends to share in the holiday spirit. I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of my wife, Susan, and myself to wish you our very best for a happy and safe holiday season. This past year has truly been a remarkable one and each of you have made that possible. Susan and I are so grateful for all that you did to make 2006 such a special year.
I also wanted to take this opportunity to let you know how I am doing. As you may have heard I recently made a visit to the hospital when after attending a dinner at a friend's house I began to feel a little faint. Fortunately, I had a great team of doctors, nurses and technicians to take care of me at the hospital. I am back home, feeling much better, and looking forward to enjoying the upcoming holidays in the company of my family. I would like to thank everyone for keeping us in their thoughts and prayers.
Thank you for your continued support. Susan and I wish you and yours the very best for a joyful holiday season. I look forward to working with you in the New Year!
Sincerely,
Nick Lampson
Get well soon, Rep. Lampson.
Note: I drafted this before I left on Thursday so I'd have something interesting to post that wouldn't take much time to do.
I've mentioned that I work near Reliant Stadium. I drive past The Stables steak house frequently. Years ago, when I first saw it, I figured any restaurant shaped like a barn had to be a dump. I'm told that's not the case - the food is apparently very good. I'll never know, because a few weeks ago, I spotted this, which I finally managed to take a picture of on Wednesday:
Their last day was yesterday. So what happened?
The Stables Steak House at 7325 S. Main was sold to a investment partnership this week, marking the imminent end to a piece of Houston history. The sales price was not disclosed.The buyer, Eastbourne Main Greenbriar LP -- a partnership between Houston-based Wellington Development Co. and Williamsville, N.Y.-based Eastbourne Investments -- purchased the restaurant as part of a land assemblage effort, with plans to sell the tract to a developer in the future.
[...]
Alan Guggenheim originally opened The Stables restaurant in the early 1950s, and sold it to Jay Mulvey and Alex Prati in the early 1980s.
The Wellington/Eastbourne partnership purchased the restaurant from Mulvey and Prati on Oct. 17.
Wellington principals Rocky Stevens and Chris Hotze realize that they purchased a piece of history.
"It's a Houston landmark," Hotze says.
Which, obviously, means that it'll be torn down in favor of something more modern and less distinguished. This is Houston, after all.
If the names Wellington and Chris Hotze are ringing a bell for you, it's because they're the same folks that are planning to develop the southeast corner at Montrose and West Dallas. Nothing has happened there more than six months after the deal was announced, however, so don't hold your breath on this one, either.
While Stables fans may mourn the eatery's closing, the change in ownership marks a shift in real estate values near the ever-expanding Texas Medical Center.The purchase price on the restaurant -- which sits on a half-acre of land -- was not released, but sources say land in the area sells for $80 to $100 per square foot. That would put the price between $1.7 million and $2.2 million.
The Stables site is only one piece of a complicated real estate puzzle that has taken almost a year to pull together.
Eastbourne Main Greenbriar LP this week also acquired the Bermuda Apartments, which sit on a quarter-acre of land at 1928 N. Braeswood. The 12-unit complex was sold by a consortium of physicians led by Dr. Garabed Eknoyan.
In addition, the partnership purchased a quarter-acre vacant tract in December 2005 that was formerly home to the Red Lion restaurant.
Together, the three adjacent properties give the buyers a full acre just outside of the Medical Center, which has some of the highest-priced land in the city.
I wouldn't have realized it from the address, but according to Google Maps, 1928 North Braeswood is indeed adjacent to the Stables.
Retail expert Blake Tartt III has fond memories of eating at The Stables with his grandparents when he was young, but says the high cost of real estate in that area has made the restaurant functionally obsolete."It's the last small tract in the Medical Center to buy," says Tartt, president of New Regional Planning Inc.
The buyers have no immediate plans for the land, but know that the property has more value now that it has been assembled into a larger tract.
"We've acquired a crucial one-acre parcel in the Med Center area, which is hard to do," Hotze says.
[...]
[Frank Egan, president of Eastbourne Investments,] says when it comes time to market the land to developers, who will likely want to go vertical with residential or medical buildings, the sales price will probably be in the range of $150 or more per square foot.
"It's very difficult to acquire any sizable piece of land that's well-located in the Medical Center," Egan says. "It's a pretty rare commodity, so we don't know what it will go for."
Sounds like I'll be watching some highrise construction soon. Between that and the construction at Holcomb, that's going to make driving on Greenbriar so much more fun. sigh
The Capitol Annex Readers' Choice Awards for 2006 are up. Thank you very much to everyone who voted for me as Best Blog. It's an honor and a pleasure to win in that category - there's quite a bit of competition. Would you believe that on January 1 of 2007, this blog will celebrate its fifth birthday? Not too bad for something I once saw as a means to do a little regular writing.
Congratulations to all of the winners. Let's make 2007 a year to remember, too.
I'm back from New Orleans. The game could have gone better, but we all had fun, our performance was well-received, and we can now talk about the next time we go to a bowl game without sounding silly. I'll be catching up on some stuff after Christmas, so stay tuned.
I've got just a few minutes on a hotel computer, so I just want to quickly note this Chron story about the proposed routes for the Universities line. I'll have stuff to say about it later. For now, talk amongst yourselves.
I'm off to the bowl game. I'll be back on Saturday. A guest blogger or two may or may not pop up in the interim. Be sure to watch the game tomorrow night (7 PM Central time) on ESPN2 - if they show a shot of The MOB, you might just see me. Go Rice!
I usually start these posts with a long-view perspective of the whole demolition, but I thought this time I'd show a closer view, where you can see more of the basement. I got right up to the edge of the ground floor while looking for my shots. I still can't believe someone onsite hasn't run me off. Until I push my luck too far, click on for more.
And here's the usual long shot. The middle part of the structure is now mostly gone, with just the south end of it remaining.
There's still a ways to go, though, as you can see from the southern end. I don't know if the expected completion date of December 31 applies to this site, but if it does, it's wrong. I just don't see how the rest of this is gone by then, especially if they take a break for Christmas.
Another view of the basement, from the southern end. I wouldn't want to walk underneath the not-yet-demolished section, would you? I presume the flooding problems that made this building too prohibitive to rehab were due to the sheer size of the basement.
This arch from the front facade is the last remnant of the front of the building. I'm not sure why it's still standing, but it is.
The view from the driveway. The big crane with the wrecking ball was rising up, presumably to get back to work. Unfortunately, that and the yellow crane in the back prevented me from getting a good shot of the site from Allen Parkway. Maybe next time. I'll check back after Christmas.
The Saint Arnold Goes To Austin blog has the latest roundup of blog and mainstream media coverage of the microbrewery legislative project. I have to say, I've been very pleased with the attention this effort has gotten so far. It's exactly the sort of thing that should get picked up by big and small media - it's an underdog story, whose protagonist has a laudable and sympathetic goal, and, well, it's about beer - but nothing in this world is guaranteed, so the actual success is very nice. Let's hope it keeps coming.
Still more coverage: Saint Arnold head honcho Brock Wagner talks to Rich Connelly. The San Antonio Current notes the blog buzz, and gives a brewpub's perspective as well. And finally, KHOU did a story last night as well. Well done!
Tory writes about Galveston's image problems and the effects on its tourist industry. He branches off from there into a discussion on how to make it easier to be a tourist in Houston and take advantage of the stuff outside the city that's worth seeing.
I was talking with a friend (Alan) recently about our prospects for tourism targeted between Galveston and Kemah. Galveston has real potential to be like Charleston, Savannah, or Key West. I think the beaches aren't much of a factor for any of those towns. It's about having a historic walking experience in an interesting town, which Galveston can provide.Alan also made an interesting pitch for Houston to Galveston commuter rail on existing freight tracks. Most readers know I'm not usually a fan of commuter rail for Houston, but he made an good case. In addition to Galveston, tourists would be able to ride the train and then catch a shuttle bus to visit Space Center Houston, Clear Lake, Kemah, and League City's quaint downtown shops. There's already a trolley to get around on the island. Not having to rent a car and navigate a strange town is a big plus for tourists. Assuming Metro offered express bus service from the airports to the new intermodal terminal north of downtown, tourists could truly get away with being carless. And, of course, the train could move plenty of Houstonians wanting to visit for a day or a weekend without fighting traffic on 45 (or if they want to send their non-driving teenagers). Finally, it might even attract some long-haul commuters during the week if it offered a comfortable ride with big seats and wireless Internet access.
I think there's a lot to this. Driving in a strange town, even with a GPS product like NeverLost in your rental car, is stressful. Having to figure out where you can park, and having to worry about finding your car again afterwards just adds to that. Being able to walk or to take public transportation to whatever your destination is for the day is much more pleasant. It's just less to worry about, and you can concentrate on what's going on around you rather than street signs.
And from a tourist's perspective, by the way, trains are way easier to deal with than buses. The reason for this is simple: With a train, all you have to do is count stops between your origin and your endpoint. The station names are usually announced as you arrive, too. With buses, you have to follow street signs as you would in a car, and may need to depend on a map or the driver to tell you when to get off. I've taken both buses and trains in places like Kyoto and Athens, and the trains were always preferable.
That's one reason why the light rail line (soon to be multiple lines) in Houston is so important, especially for visitors. The red line links downtown and places like the Museum District in a way that makes it trivial for any carless, never-been-to-Houston person to visit some of the things that we have that are worth seeing, just as they would be able to in cities like Chicago or New York. Now, if you're the spouse or companion of a business traveller to Houston, staying at a downtown hotel without a car (because you took a cab or a shuttle to your lodging), you can do stuff during the day when the other person is doing business. In a few years, if all goes well, you'll have more options, like the Galleria. I say that's a big value add to the city, one that doesn't get enough attention.
As such, if that concept gets extended to points south, like the Johnson Space Center, Kemah, and Galveston, so much the better for Houston. Maybe the economics of this don't work for what Tory is describing. I'm the wrong person to ask about that. What I am saying is that as a vision, it's a worthwhile one to explore. There are plenty of things to see and do around here. The more accessible they all are, the more likely we all are to actually see and do them.
Recently, Kos wrote about what a bad deal extended warranties are for just about all products. I confess, when I was young and stupid, I bought a few extended warranties. Never used them, of course - I doubt I could have found the paperwork even if I'd had cause to make a claim, given the state of my housekeeping back in my bachelor days. I know better know, and if I didn't Tiffany would kick my butt if I ever tried to spend money in such a dumb fashion again.
As is so often the case, however, this rule has its exceptions. Dwight explains the circumstances that made an extended warranty one of the best purchasing decisions ever for him. Check it out.
Via Miya (it sounds funny to say that, but there you go), I see that U of Saint Thomas poli sci profs Jon Taylor and Michelle Carnahan have a blog. There's certainly room in the ecosystem for more Texas-focused blogging from a Republican perspective, so I look forward to seeing what they can do. Welcome aboard, y'all.
Posting this reminds me that I've been terribly remiss about noting the existence of Texas Liberal, written by Houstonian Neil Aquino. I promised him in some pre-election correspondence that I was way overdue for a blogroll update and that he'd be added when I do it. I hope to get on that during the Christmas week. Regardless, give Neil's blog a look.
You know, the libertarian in me is perfectly willing to accept an expansion of legalized gambling in Texas. As with many other potentially pleasurable but not really good for you things, it's hard to make a case for banning or constraining it beyond "it's not good for you". That's a road I try to avoid, though I admit I'm not always successful.
Where I object to gambling in Texas is not the idea of foolish people throwing their money into slot machines, but of the industry itself - its naked greed, its sleazy dishonesty, and the persistent belief that somehow, more legalized gambling will help solve our state's budgetary conundrums. The latter is, to be perfectly blunt, a load of crap that's amazingly resistant to any historical data.
Gambling opponent Suzii Paynter, with the Christian Life Commission, is not impressed. She said gambling proponents have not kept the promises they made when selling officials on the lottery and pari-mutuel gambling, approved by voters in 1987, at horse and dog tracks."The lottery was supposed to fix education," she said. "And the horse owners promised $200 million a year" to the state.
She cited a comptroller's report showing that the tracks, which never lived up to the hype of the mid-1980s, had falling attendance from 2000 through 2004 and were contributing only about $4 million a year in state taxes.
In fact, track owners are pursuing the legalization of video lottery terminals - a type of slot machines - as a means to shore up their industry in Texas.
I think Eye on Williamson nails this perfectly. If there's money to be had via more gambling in Texas, it'll be the gambling industry that benefits from it. The state and the taxpayers will be lucky to get a few crumbs. My distaste for the baloney involved in this debate makes it really hard for me to feel good about the libertarian case for gambling. Blech.
Oh, and speaking of libertarianism and pleasurable things that aren't good for you, here's a little thought experiment:
In his pitch to lawmakers, [Austin lobbyist Chris] Shields argues that [marijuana] in Texas is already pervasive: "The concept that you can limit [narcotics] to a footprint like [alcohol and tobacco] ignores reality."
That's not what he said, of course, but it's what I was thinking as I read it and the paragraphs that followed. Just some food for conversation.
Fighting Jay Lee (none more surly than he) notes the curious recent phenomenon of inflatable Christmas decorations in people's front yards. I find them to be more of an amusement than a heresy, but I can certainly understand why one might find them distasteful. I will say, however, that whatever one thinks of these things, this is a bit of an overreaction. This isn't much better, but at least it's less violent.
Anyway, go enjoy Jay's pictures, which I think he ought to send to the Press for their contest. I may have to do a little drive-around in the neighborhood here, so I can add to his collection. Maybe I'll send mine as well, if I get around to taking them.
Voting closes tonight at midnight for the Capitol Annex Reader's Choice Awards. This time, there are finalists to select. Go help Vince pick out the best and worst of 2006. The actual vote link is here.
And for the really really last election of 2006, you have until December 31 to help Stephanie Stradley win the contest for Ultimate Texans Fan, for which she is kind enough to provide the Unofficial Weird History of said event. After this week's stinker by the locals, she could use the moral support. Vote for her here.
That's what they want you to think!
It was the invisible hand of the market, not a magic bullet, that closed the Conspiracy Museum in Dallas. At the end of the month, this repository of controversial theories will vacate the downtown location it has held for more than a decade, to be replaced by a Quiznos sandwich shop.Tom Bowden, who heads the museum, said the restaurant simply offered to pay more rent. Bowden plans to reopen in a new location in April.
The center of attention will still be exhibits on the deaths of major public figures from Abraham Lincoln to John F. Kennedy, and the museum will still be "actively trying to solve" these high-profile murders, Bowden said. As part of an expansion of these efforts, he hopes to move into a much larger space that will feature multimedia presentations, a bookstore and a coffee shop.
He said he wants the investigations to shine a light on how the government works. It's a big task for a small operation, but Bowden insists the research is earnest. The museum often contributes to documentaries and books, he said, before adding, "We're not really that crazy."
Sometimes these things just write themselves, you know?
Anyway, a longer version of this story was reported by WFAA two weeks ago. I'm constitutionally incapable of ignoring stuff like this when I see it, so here it is.
Grits follows up his previous bloggage on the current push to build more jails, which some of us razz while others cheer, with a basic question: Who will staff these new prisons and jails?
The state is chronically 3,000 guards short now but is considering building three new prison units. In Houston, Harris County Commissioners want to increase the state's largest county jail by 50% capacity, but they can't fully staff the facilities they've got now. Meanwhile, other counties are expanding local jails, and new immigration detention centers are going up.
Well, hey, if we're going to have illegal immigrants building our border fences, why not let the inmates be the guards? At least in this state, you'll never have to worry about a labor shortage!
I kid, I kid. Though in writing that little joke, it occurs to me that one decent source for the generally young, male workers you'd need for the prison industry would be...Mexican immigrants.
(I'll pause for a minute here till all the heads are finished exploding.)
Hey, some folks want to use immigrants to help the military meet its recruiting targets, with citizenship as a reward for a four-year hitch. I say if you're qualified to serve in Iraq, you're qualified to serve in Huntsville. I don't see how one proposal is any crazier than the other.
Speaking of the military, it's a factor in the hiring woes that prisons and police forces face, too.
Over the past year, it's become increasingly clear that many municipalities are facing a crisis in police recruitment. There are plenty of factors involved -- from low unemployment to changes in the workforce -- but one of the reasons is more and more competition from the armed services, which themselves are pressed for manpower.That's because cops and soldiers are similar folks. Both groups are disproportionately young, male, willing to accept dangerous careers and comfortable using firearms. As a result, if the military ups benefits to try to recruit more troops, police forces may have no choice but to follow suit.
It goes without saying that prison guards fall into this same demographic, right? Well, at least this provides an alternate means to easing the staffing problems that prisons and police forces face: Bring the troops home, and scale down the enlistment push. Works for me!
On a tangential note, Grits recently wrote about the problem of false burglar alarms and their effect on police resources. Read it (and the comments) and ask yourself: Is the proper response by the city of Plano to hire more police officers, or to change the way they respond to burglar alarms?
Finally, while it was linked in the Grits paragraph that I excerpted above, be sure to read this Statesman editorial (also noted by Eye on Williamson) about one of those new immigration detention centers.
UPDATE: Stace demonstrates once again how hard it is to stay ahead of the satire curve.
According to MK Bower, the Rice Owls have sold 6800 tickets to the New Orleans Bowl. Considering that's about three times the size of the undergraduate student body, I'd say that's not too shabby. Rice's bowl ticket sales (as of Friday) compare very favorably to its CUSA brethren. By the way, has anybody else gotten a robocall from Art Briles about buying tickets for the Liberty Bowl?
If you're an Owl fan who can't make it to New Orleans but would like to watch the game with fellow alums and fans, there are regional game watching parties going on around the country, and even in Canada. Why watch alone? It's better this way.
Meanwhile, Rice senior offensive lineman Rolf Krueger offers his thoughts on the bowl experience. And it's nice to hear that former coach Ken Hatfield is doing well and still a fan of the team, almost all of whose players this year he helped recruit. Go Rice!
UPDATE: Another nice story about the Owls and head coach Todd Graham. This bit really stands out:
Graham also addressed the school's high academic standards, but instead of asking for them to be reduced only requested that the admissions process be speeded up so that recruits could be targeted earlier and that qualifying signees be allowed to enter school in January."Todd became the first coach to appear at a faculty meeting," said Jim Castaeda, the school's longtime faculty athletic representative. "Some of them were really astonished by that.
"After it was over, I heard them expressing support for the program that I hadn't heard in a long time."
The more I read about Coach Graham, the more I find to be impressed about.
I had mentioned before that I was curious to see how Jeff Bagwell stacked up in Jay Jaffe's rating system for the Hall of Fame. Well, here's my answer. Short answer: Bags does even better than I thought, and I thought he'd do pretty well. We'll see what the voters think in five years' time.
Dwight will be so pleased to hear that I've finally entered the 21st century...
Believe it or not, I received an iPod Nano as part of a Christmas gift package at work. Just in time for my trip to New Orleans, too. I won't have the time or the space to rip more than a handful of CDs for that, but I would like to get a few things on there to make the bus ride home more tolerable.
In particular, I have my eye on the podcasts for NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, which are long enough to really help pass the time, and (unlike some other NPR faves I could name) free to download. I've subscribed to the podcast feed in iTunes and uploaded the most recent week's show, but I'll be damned if I can tell how to get past shows. Am I missing something, or is this just how it is?
UPDATE: OK, thanks to Michael's comment I figured out what I was doing wrong. Still looks like I can only see ten episodes, but that's nine better than what I started with. Feel free to give me more advice in the comments, I daresay I'll need all I can get. Thanks!
I'm following the CD29 results here. The folks who are embedded with the DiNovo campaign are doing the same here and here. With all of Matagorda and about half of Brazoria in, the standings are here, and K-T's assessment at this juncture is here. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: It's over. Runoff yes, DiNovo no. Alas.
From my inbox, the METRO Solutions NewsFlash Vol. I, No. 31, dated last night:
This Thursday (December 21) at the regular meeting of METRO's Board of Directors there will be an agenda item regarding University Corridor. The item refers to the "approval of a short list of University Line alternatives." Please note that the meeting begins at 10 a.m. Further details will be available online after the Board meeting.
A little something to look forward to in your Christmas stocking, no? This Houston Architecture Info Forum thread has more - scroll down, or go straight to this post to find it. If you want to attend that board meeting, it's Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 10:00 A.M., 1900 Main - Board Room - 2nd Floor. Enjoy!
Today is the day for the last election of 2006, the special election in HD29 to fill the seat of the late Rep. Glenda Dawson. I've got a writeup on it over at Kuff's World, and to that I'll add links to Muse and Cobarruvias. If you live in Brazoria or Matagorda Counties, you might need to vote today. Check Dr. DiNovo's page for a listing of polling locations. I'll have updates on this race later today.
One of Tiffany's great-uncles is Tony Gullo. The extended Gullo family has an annual Christmas party hosted by one of the siblings, and this year it was Tony's turn. The shindig was at their home out near Magnolia. They have a large property, and they really go all out on the Christmas decorations. You can get a feel for that in the above photo. Yes, that's a David Adickes work. Far as we know, it's a recent addition. As you might imagine, as soon as I saw it I said "I so have to get a picture of that".
There's two more shots in the extended entry. Click on to see them.
Right next to George W is this eagle. The base is the same, but I'm not sure if this is an Adickes as well.
That's as full a view as I could get of George and his immediate surroundings. Like I said, Uncle Tony and Aunt Dolly go all out. There's a lot more than this, some of which I'll upload later.
Smile for the toll road cameras!
The Harris County Toll Road Authority is nabbing drivers who owe thousands of dollars in tolls using a new technology that signals when repeat offenders enter the tollway.Cameras stationed at busy toll lanes send e-mail alerts to county dispatchers when one of the top 500 scofflaws - who owe between $2,000 and $30,000 - drives through an EZ Tag lane without paying.
[...]
Most cameras stationed on toll roads take photos of vehicles that fail to pay upon entering, so the county can mail them tickets.
The new cameras contain software listing top violators' license numbers so when one of those vehicles is photographed skipping a toll, a dispatcher at a control center receives a real-time message and can alert an officer in the area.
"Instead of relying on patrol vehicles to drive around, it puts all the traffic through the filter and finds the wanted vehicle," said Jim Tuton, CEO of American Traffic Solutions Inc., which runs the camera system for the county.
[...]
The list of license plates identified by the cameras can be changed at any time, which makes the technology useful for other purposes as well, including tracking stolen vehicles.
One can only wonder what those "other purposes" might be. It's a safe bet that whatever they are now, the list will expand in the future as the camera technology improves.
Look, as with the red light cameras, I don't have a philosophical problem with using technology in place of traffic cops to help enforce the law. There's no right to skip paying tolls any more than there's a right to run red lights. What concerns me here is the same thing that concerns me there: What controls exist over the data that those cameras are collecting? Who has access to it? How long is it kept on somebody's servers? What about backups?
It's the scope creep that's worrisome. Nobody objects to recovering stolen cars, but what are those "other purposes", and who gets to suggest new ones? What if anything can the Harris County Toll Road Authority do that the City of Houston cannot?
Oh, and in case you're wondering how anyone can rack up $30K in unpaid tolls:
The technology allows deputies to focus on catching repeat violators while they're still on the toll road illegally so they can be arrested and charged criminally. Scofflaws tracked down at home, where they have ignored ticket after mailed ticket, face only civil charges.Drivers can be caught on camera twice with no penalty. The third violation in a year results in a fine including the amount of the unpaid tolls, plus an administrative fee for each violation. More fees are added once the bill is turned over to a collection agency or court.
So frequent violators can end up owing thousands of dollars, as much as 10 times what the tolls would have cost.
Talk about your revenue streams! And while I don't intend to defend toll-skippers, I feel compelled to note that zipping through the EZTag lane without paying is not generally correlated with causing accidents. This feels more than a wee bit out of proportion to me.
As you know, Texas Democrats made numerous gains in this election cycle - in Congress, in the State House, in counties like Hays and Dallas, and so on. While there's much to be happy about in these results, there's much to be not so happy about as well. In particular, the grassroots folks feel like they were let down by the lack of support at the statewide level for many candidates, from Chris Bell on down. Suffice it to say that many words have been written, in email, discussion boards, and blogs, about these feelings and at whom they should be directed.
Fortunately for those of us who care about the outcome of those discussions, there's now a real sense that it's time to move past this sort of thing and get everybody on the same page. Anna has a project in the works to help bring the institutional base of the Texas Democratic Party and the grassroots activists a little closer together. She's dubbed it Project Bridge The Gap, and she describes it and the motivation behind it here. I think it's a good idea, and I'll be very interested to hear the reports from the State Democratic Executive Committee in January where this will all take place.
I'm going to have to give some serious thought to Sen. Florence Shapiro's proposal to give parents of autistic children vouchers to pay for specialized early-intervention education for them. On the merits, this makes a lot of sense. This is a relatively small group of students, with very specific and labor-intensive needs. Encouraging them to seek out a smaller number of schools that can really handle them is a better use of resources than finding specialists for potentially every school in Texas.
On the other hand, it's vouchers. I wish I could separate the politics from the proposal, but that would be naive. I'm certainly willing to hear more, but I want some reassurances about the camel's nose poking into the tent before I sign on the dotted line. I hate having to be so cynical, but voucher proponents have a long history of operating in bad faith. I do not trust them.
On to the article:
Kendra Imbus embraces Shapiro's proposal.Her 4-year-old, Catherine, has severe autism and attends an early childhood autism program in the Katy Independent School District. Many others are on a waiting list.
Catherine also attends Shape of Behavior Inc., a private school that specializes in teaching autistic children.
If given a choice, Imbus said, parents could get help to cover the cost for intensive and specialized education.
"Maybe you could get them to a point where they could be mainstreamed, and then, maybe, you wouldn't have to spend that money later," Imbus said. "That's what I think the general public doesn't realize. If we could help them now, maybe they wouldn't have to be institutionalized when they are older."
But she is not optimistic that lawmakers will support Shapiro's plan.
"It will be a hard sell. I don't think the public cares," Imbus said. "I don't think they understand the issue. I don't think they realize how many of these children are out there. This is going to become an economic disaster in our country."
There is no known cure for autism. Early intervention is imperative.
Holli De Clemente also has enrolled her 3-year-old son, Justice, in Shape of Behavior. The school, with six locations, enrolls 40 children and has 45 staff members.
De Clemente said her Magnolia Independent School District has beautiful public schools but, from her perspective, was unable to provide adequate support for Justice.
She said her son made "a mind-boggling transformation" nearly immediately after being placed in the private school: He began speaking.
Shape of Behavior charges $2,000 a month for part-time students and $4,000 a month for full-time students.
"What typical family in America can do that? My parents are helping us with part of it, because it's impossible," De Clemente said.
Education groups vigorously oppose voucher programs in Texas. Such proposals typically involve vouchers for low-income parents to move children from low performing, inner-city schools to private schools or better public schools.
Voucher supporters and opponents agree any move to allow vouchers for one disability or disease could open the door to other subsets of students.
"Public tax dollars should go to fund public schools, not private schools," said Richard Kouri, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association. "Our belief is that once you start moving public tax dollars to private schools, whatever the initial reason, future arguments become arguments around expanding that existing program."
State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, said she opposes school vouchers but agonizes with parents of autistic children.
Van de Putte, a member of the Senate Education Committee, said parents don't want to open the floodgates for a full-blown voucher system but that they are lobbying for a limited-purpose voucher program in special cases in which the school district agrees that it can't provide needed services.
Van de Putte, emphasizing that she opposes "diverting money and passion away from our public school system," said she is open-minded.
I sympathize with Sen. Van de Putte. I'm right there with her. And of course, this isn't the only voucher proposal out there, so you can see where the suspicion comes from. Again, I'm willing to listen, but my eyes are wide open, and I hope everyone else's are as well.
UPDATE: Vince expands on the case against.
UPDATE: McBlogger is blunt about this:
The reality is that parents can send their kids to another school in a district if they can't get the services the child needs at the school they currently attend. Should those services not exist in the district, then the district HAS TO CREATE THEM.The real issue is that the schools don't have enough money to comply with all the laws and the blame for that lies solidly at the feet of Florence Shapiro and the other Republicans in the Lege who would rather exploit innocent kids THAN DO THEIR JOBS and fully fund the public schools.
I'll have more to say on this soon.
This is a nice story about the efforts of San Antonio to buy land in the surrounding areas as a means of maintaining a sufficient recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer. Everything about this, from the way it got approved by voters to the purchasing of cheaper land in Medina and Uvalde Countiesand so on, strikes me as a good idea and good implementation. Kudos to all for that.
One thing in the piece bugs me, however:
Jeff Francell, director of land protection at the Texas Nature Conservancy, said San Antonio's initiative "is going to have a major impact in the future on water quality, on protection of the aquifer and sprawl, to some degree."[...]
Francell said private land trusts are growing in Texas as well.
"Many of them are small and local but active. They're relying on donations of easements from longtime landowners, or new buyers of land who want to protect their property and see the financial benefits of donating easements," Francell said.
The trusts are increasingly important in an era where insufficient state funds are devoted to acquisition of parks and preserves, Francell said.
"The state parks don't have two cents to rub together now. Private buyers are the only hope," he said.
Uh, no. State parks have no money because the powers that be don't consider them a priority, and therefore do not fund them at a sustainable level. That's a matter of policy, and it's something that can, and hopefully someday soon will, change in Texas. In the meantime, private trusts are a decent enough stopgap, but that's all they are. The real hope is that the government will take its job of stewarding our natural resources seriously.
This is not a matter of not having enough money to fund our park system. As we all know, the state currently has more money than it knows what to do with. That won't always be the case, of course, but we are not operating in a 2003 record-deficit climate. The Governor and the Lege chose to cut the budget in many places to deal with that. Restoring, or in this case not restoring, those cuts, is also a choice. Maybe that's a choice you agree with, but it's still a choice. We could choose differently, and that's why Francell's statement about private trusts being the "only hope" is wrong.
UPDATE: B and B has more.
OK, who besides me saw today's front page story about St. George Place and said something like "Huh, I had no idea that there was anything called 'zoning' anywhere in Houston"?
The neighborhood is home to the first of Houston's 22 tax increment reinvestment zones, and the only zone for which the City Council has adopted a zoning ordinance.[...]
The story of how zoning came to this small piece of Houston starts with developer Robert Silvers, who in the late 1980s started buying property in Lamar Terrace, a post-World War II subdivision that was succumbing to urban blight.
Residents had voted out the neighborhood's deed restrictions, in part because they expected the Galleria to expand westward and create a hot market for commercial property, said David Hawes, the executive director of the St. George Place zone.
As Silvers began planning to develop the property, a lawyer told him about tax increment reinvestment zones, districts where tax revenue from increased property values is reinvested in neighborhood improvements.
The lawyer advised Silvers that state law gave the districts created by petition the authority to adopt their own zoning rules.
"All of a sudden," Silvers recalled, "sugar plums were dancing in my head."
The City Council created the TIRZ in 1990 and passed the zoning ordinance three years later. Since then, a patchwork of vacant lots, dilapidated houses and piles of junk has become a thriving neighborhood of 388 new homes.
My reading of this is that since they had their zoning rules prior to the 1993 city referendum, they were effectively grandfathered in. I had no idea this was done. You learn something new every day, I guess.
As for the dispute itself, on which this front-page story is centered, I'm not sure that there's anything to it beyond the novelty of zoning that elevates it to such prominance.
Last week, the TIRZ's board narrowly rejected a developer's request to change the zoning designation for part of a 3-acre vacant site in the heart of St. George Place. The company, Rohe and Wright Builders, submitted plans calling for construction of 24 townhomes and 12 patio homes.The zoning change was opposed by 326 residents, including leaders of the St. George Place Civic Association. They signed a petition urging the board to maintain the original zoning, which permits fewer homes and differs from the developer's plan in other respects.
Yet the vote by the TIRZ board was six in favor of the change, two opposed and one abstention - just short of the 75 percent supermajority required because of the petition.
[...]
Houston City Councilman Peter Brown, an architect and planner who helped write the zoning ordinance for St. George Place, said the rules were intended to be flexible. In this case, he said, the change would have produced a development that would benefit the neighborhood.
The strength of the residents' opposition, Brown said, might reflect lack of experience with zoning or other common planning tools.
"Because we don't have any significant development regulations," Brown said, "citizens are accustomed to fighting any change."
[...]
Silvers said zoning has been an important asset in selling homes in St. George Place. He supported the zoning change, however, and said many of the opponents may not have understood how zoning is supposed to work.
"They were just happy that nobody could put up junk next door to them," Silvers said.
Silvers said a high-quality development on the central site purchased by Rohe and Wright is important to the future of St. George Place.
[...]
Terry Rockwell, 63, a retired engineer who helped organize the petition drive against the zoning change, said the turnout and comments last week show that residents want to stick with the rules they have.
"I think the lesson that we learned is that while we all knew that the largely anonymous TIRZ board was in place, they don't necessarily represent our interests," Rockwell said. "We've found out we need to pay a lot closer attention to it."
ahem What we've got here is failure to communicate. Maybe the TIRZ board can spend a little bit more time explaining to the residents why this project is so super swell, at which point the residents can consider their fears assuaged, or they can decide it's time for some new TIRZ board members. Any questions?
Last Thursday, I blogged about how the National Journal twice quoted an incorrect assertion that Tom DeLay's 2003 re-redistricting netted the GOP a mere two seats. PerryVsWorld has also blogged about this - though I disagree about his assessment of Henry Bonilla's future, I think he's right to say that Bonilla was a dead duck under the old lines.) So far, the comment I left here has never been approved (though one by Ryan Goodland making the same point was), and I've never gotten a response to the email I sent to John Mercurio. I don't know why such a silly, easily-debunked error has gained such currency, but my respect for the National Journal has gone down a notch because of it. Don't be fooled: Tom DeLay paid a high price for his scheme, but even with the loss of CD22 this year (whether for one cycle or long-term), he got a decent payoff for it. Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong.
Following in the footsteps of Bay Area Houston and The Muse, who have both put a ton of time and effort into this, the Dallas Morning News takes a look at how our state legislators spend their campaign cash.
A Dallas Morning News review of campaign finance reports filed by the area's lawmakers in the last two years shows that nearly half of what they spent - about $2.2 million - went for things unrelated to their campaigns.It's all legal, as long as the expenses are related, even indirectly, to their role as state legislators. And lawmakers defend it, saying they're expected to maintain two households and two offices but are paid little.
"You need the flexibility to not only do your job back at home in the district, but also to spend time in Austin," said Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, who used campaign funds to rent a 1996 Chevy Blazer to drive during the 2005 session of the Legislature.
"I need a place to hang up my suits and my ties and keep my toiletries, and to sleep after late nights on the House floor. That's part of it as well."
But with the bulk of these campaign contributions coming from high-dollar donors and special-interest groups seeking help in the Legislature, advocates for campaign finance reform say the system opens the door for corruption.
Most of these legislators are in safe seats and don't need much money to get re-elected. So the money they raise is bankrolling a standard of living, watchdogs say.
"Many of these legislators have virtually no opposition and don't need the campaign money," said Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice, which studies the influence of money in state politics. "But they're happy to take money to maintain their lifestyle."
Texas legislators are paid an annual salary of $7,200, plus an allowance of $128 for every day the Legislature is in session. This adds up to about $25,000 for a regular 140-day session - far from a comfortable full-time salary and one of the lowest in the country.
To me, the answer to all this is simple. Being a legislator is a fulltime job, even if we're not having a zillion special sessions all the time. The job should be compensated as such. It doesn't have to be a lavish salary - perhaps somewhere between $50 and 100K per year, with more for Senators and a reasonable allowance for housing, food, and transportation - but it should be enough that people can live on it without having to keep their regular jobs. In return for this, there should be much stricter controls over how campaign donations can be spent, how that spending gets reported, and - most importantly - there must be real penalties for breaking those rules, with a real enforcement mechanism in place.
Oh, and one more thing: You can't keep your campaign cash once you're no longer in office or running for an office. Once you step down or get tossed out, you have a fixed period of time in which to either file for another office, or disperse the cash in some prescribed way. As best as I can tell right now, once you get a campaign donation it's yours to keep. Which means folks like Steve Wolens and Ken Armbrister have effectively retired as millionaires. I'm sorry, but that ain't right. (Note: See update.)
Odds of any of this happening? Pretty darned close to zero. The public hates paying its public officials, and would rather it be outsourced to the big donors, where it reserves the right to get indignant about the occasional abuse that's too big to ignore. Because of that, very few elected officials want to try to push a bill through to change things. Who wants to get Leiningered over that? Until these things change, we're stuck with what we've got.
UPDATE: Muse emails to say that TEC rules already require disposition of campaign funds in a prescribed manner. Here are the rules:
§ 20.237. Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions(a) A former candidate who was not an officeholder at the time he or she filed a final report may not retain unexpended political contributions, unexpended interest or other income earned from political contributions, or assets purchased with political contributions or interest or other income earned from political contributions for more than six years after the date of the final report, except as provided by subsection (f) of this section.
(b) During the six-year period after the final report is filed, a former candidate may disburse unexpended political contributions, unexpended interest or other income earned from political contributions, or assets purchased with political contributions or interest or other income earned from political contributions to one of the following:
(1) the political party with which the person was affiliated when the person's name last appeared on a ballot;
(2) a candidate or political committee, subject to the reporting requirements of § 20.243 of this title (relating to Contribution of Unexpended Political Contributions to Candidate or Political Committee);
(3) the Comptroller of Public Accounts, for deposit in the state treasury for use in financing primary elections;
(4) one or more persons from whom political contributions were received, with
contributions to a person not to exceed the aggregate amount the former candidate accepted from that person during the last two years that the candidate accepted political contributions;(5) a recognized, tax-exempt charitable organization; or
(6) a public or private post-secondary educational institution or an institution of higher education, as defined by the Education Code, § 61.003(8) (concerning Definitions), solely for the purpose of assisting or creating a scholarship program.
(c) A former candidate may not convert unexpended political contributions, unexpended interest or other income earned from political contributions, or assets purchased with political contributions or interest or other income earned from political contributions to personal use.(d) At the end of the six-year period after the final report is filed, a former candidate must dispose of unexpended political contributions, unexpended interest or other income earned from political contributions, or assets purchased with political contributions or interest or other income earned from political contributions in one of the ways listed in subsection (b) of this section.
(e) A former candidate must make the disposition required by subsection (d) of this section by the 10th day after the end of the six-year period.
(f) The six-year period prescribed by subsection (a) of this section ceases to run if the former candidate files a new campaign treasurer appointment during the period.
§ 20.239. Report of Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions
(a) A person required by § 20.237 of this title (relating to Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions) to dispose of unexpended contributions, unexpended
interest or other income earned from political contributions, or assets purchased with political contributions or interest or other income earned from political contributions at the end of the period for retaining such funds is required to file a report of the disposition of such funds.(b) The report must be filed no later than the 30th day after the end of the six-year period prescribed by § 20.237(a) of this title (relating to Final Disposition of Unexpended Contributions).
(c) The report shall be filed with the authority with whom the person's campaign treasurer appointment was required to be filed.
(d) The report shall cover the period that begins on the first day after the period covered by the last annual report required through the day a report under this section is filed.
Full TEC rules can be found here (PDF) - thanks again to Muse.
Late last week, the Austin City Council approved new rules for big-box store development, but did not apply them to the Northcross Mall site.
The rules will require the city to notify more neighbors of proposed large stores and have a public review process for those projects.[...]
More than 100 neighbors protested outside of City Hall midday Thursday, asking the council to void Lincoln's site plan for the mall, which the city approved in August.
Council members didn't do that Thursday, perhaps to avoid getting sued by the retail giant. Instead, a few council members applied public pressure, urging Lincoln to change its vision into a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly project.
"If they want to be a good community partner and develop other properties in Austin, they should try to do a better project," Council Member Brewster McCracken said.
"This can be a win-win" if Lincoln listens to neighbors, Council Member Jennifer Kim said. "I hope Lincoln understands that the neighborhood has a right to self-determination."
McCracken said he wants to soon propose an hours-of-operation ordinance that could prevent Wal-Mart from operating its Northcross store 24 hours a day. He and other council members questioned traffic numbers Lincoln submitted to the city, saying actual traffic counts done at other Austin Wal-Marts were twice as big.
Wal-Mart and Lincoln said this week that they'll suspend their plans (and not apply for permits) for 60 days to gather neighbors' input.
[...]
Right now, big stores proposed for land already zoned for such retail don't go through a public review process. That's why the Northcross Wal-Mart never had a public airing.
The new rules will require a public hearing and a special permit, called a conditional-use permit, for any planned store bigger than 100,000 square feet.
Another change is that the city will have to notify neighborhood associations within a one-mile radius of any planned huge store, instead of the current rule advising those within 300 feet.
I think the new rules make more sense. It's a shame that they won't have any effect on the Northcross site, but at least it's a start.
More on the Council action and the neighborhood reaction is here and here. I have the following statement from Responsible Growth for Northcross:
Responsible Growth for Northcross (RG4N) is dismayed that the Austin City Council did not revoke or suspend Lincoln Property Company’s illegally approved site plan.
This inaction ignores the mounting evidence indicating that Lincoln may have grossly understated the traffic impact of the development, that the city was deficient in notification of citizens, and that the city had no authority to approve the site plan as an administrative site plan without a public hearing. Furthermore, the Council is disregarding the voices of more than 3,600 petitioners (and hundreds more that contacted the Council individually) demanding action.
We appreciate the Council's commitment to hold Lincoln Property Company to no action whatsoever on the Northcross project for 60 days. We also appreciate the Council's commitment to prohibit 24-hour operation at Northcross as is currently planned.
RG4N is prepared to aggressively pursue all necessary measures to save our neighborhoods and to provide a better vision for redevelopment at Northcross Mall. Our goal is a meaningful partnership with Lincoln Property Company to develop a new site plan that ensures quality of life in our neighborhoods.
If you're thinking that sounds like a lawsuit is looming in the future, you're right:
Who would the city rather get sued by - its citizens and neighborhood associations, or Wal-Mart? That's shaping up as the unpleasant choice for City Council in the heated battle over Lincoln Property Co.'s plans to bring a gargantuan Wal-Mart Supercenter to the site of Northcross Mall. The surrounding neighborhoods, collectively organized as Responsible Growth for Northcross (RG4N), have asked council to revoke the project's entire site plan; council members say they would love nothing better, as Lincoln Property's Seventies-style mall redevelopment scheme is wholly out of sync with the city's new-era urban planning efforts. But city managers and city legal seem terrified of getting slapped with a lawsuit by the billions-deep retail behemoth; they've sternly warned council that it has no legal grounds to revoke the site plan - approved Aug. 8 through an administrative process that allowed for no city input or public hearing.[...]
Among those irritated by city management's public assertions that there's "nothing the city can do" is Council Member Brewster McCracken. "It's a very unfortunate attitude," he said. "It's not how we do it Downtown." McCracken has been particularly critical of Lincoln Property's scheme, which willfully ignores the progressive urban-planning intentions he shepherded in as city policy in May of 2005, officially adopted as the city's new Design Standards and Mixed-Use ordinance in August. "Just because something complies [with zoning code], that doesn't mean it's not a bad idea, from an infrastructure or urban-planning perspective," McCracken pointed out. Conveying a sense of civic betrayal, he noted that Wal-Mart agent Richard Suttle sat on the task force that crafted the new design standards - which he then turned around and helped his client to outrun.
[...]
McCracken pointed out a strange limit to the council's powers: they've been told they have no authority to revoke the site plan unless the city gets sued by someone over it. "It's unfortunate we have to force our constituents to sue us in order to act in their interests," he said with obvious frustration. "But unless we get sued, we don't have authority." As he sees it, doing what's safe from a legal perspective is different from doing what's right. "Part of our job is to provide leadership. If we see something going on that's wrong, the public rightfully expects us to do something about it."
There's always the chance that negotiations among all the interested parties can bring about a solution that everyone can live with. That's inevitably a better way to go than the courts, but it's easier said than done. Stay tuned.
Add the city of Paris to the municipal Wi-Fi revolution.
If Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe has his way, free wireless Internet soon will be in public places throughout the city - including the cafe haunts on the Left Bank where the master of the chiseled phrase used to write longhand in small black notebooks.While it might be a little hard to imagine Hemingway writing A Farewell to Arms on a laptop, Delanoe is betting that le Wi-Fi (pronounced wee-fee here) is one of many changes in Paris that will attract creative spirits as well as legions of young people who might otherwise flee the tradition-bound city for places closer to the cutting edge.
Delanoe, 56, a socialist with strong views about how to make Paris competitive in the 21st century, has been reshaping the city's image since he was elected the French capital's first openly gay mayor in 2001. He wants to make Paris greener, more high- tech, less uptight.
"Paris is extremely strong when it is most welcoming," Delanoe told a news magazine shortly after his election. Previous mayors and the national government, he said, had "museumified" the city.
His goal is both to attract young people, some of whom have chosen to move to London for employment, and to attract new business, which increasingly looks to Eastern Europe or the Far East.
"We can't leave Asian cities like Seoul or Tokyo, or American cities like San Francisco or Philadelphia, to make the running (to dominate) in digital matters," Delanoe said earlier this year when he announced plans to create 400 free wireless hotspots.
I forget what the technical term is for what Mayor Delanoe has in mind here - ideopolis, I think - but I'll leave that to folks like Tory to comment on. Y'all know that I love seeing more Wi-Fi access in more places, so I'm just happy to note this for the record.
Various members of Houston's theater scene will perform in a benefit concert for the employees of The Great Caruso, who were put out of work by the fire last weekend.
The concert is at 7 p.m. Monday at Zilkha Hall, Hobby Center, 800 Bagby.David LaDuca, Melodie Smith, Mikah Horn and John Berno are among those who will sing show tunes and holiday favorites, with piano accompaniment by Steven Jamail.
Admission is free, but cash donations will be accepted to assist the displace employees from Great Caruso Dinner Theatre.
Further information may be obtained by e-mailing Roy Hamlin at roy@tuts.com.
Sounds like a good deal to me. Help 'em out if you can.
And here's the first of what I hope are many stories about the Saint Arnold legislative project.
"It would be so great at the end of a brewery tour to sell them a six-pack," said St. Arnold Brewing Co. founder Brock Wagner.The Saturday tours of St. Arnold's Houston brewery routinely draw 100 to 200 people each week. "The end result would be a huge boon for microbreweries," said Wagner, who expects to spend a lot of time in Austin making small brewers' voices heard. "It creates a connection between the customer and the brewery."
There could be opposition to the proposal, however, if wholesalers consider it a possible threat to the dollars they make as middlemen.
Mike McKinney, vice president for the Wholesalers Beer Distributors of Texas, could not be reached for comment.
The dynamic of this project will change considerably if a bad guy appears. Right now, it's all about a warm, fuzzy appeal for microbreweries. If an opponent arises - and there's no guarantee that will happen, I'm just what-if-ing here - then there will have to be some negative stuff as well. I'd rather not have to go there, but that's the nature of politics. You want to go for the win-win, but you can't always get it.
Wagner said the coalition of microbrewers is not trying to steal business from distributors or retailers. St. Arnold would not be able to reach hundreds of grocery stores around the state without a distributor, he said.However, Wagner said selling directly at the brewery puts a few extra dollars in the company's coffers for expansion or marketing and lets beer tourists walk out with the actual product instead of just a T-shirt or mug from the gift shop.
"For beer enthusiasts, making the connection between the beer and the place where the beer is brewed is very important," said Greg Koch, founder and CEO of Stone Brewing Co. in Southern California. "Could you imagine going to your local baker and not being able to buy the bread they made there?"
I'm not a big fan of the whole "framing" concept, but that's a great way to frame this issue. I'll be reusing that line during this campaign.
California breweries and brewers in several other states sell their beer to retailers through a distributor, but also sell at the breweries and brewery-owned restaurants that are much like brewpubs. The brewpub laws in Texas allow the beer to be sold only on premise and not in retail stores.Koch said the beer culture in California and the Northwest has thrived in part because direct sales are allowed at microbreweries.
And that's what we want here, for the microbrew culture to thrive. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's that much to ask. We'll just have to see what the other interested parties think.
The last election of 2006 (but not necessarily the last election of this cycle) will take place on Tuesday. It's the special election for HD29 to fill the seat left vacant by the death of State Rep. Glenda Dawson. There are multiple Republicans and one Democrat in this race, Dr. Anthony DiNovo, who ideally would make it to a January runoff (*that* would be the last election of this cycle). If nothing else, if DiNovo just makes it to the runoff, that's one less assured vote for Tom Craddick as Speaker. Anything that makes Craddick sweat is good, and who knows? After Ciro Rodriguez's laugher last week, can anyone say for sure what might happen in a runoff?
Various folks are currently involved in the GOTV work for DiNovo. If you've got the time and the inclination, please join in with Muse, Coby, Kaos, Karl-T, and Hal at DiNovo headquarters. Especially Hal. Dems started the year with a special election win. Wouldn't it be great to end it that way, too?
And the Robinson Warehouse beat goes on...
Much more progress since Monday. I've got more pix than usual this time, so click on for more.
The debris from the front facade demolition has been cleaned up. It's really amazing how much more open the area feels now that this part of the structure is gone. Remember, we started out with this:
That was four weeks ago. Quite a difference, no?
This picture was taken from the same spot as the previous one. The place was quite the hotbed of activity. I'm a little surprised no one noticed me and tried to run me off.
A view of the basement that Charles Robinson mentioned, from the south end of it. You can get a feel for its depth by looking at the worker in front of the Cat.
The rear view, from the southwest corner. Still a ways to go there.
Back to the north side, this is looking straight in from the driveway on Montrose. See the smaller green building that used to be back there? It's all gone.
Here's a different perspective. I walked east a bit on Allen Parkway till I got past the barbed-wire fence. That little green building would have been right in front of me - you can see its slab foundation. The condo development visible from West Dallas is to the left.
And the view from across the street on Montrose. It's gonna be weird when it's all gone. I remember driving by the old rice elevator site shortly after it was torn down in the 90s, and being amazed at how much of the downtown skyline I could see from there. It had never occurred to me that it would be visible. I won't get quite the same feeling here - you can already see some skyline poking through, but those condos will block some of it. Still, just not having the warehouse there, seeing the viod before the new building gets started, that's gonna be freaky.
I think we all knew it was the end of the line for Jeff Bagwell. Now he has made it official.
"It's been a long journey, but it's been a great ride," Bagwell said. "It really has."Bagwell's retirement has been expected since his badright shoulder forced him off the field during spring training earlier this year. He never played in the regular season, and the Astros didn't pick up his contract for 2007.
"I wish I could still play and try to win a World Series here in Houston but I'm not physically able to do that anymore," he said. "That being said, I'm OK with that. Most of you that know me know I had a tough time the last four or five years with my shoulder, which took a lot out of me on and off the field."
Bagwell will remain an integral part of the organization. He signed a personal services contract through the 2009 season in which he will work with the major league baseball operations staff and player development.
"For me personally, this is a sad day to see officially that Jeff is not going to be part of the Houston Astros playing first base and hitting home runs," Astros owner Drayton McLane said. "He's going to be continued to be involved with us. I think there's more great things to come with Jeff Bagwell and the Houston Astros."
Bagwell, 38, is a career .297 hitter with 449 home runs, 1,529 RBIs and 202 steals in 2,150 games. The 1991 National League Rookie of the Year and 1994 NL Most Valuable Player, he is the only first baseman and one of only 10 players to hit 400 homers and steal 200 bases.
At this point, there are really only two questions: When will Bagwell be enshrined at Cooperstown, and when will the Stros retire his number? I believe Bagwell has a very strong case for the Hall - I look forward to seeing Jay Jaffe's JAWS score for him - and he does well under traditional counting stats, too. His sabermetric case is helped by his fielding ability, his basestealing skill, and the fact that he played a big chunk of his career in a home stadium that killed offense, while his traditional case has his MVP award, his reputation as a good guy/clubhouse leader, and his good relationship with the local scribes. I can't see him not being inducted, frankly. I don't think he'll be a first-ballot induction, just because he's always been a bit below radar, but I don't think he'l; have to wait more than two or three years.
As for the Stros, I'm sure there'll be a Jeff Bagwell Day in 2007. It's just a matter of retiring his number then, or waiting till he goes to the Hall. Either way works for me.
Best wishes to Jeff Bagwell as he enters his new phase in life. David Pinto and PDiddie have more.
Eye on Williamson brings the latest news about the major voting problems they had in that county this year.
Williamson County officials took a major step Thursday to restore residents' trust in the voting system after numerous problems in the November election led to a partial recount and the resignation of the county elections administrator.At least 100 election workers and staff members voiced concerns Thursday at a meeting called by the county's elections commission.
"This election did not go as smoothly as previous elections had gone when I had been a judge," election judge Eric Whitfield said after the hearing. "We need a way to make sure that people who move here and are interested enough in voting, that they can do that."
After the hearing, acting Elections Administrator John Willingham said the main complaints were about staffing, training and technical support. He will make recommendations to officials in the next six to eight weeks, including calling for the formation of a panel of election workers that will regularly report to the commission.
"I think it's difficult for someone who's not involved in elections every day . . . to hold the officials and staff accountable," he said. "I think election judges do have that opportunity, and they can see things that are going wrong."
[...]
Several workers said Thursday that staffing was inadequate and that their requests for additional help weren't met.
"If you don't have enough clerks at a polling place, voters are going to leave," Willingham said. "We need to make sure there are procedures in place (so) that staffing concerns won't be ignored. It's something that could have been handled fairly easily."
Workers also repeated complaints that they did not receive proper training in handling electronic voting machines and what election judge Betty Brown called "problem citizens," who disturb the voting process in some way.
I'd like to know more about what Ms. Brown meant by "problem citizens". Maybe there's a law enforcement issue in here as well.
EoW thinks Willingham did a good job when he was elections supervisor and has hope that he can get things straightened out. We'll see. There's some video of the meeting as well. Check it out.
Today's Chron story on the Texas Transportation Institute study and the pushback it's gotten adds a few new points to the discussion.
Chairman Michael Stevens, a Houston developer, said the gasoline tax would pay for all the highway-construction needs in major urban areas. He said it would not eliminate toll roads but would be used for construction and highway expansion.
I don't oppose tolld roads. Toll roads are a necessary part of the transportation landscape. What I oppose, and what the TTI backs me up on, is the idea that the only way we'll be able to pay for Texas' future transportation needs is by going to an all-toll-roads, all-the-time philosophy. I always thought it was a bad idea that would be far more costly to drivers than a gas tax increase would be, and now I have solid evidence to prove that the whole TransTexas Corridor concept is based on erroneous assumptions.
While the report said toll roads could be an important part of building and maintaining highways in Texas, it emphasized that an indexed gas tax could pay for most of the state's highway needs.The report said investing $66 billion in highway improvements over the next 25 years could save consumers $37 billion in fuel costs by easing congestion.
"They'd pay a little bit more for gasoline but use less gasoline," Stevens said.
Without knowing all of the details in the report, that strikes me as optimistic. Road congestion will always be with us. If it's easier to drive, people will adapt their habits to drive more. I see this as a cycle, a process, not an end that can ever be fully met.
The Texas Department of Transportation estimates that the funding shortfall for state and local highways through 2030 will be $86 billion, the report said. That is why Williamson and Perry have been pushing toll roads.But the business council report said the transportation department's estimates include almost $22 billion in local highway construction that is paid for by local governments. It said when that and other factors are taken into account, the state actually will be about $56 billion short of paying for its highway needs.
The report said the entire state shortfall could be paid for with an initial fuel-tax increase of 12 cents a gallon.
As a reminder, that would give Texas a 32-cent-per-gallon gas tax. That would make Texas one of the higher gas tax states (we're #36 now, as I recall), but it would put us more in line with other high-population states like California (still the champ at 39 cents), New York, and Florida.
State Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock, carried the fuel-tax inflation index bill before. He said the index proposed in the business council report would be far more expensive for consumers than his index.He said his would increase the tax at a rate of about 2 cents a year compared to a nickel for the alternative.
"You're talking about large increases in the gas tax forever," Krusee said of the council report.
You mean "until a future Legislature decides to undo the proposed indexing plan in some fashion", which I can just about guarantee will eventually happen. If and when the gas tax gets too high, the pressure to Do Something About It will become unbearable. That's what's happening now with property taxes, and it will happen with gas taxes.
Further reading: The Highwaymen, in the current issue of the Texas Observer. Eye on Williamson has some excerpts to get you started. Expect there to be more on this in the coming months as well - Governor Perry has not yet announced where he stands on this report yet, for one thing. What happens next is not at all clear.
I still haven't seen any data regarding collision and injury rates in Houston at the intersections where red light cameras have been installed. Via PinkDome, however, I now have some information about El Paso.
The number of citations for red-light violations issued between Oct. 31 and Nov. 30 more than quadrupled compared with the count in the same period last year, El Paso Municipal Court records show.Lilia Worrell, assistant municipal court clerk, said police issued 306 citations for red-light violations from Oct. 31, 2005, to Nov. 30, 2005. This year during the same period, police issued 1,469.
Under the municipal code, the fine for a first and second offense captured by a red-light camera is $75. The fine increases to $150 if a vehicle runs a red light three times or more in a 12-month period.
Officials were unable to say how many of the tickets have been paid.
[Sgt. Jack Matthews of the El Paso Police Department] said a review of the camera program shows that even though hundreds of motorists still aren't stopping for red lights, the camera program appears to be contributing to fewer collisions caused by red-light runners.
Police report 60 percent fewer collisions involving red-light runners at intersections with the cameras since the camera enforcement began, compared with the same period last year.
In addition, Matthews said, "For the month of November, we saw a 75 percent decrease in collisions with injuries involving red-light runners, compared to the same time last year."
It'd be nice to know what the exact numbers were - a 60% decline could mean going from 5 to 2, after all - and a one month period isn't really enough to be sufficient to draw any conclusions - I'd want at least six months' worth of data for that - but at least this is something. If the data in Houston shows a similar decline, would that change your mind about the cameras? I'd still have concerns about them, but I'd find hard to dispute their worth if we get such a result. I hope some day to know what we're getting with them.
Oh, and one more thing, since I feel sure someone would ask if I didn't mention it:
A total of 2,257 possible violations were reviewed by police and [the vendor].[...]
Vehicles with Mexican license plates accounted for less than 1 percent of the red-light violations. The owners of vehicles with international plates cannot be cited under this program because police say their license plate information can't be tracked.
Just so you know.
You may recall the Texas Transportation Institute study that said Texas could fund its roadbuilding needs without tolling everything in sight. TxDOT has finally reacted to it, and it's about what you'd expect.
State transportation officials rebutted that analysis Wednesday, arguing that it understates future needs and overstates what the tax would raise."The individuals contracted to do that report were contracted to produce an intended result," Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Ric Williamson said. "But this is a great thing to put on the table and say, 'Let's talk about this.' "
The study contends that an $86 billion gap in transportation funding over the next generation, a bracingly huge figure that Williamson and others have brandished repeatedly in recent months, should more properly be about $56 billion.
Toll supporters have cited that gap, along with a resulting $1.40-a-gallon increase in the state gas tax that officials say it would take to close it, as justification for the state Transportation Department's wholesale commitment to toll roads.
The authors, who include Texas Transportation Institute researchers Tim Lomax and David Ellis and well-known transportation consultant Alan Pisarski, trimmed $22 billion from the state's $86 billion estimate by saying those costs were for city and county roads and are not the state Transportation Department's responsibility.
The authors said the state may have overstated future costs by an additional $8 billion or so.
Williamson and state Transportation Department staff members said eliminating that $22 billion local obligation is bad math and they are looking for a way to address all of the state's unmet needs.
If anyone knows anything about bad math, it's Ric Williamson.
Transportation officials also said that the report has significantly overestimated how much revenue a gas tax increase would generate by assuming that the average fuel efficiency of cars and trucks would rise to only 23 miles per gallon by 2030.The officials say that hybrid cars and other technology will cause gas tax revenue to nosedive in coming years.
Even if gas tax revenue stagnates or falls, [Michael Stevens, a Houston real estate investor who chairs the Governor's Business Council, which commissioned the study] said, emerging satellite technology would allow the state to tax motorists based on actual miles travelled.
I've blogged about the subject of per-mile versus per-gallon taxation. There are problems with it, but I feel they ought to be surmountable, especially by the time we get to a point where cars are too gas-efficient for per-gallon taxation to be sustainable. For sure, I don't expect it to be an issue any time soon.
The study has reverberated through transportation and legislative circles because that volunteer council is peopled by Perry supporters, including Stevens. Stevens said he met with Perry before the study came out.Given that the report would seem to undercut Perry's opposition to a gas tax increase and support of toll roads, was the governor unhappy with the council's handiwork?
"My view is that the governor is interested in good policy," Stevens said. "That Ric Williamson is unhappy with me doesn't necessarily mean that the governor is unhappy with me."
Perry "believes that we do have a sound transportation policy in place and moving forward," spokesman Robert Black said. "But his general reaction has been, 'Put the ideas on the table, and let's let the Legislature have a debate on them.' "
Well, hey, if Rick Perry can flipflop on immigration, he can flipflop on toll roads. It's all good to me. Far as I'm concerned, the more Rick Perry wants to reverse his position on just about anything he's said, done, or campaigned about over the past six years, the better. Eye on Williamson has more.
This is the best story I've ever read on a sports fan message board. I've got a big stupid grin on my face right now from having read it. Go read it for yourself and see if the same thing doesn't happen to you.
My Chron blog colleague (and Trinity classmate) Stephanie Stradley, a/k/a the Texans Chick is in the running to be the Texans' Ultimate Fan. If she wins, she gets a trip to the Super Bowl. Her sister Debutant makes the case for her, and it's a fine case indeed. You can view the videos that she and her competition submitted on their own behalf (sure they're cheesy, but we're talking about an ultimate football fan contest here - what were you expecting, Kurosawa?) if you've got Real Player, or just skip all that and go straight to the ballot box and cast your vote. The deadline is December 31.
This is interesting.
If you're looking for a Kleenex on the Rice University campus in the near future, you'll be out of luck.Students at the highly rated university in Houston have convinced campus officials to quit buying Kleenex products in favor of products that include recycled material and exclude material from trees cut from North America's largest ancient forest - the boreal forest that stretches from Alaska through Canada.
"It was an initiative that students involved in various environmental groups started," Kyle Saari, a sophomore earth science major at Rice, said today. "We simply showed our purchasing (department) that there are cheaper and environmentally superior products, so it was a no-brainer."
Huh. Didn't know a thing about that, but having read the story, I applaud this action. I'll be showing this story to Tiffany so we can do our part as well.
I had a message on my answering machine yesterday from UH football coach Art Briles. It was a robocall, in which he implored all supporters of Cougar athletics to buy some tickets to the Liberty Bowl on December 29. I've already got bowl game plans, but thanks for asking. What made me curious about this is why my phone number would be on their to-be-called list. Neither Tiffany nor I have any connections to UH (her parents are alums, but that's a pretty thin link), and I have never paid money to attend a football game that featured the Coogs. (I have bought tickets for one baseball game, a few years ago when UH hosted Rice in the baseball super regional, and for one men's basketball game, circa 1993, also with Rice as the visitors.) I figure if they're calling me, they've cast an awfully wide net. For good reason, it seems: According to the Rice fan forum, Houston AD Dave Maggard has sent out an email calling ticket sales to date "extremely disappointing." You have to create an account on the Cougar fan board to see that link, which I haven't done, but I'll take the subsequent poster's word for it that sales have been in the 2000-3000 range, which compares quite poorly to the 5000+ tix Rice fans have bought (scroll down to Matt's comment). Maggard is well-known for never wanting to lose to Rice in anything, so I figure those numbers have got to burn him a bit.
Anyway, I'm curious. Has anybody else received such a call? Leave a comment if you have.
I drove past the Robinson Warehouse on Tuesday to see if the debris from the front facade demolition had been cleaned up. It had, mostly, but I couldn't find any parking nearby - the little service road for Allen Parkway that I normally use was full of cars; it looked like there was a dog group meeting going on in the park. So I'll try to get those pics another time.
Instead, I continued on to West Dallas, where I'd wanted to get a few photos of the view from there, across the way from the vacant lot that adjoins the Robinson site. And here we are:
That's what it looks like from the northeast corner of Montrose and West Dallas. You can see just how vast that empty space is - the warehouse itself is barely visible. If all that is part of the Ismaeli Center, it's going to be huge.
Click on for more.
That's the view of the lot facing east and north. I couldn't really get the whole thing in one picture.
That's one of the permits for the site. It's tacked to a large bulletin board at the far southwest corner of the lot. I scanned all the docs hoping for a clue as to the lot's owner, but couldn't really tell anything other than the expected completion date, as you can see on this form, is December 31 of this year.
And just across West Dallas is the site acquired by Wellington Development for a retail center, which I heard about in early June. No sign of anything happening there yet, however.
More pics this weekend. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Just now spotted the article in the Chron's This Week section on the Robinson Warehouse demolition. Nothing really there we didn't already know, but I wanted to link to it anyway.
Some of us bloggers had a little conference call with Brock Wagner of the Saint Arnold brewery last night to talk about just what it is he and his cohorts want to the Lege to do for them. I've summarized the law, but that doesn't always translate into plain English. Which is why we have con calls, so we can ask questions like "So, just what exactly is it that you guys want to do?"
And the answer is pretty simple: The microbrewers want to be able to sell their beer directly to the public. They're not going to do all of their sales this way - it wouldn't make any sense, and it would justifiably tick off the distributors they use now. What they want, similar to what Texas wineries can now do, is for breweries that make up to 75,000 barrels per year be able to sell up to 5000 of those barrels of their beer per year directly to individuals. Such brewers can currently sell directly to retailers (this is known as the Shiner Law, as it was enacted to accomodate the Spoetzl Brewery; the law no longer applies to them because they're too big for it), but not to individuals. For perspective here, Saint Arnold is the biggest microbrewer in Texas; they sell about 14,000 barrels per year. Brock estimates they'd actually move less than 1000 barrels this way. Anheuser-Busch sells about 14 million barrels a year in Texas. If all five existing Texas microbrewers sold the max each year, it'd represent about 0.1% of the total annual sales in the state.
Being able to sell directly to the public can take several forms, including opening an on-premises brewpub, though given each microbrewers' actual locations, none of them are likely to do that. (As it happens, brewpubs can bottle and sell their beer to individuals right now in Texas. They don't need to go through a distributor. None of them do this, but they could.) What it would mean in practical terms for Saint Arnold's is two things: One, letting folks who take their Saturday tours buy a sixpack or two to take home with them. Right now, if you take the tour you can drink the samples, but if you want to bring that taste home with you, you need to stop at a supermarket on the way. And two, kegs. If you want a keg for your tailgate party or whatever, you buy them from a middleman. Unfortunately, most such suppliers don't carry craft beers like Saint Arnold's because there isn't enough volume for them, so unless you want a keg of Bud Lite or the like, you're generally out of luck. With the new law, just call up the brewery and you're on your way.
As noted previously, Texas wineries can already do this. Go visit the Messina Hof winery or one of its colleagues - you can purchase a few bottles of their wares while you're there. Many microbreweries not in Texas can do this as well. The intent of this campaign is to put Texas microbrewers on equal footing with them.
The benefit for brewers is clear: By eliminating the middleman for these sales, they get a much better margin on them. That would help them with their cash flow, and would make it easier for them to stay in business. That's good for the distributors, who should like having solvent, stable clients, and may make also it easier for new brewers to enter the market for them to service. Expanding the market for high-end beers is good for retailers as well, since they make more money on those sales. It's certainly good for beer drinkers. And the limit on what the micros can do is plenty small enough to keep it from affecting the big boys in any meaningful way. It's a pretty good deal all around.
That's the case for this project. I'm an unabashed fan of Saint Arnold's, so I'm a believer. Brock says the feedback he's gotten so far has been positive, and why not? It's beer. People like beer. What else is there to say?
Houstonist gives a little love to the campaign, while Barleyvine sums it up thusly:
Lastly just let me opine a bit more on Brock's quest and how important it is to Texas and beer drinkers in general. A few years back Texas passed a law that would allow Texas Wineries to sell small amounts of their own wine in their tasting rooms. The result was not lawlessness, or drunkenness, but higher profits for the wineries and an increase in tourism to Texas wine country (Hill country). To me this should be a slam dunk issue. Letting breweries sell some cases of their own would not only help small business profits, but as places like Colorado, and California can attest will increase tourism as people come from not only within Texas, but outside to taste some of the great beers that Texas has to offer. Texas should be about the small business, those people that are willing to take a chance, start something from nothing and being a bit of a maverick. Isn't that what Texas is all about?Let me close, by saying, if your reading this blog and support local Texas beer, try and support the quest of Saint Arnold's in any way you can. Whether that's by doing the simple thing of buying a six pack of Lawnmower or writing a letter to your State Representative, do what you can.
Indeed. I'll have more to say as the project progresses. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: John and PDiddie chime in. Here's what the desired legislation would look like.
Long as I'm in a quibbling mood, I need to point out an error in this Hotline post about CD23.
[Congressional guru Rich] Cohen also makes one other point. This is now the second seat in TX this cycle that has switched hands from the GOP to the Dems as a result of Tom DeLay's re-redistricting efforts. The other seat, of course, was DeLay's. So the net result for the GOP based on DeLay's re-redistricting was all of 2 seats. Was that really worth all the hassle and the subpoenas and courtroom dramas? Many a Republican is probably wondering that same thing tonight, in particular, soon-to-be-ex-Rep. Henry Bonilla.
Far be it from me to offer any balm to Tom DeLay, but Cohen's math is funny, to say the least. I left the following comment on the post, which apparently hasn't been approved yet:
Two?The Dems lost TX-01 (Sandlin), TX-02 (Turner), TX-04 (Hall, who switched parties), TX-09 (Lampson, who ran in the new TX-02), TX-19 (Stenholm), and TX-32 (Frost). They went from 17 members to 11. Now that Lampson is in TX-22 and Rodriguez has ousted Bonilla in TX-23, they have 13 members. That looks a lot like a net four seat loss. Even if you discount Hall, who was a true DINO that should have switched along with Phil Gramm in the 80s, that's three seats down. Cohen's math makes no sense.
Maybe a four seat gain isn't worth it, either - ideally, for DeLay, the GOP would have netted seven seats, but Chet Edwards spoiled that plan in 2004. And I, at least, believe that some other districts might be susceptible to a better-funded Democratic attack in 2008, which would render DeLay's scheme even less meaningful. But let's not overdo it just yet. His scheme was very costly to the Democrats, both in terms of caucus size and seniority. Some of that has now been regained, but there's still a long way to go.
KACC, like most radio stations, has started in on the Christmas music. Which is fine - as with everything they do, it's a good mix of classics, lesser known works, and local artists. One song that's gotten some play is a swingy version of "Jingle Bells" by what sounds to me like a local group (I don't recognize the voice, and hadn't heard this particular tune anywhere else before now). Something about it bugged me the first time I heard it, and yesterday as I drove back to work from lunch, I realized what it was: During the main verse, the singer croons "Bells and bobtails ring..."
Okay. How many of you out there know what a "bobtail" is? Show of hands, please. You, there, in the back. Yes, that's right: A bobtail, at least in this context, is a horse - see, for example, the line from Camptown Races: "Bet my money on the bobtailed nag/Somebody bet on the bay."
Makes sense, right? You're in a one-horse open sleigh, so there's a horse in this song. That horse is a bobtail. It has bells on, hence the correct line "Bells ON bobtails ring". Bobtails don't ring, but bobtails who have bells on do. It's all so simple.
OK, I feel better now. Please go about your business, nothing more to see here.
UPDATE: There is one more thing to see here - the comments, in which I get out-pedanted.
Shortly after I posted this about the proposed Wal-Mart at the Northcross Mall in Austin, I received this link in my email.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is suspending action on a proposed store at Northcross Mall for 60 days.Embroiled in opposition among neighborhood residents, Austin city officials announced that Wal-Mart Stores will gather more input from neighborhood residents. Northcross Mall's new owner Lincoln Property Co. was to redevelop part of the mall as part of the project.
A coalition of concerned citizens called Responsible Growth for Northcross formed to oppose the project and has voiced its concern to city officials in recent weeks.
In a letter to City Council Member Mike Martinez, Wal-Mart committed to a 60-day self-imposed moratorium on development of the site and filing permit applications with the city.
Martinez and other members of the council praised the decision, calling it a first step toward working together with community stakeholders.
"The mayor and council members worked together on this deal, and I want the residents of those neighborhoods to know that we hear their concerns loud and clear," Martinez says.
That sounds good, but to be sure, I gave Hope Morrison a call to ask her about it. And thanks to her, now I also have the following statement regarding this action from the Responsible Growth for Norcross folks:
Responsible Growth for Northcross is glad that City Council members have tried to respond to our concerns. However, the Wal-Mart letter makes it clear that what is being proposed would have no effect on the Northcross Mall owner, Lincoln Property, which is responsible for the site plan. The supposed deal brokered by Council members in no way slows or stops progress on the Northcross Mall project, which is slated to begin on January 8.Wal-Mart’s letter is a deliberate attempt to fool and manipulate the Council and the public, since Wal-Mart is not the property owner nor responsible for the site plan. Moreover, we have heard that Wal-Mart filed for a permit related to Northcross just today, despite the assurances in its letter that it would not undertake such action.
The City Council has the right and the duty to void the illegal site plan. Once the illegal site plan is voided, we will be glad to engage in a public development process with the city and Lincoln Property Company about the Northcross development.
Among other things, the site plan is illegal because it was approved by city staff administratively rather than going through a public hearing with the Zoning and Platting Commission (ZPC). Such a public hearing was required because the site plan includes a garden center which is not authorized under the current GR zoning. It would be up to the ZPC to decide whether a site plan was acceptable -- after public notice and a hearing.
We believe any action regarding the Northcross development should occur in a public context, not through private deal-making between the City and one of the tenants of the proposed development. RG4N calls upon the City to void the illegal site plan on Thursday during the public forum of the City Council meeting, and put all matters affecting this site into a very public process.
So there you have it. I'll look for new developments after tomorrow's Council meeting.
I usually limit my neighborhood stuff to Houston, but my buddy (and occasional guest blogger) Matt asked me to post something about this story concerning a Wal-Mart planned for Northcross Mall, so here it is. And it's a pretty interesting story, too:
Lincoln Property Group wants to redevelop part of Northcross Mall into a 217,000-square-foot, 24-hour Wal-Mart. Residents from six neighborhoods have come together to oppose it.The case coincides with proposed new rules that could forever change Austin's big-box debate. The rules, which the City Council will vote on later this month, would require a public hearing and a special permit for any proposed store bigger than 100,000 square feet. The city would also have to notify more residents than it currently does of planned big-box projects.
The rules could affect national chains such as Home Depot Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., whose stores average more than 100,000 square feet, according to the national retail research group the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. (An average supermarket is 44,000 square feet.)
"Our goal is not to ban big boxes," said Susan Moffat, a board member of Liveable City, an Austin nonprofit that has pushed for the rules. "We just want to make sure the stores are wisely placed and give the community a chance to assess their impact."
Critics say the rules would unfairly drag all big stores through the wringer that is Austin's public review process.
"If some people want to keep certain retailers out of Austin, for social reasons or other reasons, there are better ways to address that than through zoning," said Chris Ellis, a principal at Endeavor Real Estate Group.
Right now, plans for big-box stores on land already zoned for big stores don't go through a public review. City staff members approve or deny the plans privately and only notify neighbors within 300 feet of the project. Only rezoning requests require a public hearing. The proposed Northcross Wal-Mart, for example, never got a public airing because the land didn't need to be rezoned.
The 300-feet rule is outdated, Moffat said, because big-box projects market to regions, not neighborhoods, and their effects on things such as traffic and local businesses can extend well beyond a few blocks.
The new rules would require the city to notify all neighborhood associations within a one-mile radius of any big-box plan. The developer would also have to post a 4-by-8-foot sign on the land, listing contact information and describing the project.
Northcross Mall neighbors say that extra notification is needed; they learned about Wal-Mart's plan through the rumor mill.
"We feel like this has been sprung on us," said Hope Morrison of Responsible Growth for Northcross, the group of neighborhoods fighting the project. "It's in (the developer's) interest to work with us and gather our input up front, because they're going to depend on surrounding neighborhoods to shop at their store and make it profitable."
Big-box developers would also have to apply for a special permit, called a conditional-use permit, under the proposed rules. The permit, which is already required for projects such as some bars and car dealerships, requires a public hearing and approval from a city board.
"It allows for a public discussion about the costs and benefits of a project," said Chris Riley, a member of the planning commission, which recommended the new big-box rules in an 8-0 vote. "The community can make its expectations known, and a developer can show its willingness to meet neighborhood interests."
I think the neighborhood has a pretty good case for changing the city's rules on permits for situations like this. Certainly, the 300-foot rule strikes me as being too narrow, and there ought to be some public input on large development like this, especially when it's done in an established, densely populated area. It may well be that if the developer were to pay a little attention to the neighborhoods' concerns, they can address them in a fashion that will allow the project to go forward without further objections.
Here's a view of the area, which spells out one reason why the locals don't care for this project as it is currently defined. The neighborhood groups involved are banded together as Responsible Growth for Norcross, and they've got a rally planned for tomorrow (Thursday), December 14, to let Austin's mayor and city council know how they feel about this. The details for that are:
- Come at 12 noon to City Hall (map)
- Bring your yard sign or we have some for you
- Park in the FREE parking garage below City Hall
- Meet us outside in the plaza on the south side
- At 6:00 P.M. the council will discuss the Northcross issue.
- Register now at one of the City Hall kiosks to show support or to reserve a speaking spot.
They're on the agenda for Council tomorrow, so they'll at least get to speak. Here's their contact info if you want to get involved.
(Full disclosure: Hope Morrison, who's quoted in the story on behalf of Responsible Growth for Norcross, is an acquaintance of mine. She has also done a guest-blogging stint on this site. She did not contact me about this, however; only Matt did.)
Oh. My. God. That's all I can say.
I have never loved the Internet more than I do right now.
Call (call...call...call...) the music police!
Radio consolidation is shrinking playlists and creating a homogenized musical landscape, several singers and songwriters told the Federal Communication Commission Monday."Big radio is bad radio," said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America, told FCC commissioners in the second of six public meetings nationwide. "You can drive I-40 from Knoxville to Barstow, California, and hear the same 20 songs on every country radio station."
Carnes was among several writers and performers, including Jenny Toomey and Naomi Judd, who addressed the panel. Most urged the commissioners to put more restrictions on media ownership or at least hold the line on current regulations.
"I'm not against companies making money," said country music great George Jones, who said he and his fans have suffered under tighter radio play- lists that he says are often determined by a relative few with little knowledge of country music history.
"But you know, sugar is sweet, but too much can kill you," Jones said to loud applause from the crowd at the Mike Curb College of Entertainment and Music Business at Belmont University.
We've explored this road before, so I won't reiterate everything we've talked about. I just continue to be amazed that the short-playlist concept, whether for classic rock, 80s tunes, our country music, can succeed in today's iPod-and-satellite-radio world. I stopped listening to two of those formats because I just wanted, every once in awhile at least, to hear a song that I hadn't heard a million times already. That's not so much to ask, is it? The weird thing is that consolidation doesn't have to lead to a forty song playlist. I don't know why it has done so, and so often, but I don't see any logic that dictates it must be that way. It's just strange.
(In case you didn't already know, the title and link text for this post come from the classic Austin Lounge Lizards song "Put The Oak Ridge Boys In The Slammer".)
Yeah, I know. I can't help myself, OK?
Stace tells us there's a potential Democratic contender in place for CD02 already for 2008. His name is Conrad Allen, and you can find his basic bio plus the list of his exploratory committee members at Stace's place. What I infer from this is that there may be a stronger effort to win that seat back in '08. That'll be interesting to watch.
Meanwhile, Isiah Carey reports on something I'd been hearing rumors about: a potential rematch in HD146 between newly-elected State Rep. Borris Miles and now-former Rep. Al "Sexy Cheerleader" Edwards. I like Miles' response to Edwards: "Bring it on."
And finally, former (and one hopes future) HD127 candidate Diane Trautman has a blog. Unlike certain other people I could name, she actually writes her own posts.
The Star Telegram has a mostly condescending editorial about the bloggers versus State Rep. Vicki Truitt dustup. I'll leave the response to that part of it to Eileen and her legions of mind-controlled commenters, but in the meantime, there was a salient point in there somewhere:
[Vince] Leibowitz pointed out a part of the state's libel law written in 1985 that should be changed for the Internet era and beyond.The law specifically protects "a newspaper or other periodical" from being sued for libel when reporting on things that happen in a court of law, the proceedings of a government body or meetings dealing with public issues.
The protection also extends to "reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of an official act of a public official or other matter of public concern for general information."
One way to look at it is that the Star-Telegram is specifically protected by state law when it criticizes Truitt for her official acts, but Internet bloggers are not. That's not good. We're both doing the same thing, and we both deserve the same protection for fair reporting and comment.
Kurt Opsahl, an attorney for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocate for Internet rights, says that a blogger who is sued by a public official for libel probably could mount a defense based on First Amendment free speech and free press rights, but it would be a more difficult fight than that faced by newspapers that are specifically protected under state law. And bloggers typically don't have the resources that newspapers have to defend themselves against harassment-focused lawsuits.
The Texas Legislature -- perhaps even led by Truitt, since she has partly plowed this ground already -- should change state libel law so that fair reporting and comment about the acts of public officials are protected, no matter the medium of their publication.
Yes, that would be nice. It might even get us nasty and brutish bloggers to be complimentary to Rep. Truitt, which in turn might help unbunch the S-T editorial board's knickers a bit. Vince explores the matter further.
Harris County currently spends nearly 16 percent - about $174 million - of its annual operating expenses on the current jail system. Adding the two proposed jails, where construction cost is at least $267 million, would increase maintenance costs to as much as 25 percent, say opponents of the plan. They say the county can maintain public safety without building the facilities.The county has yet to determine exact costs to operate the proposed facilities. Two county leaders said they were not in a position to discuss what percentage of the county's budget would be needed to maintain the buildings, but they would not dispute that most likely the percentage would rise.
Commissioners Court probably will ask voters next November to approve bonds for the new jails, which would increase the current number of beds by nearly 50 percent.
"The operating expenses would amount to an incredible amount of money," said Randall Kallinen, head of the American Civil Liberties Union in Houston. "Everybody who owns property taxes in Harris County would likely see their taxes go up significantly to pay for these facilities."
County Judge Robert Eckels said the two jails are needed because the county's population will increase greatly during the next two decades. County officials are mindful that they need to spend taxpayer dollars carefully, but they also consider public safety their highest priority, he said.
"The reason the county exists is to ensure the safety of the community," he said. "The jail, the probation department - all of these programs are expensive."
Yes, they are, and that's precisely why we need to be more demanding about how those resources are utilized. We're locking up too many people for bad reasons, and we're suffering the consequences of that. We're not outgrowing our jail space, we're overusing it. It doesn't make sense to build more jails if we're just going to keep doing what we're doing now, because before you know it those new jails will be full, too.
Besides, as Grits has pointed out, we don't have enough guards for the jails we have now. Hell, we've had to close off sections of our current jails because we didn't have the staff levels to support them. How is building more jails a good idea under those conditions?
Commissioner Steve Radack acknowledged that the county will spend more on jail expenses if the two jails are built. "The public will have to make a decision when it comes to the inmate population," he said. "And that decision will be does the public want to keep people incarcerated or do they want to pay with damages and break-ins to their property and possibly their lives if we don't keep people incarcerated."
Well, this member of the public wants to know why he's paying to keep four thousand pretrial detainees locked up. Does Commissioner Radack think every single one of those people is a threat to break into my house?
I can't help but think that if this money was to be spent on almost any other kind of program, people like Steve Radack would be all over it with a fine-toothed comb, insisting that every dime be rigorously accounted for before he'd consent to it. Why is it that that kind of fiscal conservatism goes out the window when we're talking about jails? Is it simply not possible for "git tuff on crime" to be wasteful?
"I don't mind spending whatever it takes to have a safe community," [State Sen. John Whitmire] said. "But you don't spend unnecessary dollars to lock people up who don't pose security risk. You could go through the county jail and find hundreds, if not thousands, of offenders who don't pose a risk to the community."Some members of the Houston Property Rights Association, which guards against what it sees as unneeded government initiatives that could raise taxes, say they aren't convinced new jails are needed. Ronnie Samms, an association member and a former prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney's Office, said violent offenders need to be jailed, but officials must weigh the cost of building new jails. "We don't need to keep building jails because we don't want to be paying for them," Samms said at a recent association meeting.
When Steve Radack and Robert Eckels are prepared to address these points, then we can talk about what Harris County's future jail space needs may be. Until then, I'm voting NO on the bond issue that will come up in November.
U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla conceded defeat to former congressman Ciro Rodriguez in a stunning upset that completed the Democratic takeover of Congress.The Republican incumbent lost Bexar County for the first time in his political career Tuesday night, and trailed Rodriguez, his Democratic challenger, in total votes across the sprawling Congressional District 23.
The Associated Press called the election for Rodriguez shortly before 9 p.m. Bonilla telephoned Rodriguez to concede around that time, according to his spokesman, Phil Ricks.
[...]
Bonilla lost at least four counties in his West Texas stronghold that he won just five weeks ago. He carried Dimmit, Culberson, Presidio and Brewster counties in the seven-way special election on Nov. 7, but lost all four to Rodriguez on Tuesday.
"It's an uphill battle, no doubt about it," Bonilla spokesman Phil Ricks said at 8:15 p.m. "I think the other side was much more organized in getting the early vote out, and that's why they sought extra days of early voting."
Soon after Gov. Rick Perry set the runoff date, the League of United Latin American Citizens sued and eventually wrangled three extra days of early voting before dropping the complaint.
[...]
Bonilla came into the runoff with $1.6 million in the bank and the advantages of incumbency -- a familiar name across the sprawling district and list of projects for which he'd secured federal funding.
Rodriguez hobbled out of the special election in debt and with the reputation of a less than savvy campaigner.
But he had a name that registered in Bexar County and into South Texas, and soon he had the interest of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The organization wound up spending more than $900,000 on mail-outs and television ads.
Adam Segal, director of the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University, said he's talked informally with both campaigns in the past month.
"I think a lot of Democrats involved think making the investment was a wise decision that just weeks ago looked pretty risky," Segal said.
Way back when, I thought the Dems should have made CD23 a priority. It took longer than I would have liked, and I admit that along the way I too had serious doubts about Ciro Rodriguez's ability to win (he did drop out of the race at one point, after all), but it should be crystal clear now why this was a good idea. Not just to bump the Democrats' gains up one seat to a net of 30, but to knock off a prominent Republican incumbent who might be Texas' junior Senator-elect today had Kay Bailey Hutchison chosen to come home. That's a huge deal.
Richard Langlois, chairman of the Bexar County Republican County, blamed Bonilla's fall in Bexar County on his supporters staying home Tuesday."Obviously, it was voter apathy," Langlois said. "Obviously, something happened."
Apathy is of course the flip side of motivation, which as we know is what the Democrats had coming into today. Heck, they had it well before today - look at the early vote totals. Seeing Ciro in the lead there must have been quite a shock to Team Bonilla.
Anyway. Here's the county canvass report with eight boxes in Medina County still to be counted, here's wrapups from Burnt Orange Report and Paul Burka, and here's a beautiful picture from Swing State Project. Congratulations, Congressman Ciro Rodriguez!
Look, I don't want to make fun of anyone's pain, but in reading stuff like this and this, I'm thinking maybe a few deep breaths are in order here. I'm not a Texans fan (nor am I a Longhorn fan, so I have no particular feelings about Vince Young, either), but I do recall Reggie Jackson coming to Yankee Stadium in 1982 as a member of the California Angels, receiving his usual "Reg-gie! Reg-gie!" cheer from the crowd, then hitting an upper-deck home run to help his team win, which in turn kicked off a long round of "Steinbrenner sucks!" chants. So I have some idea of how y'all feel, but seriously. It'll pass, I swear.
I can't tell you exactly why I never got into the Texans. As of the early 1990s, I'd become a fan of the Rockets and Oilers. I had no trouble rooting for Hakeem and company against my former favorites, the Knicks, in 1994. I suffered along with everybody else when the Oilers had their meltdown in Buffalo in 1993. And I was seriously pissed when Bud Adams took a dump on the city and moved his team to Tennessee. I guess by the time Bob McNair had done his thing, I'd just gone back to rooting for the Giants as before. I follow the Texans, as I follow the Astros (I've never stopped rooting for the Yankees; among other things, my family would disown me if I did), but I have no passion for them. I sympathize, especially with folks like 'stina and Stephanie, but I'm just not as deeply vested in what happened this past Sunday.
I do have one nit to pick, with a typically clueless assertion by John Lopez:
But if the Texans have replaced New Orleans as the longest-running NFL joke, they should consider the Saints the model franchise for turning things around.
Um, when did anybody replace the Cardinals (last non-wild card playoff victory: 1947) or the Lions (last playoff victory of any kind: 1957) as the "longest-running NFL joke"? Seriously, I know the Texans have it bad, but they haven't even approached Tampa Bay Buccaneer-level of futility yet (14 straight losing seasons, 1983 through 1996). The Texans haven't been around long enough to be historically anything in the NFL yet. Hell, my beloved Giants, who stunk up the entire 1970s and suffered a defining moment of failure towards the end of that, have more misery in their history than the Texans. Easy does it there, pal.
Folks who once performed at The Great Caruso mourn its loss.
Although the building in the 10000 block of Westheimer is now little more than twisted metal and fire-blackened concrete, some members of the city's theater community said the Great Caruso will always hold a special place in their hearts."I just feel it's a great loss," said Damon Price, who first appeared in its 2000 production of Dreamgirls.
"It was the first place where I performed professionally," Price said. "I've been performing there ever since."
Though the atmosphere may have been more relaxed than at high-profile venues such as the Alley Theatre, Price said the actors and behind-the-scenes workers always put on the best performance possible.
Michael Tapley, who directed about 10 productions at the Great Caruso in the past six years, said he was devastated by the loss.
"I'm going to miss it," Tapley said. "I'm not sure Houston, or any other city, will see a dinner theater quite like that. It was an experience."
I can't speak for other cities, but for sure there's nothing else quite like The Great Caruso in Houston. The only place I can think of that's remotely similar is Magic Island (another place I've driven past a bazillion times but never frequented).
(Idle thought: Am I the only person who thinks it's odd that Dallas has a Medieval Times restaurant but Houston doesn't? Not that I'm advocating, mind you. I'm just curious.)
Anyway. PDiddie, who unlike me has actually been to Caruso's, extends his sympathies to the place's now-former employees, who find themselves out of work two weeks before Christmas. I join him in hoping for better times for all involved next year.
Jeff Skilling won't be calling this southern Minnesota town home just yet.Late Monday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order postponing the ex-Enron CEO's Tuesday report date to a low-security federal prison until the panel gives "careful consideration" to his request for bail while he appeals his convictions on 19 criminal counts.
"This order is entered solely to allow this court to give careful consideration to the request for bail pending appeal," the court said.
The last-minute reprieve was a possibility up to Skilling's deadline of 2 p.m. Tuesday to report to the prison in Waseca, about 75 miles south of Minneapolis. Skilling will await word from the 5th Circuit on whether he can pursue his appeal inside or outside of prison. His appeal is expected to be filed next month.
Whatever. You can run, but you can't hide.
UPDATE: Denied!
Just a day after saying former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling could delay reporting to jail, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied his request to stay out of jail pending his appeal.Skilling was ordered to report to prison immediately.
Judge Patrick Higginbotham of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in his two-page order that "Skilling raises no substantial question that is likely to result in the reversal of his convictions on all of the charged counts."
As a result, Higginbotham denied Skilling's request for bail pending his appeal and vacated an earlier order staying his prison report date.
Although Higginbotham's order notes "serious frailties" in Skilling's convictions, it says those problems fail to raise a "substantial question" likely to result in the overturning of all Skilling's convictions, as would be required to grant bail during appeal.
Sorry, Jeff. Better luck next time.
Olivia received a Disney Princess Tea Set on Saturday as a Christmas present from a family friend. As you can see from the picture, the gift was a big hit. We all spent the better part of Sunday drinking enough tea to float a battleship. What amazed me was just how naturally the tea-pouring ritual - right down to the cream and sugar - came to Olivia. Far as I know, she'd never seen a tea set before this weekend. You can make whatever psycho-social mumbojumbo you want out of all that. I just got a kick out of watching her engage in this new form of play.
It's December, and that means the annual Koufax Awards are not far behind. The fine folks at Wampum, who do a ton of work to present the awards each year, could use a little help with their server hardware in advance of the huge spike in traffic that they'll get during voting. They've got a couple of donation links on the sidebar, so please give them a hand if you can. Thanks very much.
You have to sit through a 15-second commercial to see this, but here's the video of a nice interview on FOX26 with Rep. Rick Noriega about his time in Afghanistan and Laredo. Check it out.
Via South Texas Chisme, the Statesman talks to some legislators who think this session is going to be a lot less partisan and rancorous than previous ones.
The influx of Democrats will moderate the majority and lead to a more moderate House, veteran legislative consultant Olan Brewer said.Lobbyist Bill Ratliff, a former GOP state senator who doubled up for a spell as lieutenant governor, agreed, partly because voters scuttled some "more extreme" members.
"Inevitably, that moves the House a little more to the center," Ratliff said.
Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said to "look for the emergence of a bipartisan majority" that will come up with "things that make sense."
Rep. Sid Miller of Stephenville, vice chairman of the House Republican Caucus, said that at least one conservative cause won't advance in part because of the new Democrats: state-funded vouchers that would enable selected low-income students to attend private schools.
Miller said issues that previously divided members along party lines - including redistricting, abortion and same-sex marriage - are not likely to return.
"I look for some more healing, really a more congenial attitude in the Legislature. . . . We're going to have a lot less fireworks," he said.
I do think having a closer-to-even balance among Rs and Ds in the Lege will calm the waters a bit, if for no better reason than it will be that much harder for House Speaker Tom Craddick to ram things through on mostly party lines. Whether or not Craddick survives as Speaker - and as much as I wish he wouldn't, the odds are with him - his influence has waned. He's lost too many key lieutenants, from both parties, and too many people who were targeted for not being in lockstep with him have lived to tell about it. He won't need it the way Pete Laney did in his last terms as Speaker, but Craddick is going to have to try a little consensus, because ruling by fear and fiat won't work for him this time.
But it's not just Craddick whose wings have been clipped. Rick Perry won't be the force he was in the past four years, either. That's partly because there (probably! hopefully!) isn't any cause for more special sessions, and partly because, well, who fears a 39% Governor? As with Craddick, Perry saw allies go down and foes stay standing over the past year. He too has less margin for intimidation. And, not to put too fine a point on it, the conservative base that Perry wooed and wouldn't have been re-elected without is mightily pissed at him for his little immigration flipflop. In short, he has very little political capital.
Now it may well be that the result of all this is more of a return to focusing on real issues and consensus solutions. That'd be nice, but I don't have as much faith as Rep. Miller in the likelihood of divisive issues being absent. The business tax, associated property tax cuts, and still-unsettled matter of putting school finance on firm ground is going to be a dominant theme, and I feel certain that there's plenty of acrimony to be found there. Dan Patrick, who I suspect is sensing a bit of a leadership void on his side of the aisle, is going to be right there pushing an end to the two-thirds rule in the Senate and a trigger bill to ban abortion in the (now less likely, thanks to South Dakota voters) event of Roe v. Wade being overturned. I expect casino gambling to resurface, and of course there's Rep. Berman's anti-immigration bill as well. In short, there will be plenty of opportunities for the legislative equivalent of lucha libre.
You could see how previous sessions were going to go well in advance of the opening gavel. This one, I think, could go in any number of directions. Smooth sailing - or at least, smoother than before, which isn't that high a bar to clear - is a possibility, but probably not the favorite. Vince has his doubts about the "more moderation" thesis as well. We shall see.
Well, well. It seems that the Texas Transportation Institute study that Burka blogged about last week has had an impact on the powers that be.
For more than a year now, state officials have scared the dickens out of motorists by saying the gas tax would have to go up $1.20 a gallon to build all the roads needed statewide over the next quarter-century.
That would almost triple the 38.4 cents drivers now pay in federal and state fuel taxes. Since that's politically impossible to do, the argument goes, toll roads should be built wherever and whenever feasible.But now a Texas Transportation Institute study says gas taxes wouldn't have to go up nearly as much.
Just indexing the gas tax to rising construction costs would be enough, the 139-page report says. The extra money could finance bonds through 2030 and pay them all off within five years after that.
Or, to avoid borrowing with bonds, the tax could be increased 12 cents in 2008 and indexed to construction inflation through 2030.
Even if the tax weren't indexed, a flat increase of only 39 cents a gallon would do the same - a far cry from the $1.20 that Texas Department of Transportation officials have maintained would be needed.
Okay, let's clear something up first. The state gas tax is 20 cents per gallon, and has been since 1991. Adding in the federal tax is what brings it to 38.6 cents per gallon overall. Obviously, the state of Texas cannot change the federal levy, so any mods to the gas tax is to the state tax portion of it.
Now then. Having the state tax "go up $1.20 a gallon" means the total tax would be $1.58.6 per gallon, which is not "almost triple" the current tax, it's more than triple; in fact, it's more than quadruple. Perhaps the writer meant "go up to $1.20 a gallon", or $1.38.6 overall, as was first bandied about last year. That's still more than triple the current tax level. Either way, reporter Patrick Driscoll should ask Santa for a calculator for Christmas.
I've been banging the drum about toll road math for a long time now, so I'm glad to see the idea has finally taken hold. I suppose with assumptions like these that TxDOT was making, someone official was going to call them on it sooner or later:
The report, done for the Governor's Business Council, differs from TxDOT's assumptions in three key areas, said Michael Stevens, a Houston developer who's a member of both the Business Council and the transportation study commission.TxDOT failed to account for how much tax revenues would go up over the 25 years from increased driving, he said, and overestimated unfunded needs for state roads by $8 billion.
And, when calculating the funding gap, TxDOT added an estimated $22 billion for local streets in the eight largest cities, though the state has no responsibility for such roads.
The study concluded that a bloated $86 billion in unfunded needs espoused by TxDOT is actually just $56 billion.
"These numbers are pretty tight," Stevens said. "We study it like we study our businesses. Before we published it, because we knew it was so different, we did a large amount of due diligence on it."
Good to know. As you may recall, that $86 billion figure came from total pie-in-the-sky wishcasting. And even if it were a true amount, that $1.20 gas tax would have raised way more than $86 billion in a decade's time. The whole toll road scheme has been built on faulty premises.
Now it's true, as noted later in the article, that indexing could very well raise the gas tax by a lot in the next 20 years, and that it would hit poor people harder. Both of these things can be dealt with, especially if we stick with the true numbers and not science fiction.
Indexing the gas tax likely would mean fewer roads would need to be tolled, said Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock, who chairs the House Transportation Committee and co-chairs the legislative study commission.But a bill he filed last year to index the tax to consumer inflation was killed. He said he'll try again when the Legislature meets in January, and may consider tying the tax to faster-rising construction costs.
As Krusee has been a toll toad champion of late, I share Eye on Williamson's skepticism about his commitment to non-toll alternatives. Perhaps his close shave in this year's election had a salutary effect. We'll see.
Like Houstonist, I've never been to The Great Caruso dinner theater. It's right next to the hotel formerly known as the Adam's Mark, at which I've played bridge many times, so even though I'd never patronized the place, it felt familiar to me. As such, I'm saddened to hear of the fire that hit it over the weekend.
The Great Caruso restaurant on Westheimer and Seagler has been providing quality dining and entertainment for decades. The source of Sunday morning's fire is still unclear. The building was empty, which clearly raises more than a few red flags for the Houston Fire Department's arson unit."When you look at electricity, time of day, if the building's occupied, those are all the things that they look at," said Captain Flanley.
By day, the immense damage was easy to see and as heavy machinery began to tear down the leftovers, people began to realize the restaurant was more than a place to eat.
"People who know Houston know that it's been around for a long time," said Rose Talbot with Richfield Investments. "It's going to be a loss."
Indeed. Caruso's was a unique place. Any restaurant that can survive 32 years in this competitive market has got something good going. I hope they can rebuild.
Here's their message about the fire:
We are sorry to inform you that The Great Caruso Dinner Theater suffered a fire on Sunday, December 10th. It happened at a time when the place was empty so that, thankfully, there were no injuries.We will be closed for the forseeable future.
We want to thank everyone for the outpouring of warm wishes. We now fully realize how appreciated and loved the family of performers and employees were by all of you.
The possibility of arson is still being investigated. HouStoned has more.
Three cheers for John Whitmire.
State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said there is no need for local government to spend at least $267 million building two jails when it could cut the inmate population at the county jail by allowing non-dangerous offenders out on bail before trial."I am very suspect whether there is a need for jail space," said Whitmire, who chairs the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. "Harris County wouldn't have an overcrowding problem at all if it had an effective pretrial release program."
Whitmire said the Legislature, in the upcoming session, may look at ways to help reduce jail overcrowding, such as shorter sentences for some crimes.
Commissioners Court likely will ask voters next November to approve bonds for new jails that would add 4,600 beds.
County Judge Robert Eckels and other members of Commissioners Court said the jails are needed to reduce overcrowding now and in the coming decades.
According to the sidebar, the population of Harris County's jail is expected to grow by a little less than 4000 inmates by 2025. As it happens, that's about the number of pretrial detainees currently in the system. Four thousand people who haven't been convicted yet, but are being given room and board on the county's dime because they couldn't make or weren't granted bail. Some of them need to be right where they are, no doubt about it. But all of them? I rather think not.
I say we have all the jail space we need right now. We just need to manage it as if it weren't an infinite resource. I will not be voting for any jail construction bonds until I see some evidence that the District Attorney, the criminal court judges, and the Sheriff's office all get it. We can't plan for our future needs if our current usage is so far out of kilter. Shame on the Commissioner's Court for not being better fiscal stewards.
By the way, this is a statewide problem, too. We can keep spending more and more money to imprison more and more people for increasingly trivial matters, or we can accept the fact that doing so isn't doing us any good, and go from there. I for one think the choice is clear.
After taking these pictures last Monday, I was unable to get back to the Robinson Warehouse at all this week. As you'll see, there's been quite a bit of progress in the demolition since then. But before I get to that, let me share with you the following way cool comment, which came from this November 30 post:
I have been enjoying your pictures of the demolition. Please keep the pictures coming as I do not live in Houston any longer. The building is all concrete, brick, and steel with a full basement. It had also been selected as the area civil defense shelter back in the 60's. We were told demolition would be difficult. The building had long since seen its best days and I will be glad to see a significant structure go up in its place.Charles Robinson, Past President, Robinson Public Warehouse Co.
Well, thanks very much! I'm so glad people have enjoyed this series. It's been fun and interesting to do, even if I feel like everyone driving past on Montrose is thinking "what is that weirdo with the camera doing?" each time I drop by.
On to the pictures:
Notice anything missing? Yep, the front facade, the piece of the structure that was right on Montrose, is no more. That must have happened on Saturday, because I did drive past it then while doing errands for Lights in the Heights, it was still there. On Sunday, when I finally had the time to snap these pics, it was gone.
Click on for more.
Here's the view from the southeast corner of Allen Parkway and Montrose, basically the same shot as the front facade one above, except for the facade not being there. Well, pieces of it are still there. I imagine it'll take a little time to clean it all up, but the hard part is over.
That picture was taken from where the northwest corner of the front facade used to be, and it's basically what there is still to go. Compare to the sliding floor picture to see how far they've come on that.
The back of the warehouse, for which I noted the beginning of the demolition last week. Not as much progress there, but given everything else they've done, who's complaining?
A view across the empty space between the demolished front facade and the still-being-demolished main building. Way in the back, behind the frontloader and on the other side of the vacant lot that may or may not be a part of the Ismaeli Center, is (I believe) the under-construction condos that face West Dallas. I'm going to try to get a view from the Dallas intersection next time, just to see what that looks like. Hopefully, my next update will be sooner.
Were you not able to be in San Antonio for the get-out-the-vote rally with Bill Clinton and Henry Cisneros? Have no fear, PM Bryant was there, and he's got pictures and video from the event for you. A quick review of what took place:
Performing were well-known Tejano musicians Los Texmaniacs and Johnny Canales, and speaking was a long list of prominent local Democratic politicians, from Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, to newly-elected state senator Carlos Uresti, to former mayor and former Clinton HUD secretary Henry Cisneros. Uresti's speech was short and sweet, amounting to a brief cheerleading session. Cisneros took a different approach with a rabble-rousing diatrabe against Henry Bonilla's treachery and in favor of Ciro Rodriguez's character.The stars of the show were, of course, Ciro Rodriguez and President Bill Clinton, who entered the stage together. Ciro introduced the former leader of the free world, who then gave typical strong performance. Clinton's take-home message is that this election is going to be all about turnout--who wants it more. He asked us in the crowd if we wanted to join the 29 districts who ousted Republicans in favor of Democrats, or if we would be join the list of 10 or 11 districts that came up just a percentage point short. The crowd's answer was loud and clear.
Jaime Castillo says that momentum favors Ciro right now:
The signs of a tight horserace are now too many to discount.They include:
Bonilla's late decision to not only go negative in TV and radio ads, but to go with over-the-top spots that paint Rodriguez as having terrorist ties;
The continued involvement of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee with personnel, polls and expensive ads on behalf of Rodriguez;
Bonilla's decision not to ignore, but to run a response to a critical DCCC spot that says Bonilla voted eight times to give himself a raise (The Bonilla ad says Rodriguez voted four times for congressional pay hikes);
And, finally, President Clinton's swing through San Antonio on Sunday on behalf of Rodriguez.
Unless this race is close, none of those things happen.
Bonilla wouldn't go negative. The national Democrats wouldn't stick around. And Clinton would certainly have something better to do on the Sabbath than stump for a lost cause in San Antonio.
The early vote also suggests things are tight. We'll know tomorrow. Meanwhile, you can still phonebank for Ciro if you're not in CD23 and want to help.
I swear, people find the silliest damn things to worry about.
In the centuries before party invitations were pinged across cyberspace, invitees did not feel compelled to explain in depth how a soiree conflicted with their Lamaze class, spa weekend or Ironman competition. Regrets were nonspecific platitudes. And the only people who heard them were the hosts.No more.
Each month, more than 10 million invitations are sent through Evite.com, and a significant number of them encourage people to not only reply, but to also write a personal comment that can be viewed by everyone on the guest list.
Such transparency has transformed the once concise and private act of declining an invitation into a public performance.
Evite users say it is bloggerlike behavior born of an Internet age where nearly every electronic communication has a casual, sometimes boastful vibe.
And while some people simply refuse to respond to Evite invitations, countless others find themselves composing clever detailed responses that require so much effort, they end up R.S.V.-Peeved.
Just last week Carolyn Fitzpatrick, 32, a retired lawyer from Wollaston, Mass., spent 20 minutes drafting a "no" response to an Evite.
"Twenty precious minutes," said Ms. Fitzpatrick, the mother of a 3-month-old and a 2-year-old. "Do you have children? You don't understand what 20 minutes to yourself is."
So why bother?
"There's pressure," Ms. Fitzpatrick said. "You're on stage."
Um, no. You're responding to an invitation. Those 20 minutes you spent thinking about a clever way to say "no, thank you"? That wasn't pressure, it was your own silly anxiety.
Repeat after me: "So sorry we can't make it! Thanks for thinking of us. Have a great time!" See? Simple, polite, effective, and typable in 30 seconds. Read it, learn it, live it, and get over yourself.
And thanks for all the speeches.
She marched into Congress determined to help cut taxes and reform immigration despite the fact that she was only serving out a lame-duck term.But after two weeks of legislative business on Capitol Hill, Rep. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs learned what being a lame duck really means: She could give speeches but not deliver all of the goods.
The Houston Republican spent the past week - Friday was her last official day on the Hill - delivering one speech after another on the House floor.
Her soliloquies, aimed at the House television camera as the chamber was virtually deserted, could have been judged plentiful even in a place where performance art often passes for good politics.
[...]
She indeed held forth on Medicare and immigration (a subject that eluded agreement by Congress) but didn't confine herself to the major issues of the day. Among her other topics:
- A welcome to the first lady of Azerbaijan during her visit to Washington.
- Giving nonprofit athletic organizations immunity from being sued.
- Declaring the first week in April "Plan Ahead with an Advance Directive Week."
- Requiring abortion providers to give women the option of receiving anesthesia for the fetus.
Sekula-Gibbs started her term last month as little more than a political footnote.
I wonder when some of these gems will turn up on YouTube. I'm thinking there's a dance remix in there somewhere. Muse has some fun with this as well.
Meanwhile, the Chron gets aboard the let's-have-that-damned-election-to-replace-Shelley bandwagon. One thing they note is that the election must be called 62 days before May 12, which by my calculation is March 11. It's not just a matter of getting a bill to change the existing law passed by then, which as State Sen. John Whitmire notes is a logistical challenge. It's getting it passed with a supermajority so that it takes effect immediately upon Governor Perry's signature, and it's also getting Perry to sign it. That's a really tall order in my book.
I'm still trying to figure out who might help Mayor White get his bill passed. If I had to bet at this point, I'd say Rep. Beverly Woolley, but I can't say for sure that she's the one. I'm going to keep calling offices and see what I can find. I know that folks in Austin read this site. If you've got any information that might help me with this, please send me an email to the address at the top of this site. Thanks.
Finally, one of the hopefuls to replace Shelley, David Goldberg, has a petition going asking Mayor White to reconsider his plan. He tells me he has about 50 signatures so far, and has a number of people now helping with this effort. If you want in on that, send him a note to david.goldberg@votegoldberg.com.
I don't doubt that the Yankees did everything they could to bring Andy Pettite back to the Bronx. (And as a lifelong Yankee fam I appreciate that effort.) But let's face it: The Yankees didn't win Pettite so much as the Astros lost him. For once, Richard Justice understood the issue perfectly:
Pettitte is a bargain at $15 million. Well, not really. He's a bargain in the context of the current free-agent insanity in which mediocre pitchers (Ted Lilly, Gil Meche) are scoring $10 million or more a year.Jason Schmidt, a bona fide No. 1 starter, got a reported $47 million over three years from the Dodgers. Pettitte is like Schmidt in that he's a proven commodity.
Here's what you get with Andy Pettitte: 200-plus innings and 15-plus victories. Throw in some additional offense (hello, Carlos Lee), and you've got yourself an 18-game winner.
He's a comfortable fit with either team. Both teams know what they're getting on the mound and in the clubhouse. He's at his best when the games mean the most and is a terrific influence on younger pitchers. He's someone seemingly unchanged by wealth and fame.
Teammates, managers, coaches and fans all like him. What you see is what you get with Pettitte.
The Astros need him. If McLane will spend $100 million on Lee and $12.5 million on Woody Williams, he'd be foolish to lose Pettitte over $3 million and a second guaranteed year.
What makes for a bad contract signing these days is not so much annual salary as it is contract length. Injury risk, natural decline from aging, just the possibility that the player wasn't as good as you think - that's what you have to worry about. Being wrong for one or two years is a lot less burdonsome, and restricts your ability to make future deals a lot less than being wrong in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year. Think the end of Jeff Bagwell's contract, or if you want to be pessimistic, Carlos Lee's. There's just no universe in which signing Lee for six years and 100 million makes sense but offering Pettite two million more plus a player option for a second year doesn't. This wasn't just a bad baseball decision, it was a bad business decision.
Justice's rants about megabucks for mediocrity aside, what we have now is what the market will bear.
"It's no different than the housing market in Toronto or any large city in North America," said Paul Godfrey, the president of the Blue Jays, in the Toronto Sun. "Everyone says it can't continue to rise. But it can. And it does. Same in baseball, we have revenues going up and a new collective bargaining agreement and everybody's feeling good about the game, and so the spiral starts again and people say salaries are out of control. I don't know what's out of control any more."And therein lies the perfectly simple answer… What is "out of control" any more? The deals being done cannot be viewed in a vacuum. They are indicative of the time and the place and the financial well-being of MLB right now. Suddenly, Godfrey can point to the deals the Blue Jays made last season for A.J. Burnett and B.J. Ryan and say, "Everyone said, 'How can give you five-year contracts and with such large numbers like that?' One year later, if you put Ryan and Burnett on the market, they would get a whole lot more than they got last winter. All of a sudden you look at our deal and you might think we got a bargain."
Baseball players are getting more money because there's more money available for them. If they didn't get it, the owners would. It's a simple as that.
Tom is less critical of the Astros' decision on Pettite. I think he's right to say that Pettite isn't as good as Justice says, but even at Pettite's less-than-stellar 2006 level, I think Drayton McLane picked the wrong time and the wrong player with which to rediscover frugality. The risk wasn't that high, and in context the money wasn't that much. It's an odd choice to make.
Christof has a couple of good posts about the history and future of HOV/HOT lanes. Good stuff in there, so check it out.
One of the themes in Christof's second post is the effect of access to and from HOV/HOT lanes and the adjoining businesses. On a related note, Eye on Williamson notes this Statesman article about who will and will not be helped by the design of the new toll roads in the Austin area. If the stated goal is to maximize revenues for the toll roads, then expect to hear a lot more of this sort of thing.
Here's a roundup of reporting and bloggage on the Saint Arnold legislative project. As I hoped, it's all positive. For those who missed it in my previous post, here's a statement from them about what in particular they want. So far, so good.
I had noticed that there was no negative reaction to the Houston/Woodlands non-annexation deal in yesterday's story. Today we get some.
Two local lawmakers, though, said they expect to give the deal a close look before backing enabling legislation."From a fiscal standpoint, you want to make sure we are getting the most tax dollars we can receive," said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. "We have ample room to grow. One thing we never want to give away is our ability to annex. That has been the death of other major cities."
Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said he is reluctant to tie the hands of future leadership, but said he would reserve judgment until he talks to all stakeholders.
"The Woodlands would be nothing but a deer lease if it weren't for the city of Houston," he said. "Residents of The Woodlands enjoy the golden goose of Houston. They get the benefits of working here during the day and then going back to their comfortable, homogenous, bedroom communities at night."
As the president of The Woodlands Community Association board of directors said, the devil is in the details. It's perfectly clear what the Woodlands gets out of this. Either Houston gets enough for what it loses or it doesn't. Let the fine-tooth examinations begin!
On a related note, Stace clarifies his position on the matter.
Now that hurricane season is officially over, we can begin hurricane prediction season for 2007.
Colorado State forecaster William Gray has predicted 14 named storms for next year, including three major hurricanes and four other hurricanes.He and fellow researcher Philip Klotzbach said there is a 64 percent chance of one of the major hurricanes - with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater - coming ashore. The long-term average probability is 52 percent, they said.
Still, they said said fewer hurricanes are likely to make landfall compared with 2005, which had the busiest and most destructive hurricane season on record.
In 2005, we saw 28 named storms, including 15 hurricanes, four of which hit the United States. The worst of those was Katrina, which leveled parts of the Gulf Coast.
Gray's prediction for 2005: 11 named storms in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast basins, and a 69 percent chance that at least one major storm - a category-3 hurricane or larger - would make landfall in the United States.
This year's season had nine named storms and five hurricanes, two of them major. That was considered a "near normal" season but fell short of predictions by Gray and government scientists.
Before the six-month season began June 1, Gray's team predicted 17 named storms and nine hurricanes for 2006, with five growing into major storms of Category 3 or higher.
No hurricanes hit the U.S. Atlantic coast in 2006 - only the 11th time that has occurred since 1945.
Gray and Klotzbach blamed their inaccurate prediction for the 2006 season on a late-developing El Nino and unusual levels of dry air.
It should be noted that they changed course late in the season this year when the El Nino effect was apparent. Better late than never.
Jeff Masters comments on this prediction and one other by the Tropical Storm Risk consortium. SciGuy thinks the whole thing is a bit useless this far out, but you know how the media loves numbers. And indeed, he has a story about this, as you'd expect. The one thing worth worrying about:
If El Nino weakens this winter, which is a tad earlier than expected, historically the chances of an active year go way up. The last time such a scenario transpired? 2005.
Guess we'll have to watch for that. It's a lot more enjoyable making fun of these guys when they overestimate, not when they underestimate.
Pete brings the news of the latest Star Trek movie.
Although many have suspected it to be the case for months now, it's finally official: J.J. Abrams will be directing Paramount's planned reboot/prequel of "Star Trek".Abrams has long been involved as a producer on the newest installment of the Trek film franchise, but his helming wasn't confirmed until this week reports Devin [Faraci], my favourite sub & chub over at C.H.U.D.
Also confirmed is that the film isn't scheduled to hit until Summer 2009, a year later than reports had previously indicated.
Speculation has that the delay is due to giving the writer's sufficient time to develop the script.
Confession time: I've never been all that into the original Trek. I wasn't a Trek fan of any kind until maybe the third season of Next Gen. If you asked me to rank my favorite Treks, I'd put Deep Space Nine first, The Next Generation second, the original Trek third. (I refuse to acknowledge the existence of Voyager, and I never got into Enterprise, though what little I saw of it had promise.) If that gets me labelled a heretic of some kind, so be it.
As such, I think the idea of a little reinvention for Kirk, Spock, et al, is a good one. There's plenty of room for character development in there. And as far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't feel too constrained by the existing Trek canon. Go with a good story and don't look back. As long as no one suggests that midichlorians are the key ingredient for mind melds, I can handle it.
You know that Kirby Drive Storm Sewer Relief Project that is slowly making its way north like an invading army? Via Houstonist, I see that it will have an aesthetic component to it as well.
Prominent Texas-star inlays at eight Kirby Drive intersections are the major aesthetic components of the first phase of the "All-Stars" initiative announced by the Kirby Coalition on Dec. 4 at IBC Bank, 5615 Kirby Drive.The initiative will use private funds to add amenities to the city of Houston's flood relief project. The city's project will provide newly paved streets and storm sewer reconstruction along Kirby Drive from Reliant Arena, 1 Reliant Park, to the Central Business District.
"There is an urgency because the city's construction will take three to four years," said Jamie Brewster, co-chair of the coalition. "If we act now it will be less of an inconvenience for residents and more cost-effective."
Plans for the first phase include installing paved Texas stars at the intersections of Kirby Drive and Westheimer Road, West Alabama and Bissonnet streets, Richmond Avenue, and Sunset, Rice, University and Holcombe boulevards. Other planned streetscape elements are brick crosswalks, traffic lights on poles instead of wires, benches and landscaping.
I guess if you're ever going to do something like this, the time is now when Kirby is going to be all torn up anyway. They're working on the intersection at Holcombe at this time, so we'll know what this will look like shortly. On the down side, I had thought that the sewer project only extended as far as US59. If it's going all the way to San Felipe, all I can say is "Ugh".
Oh, and to answer Houstonist's question about traffic flow on Kirby: Short of something like this which (for good reasons) ain't gonna happen, there's not much you can do about it. Well, there's my light rail shuttle idea for Kirby, but that ain't gonna happen, either. So get used to it. Sorry!
So the Woodlands may not become part of Houston after all.
Voters in The Woodlands could decide as early as next year whether to take the first steps toward self-government under a deal that also would remove the possibility of annexation by Houston, local officials announced Thursday.The agreement marks a dramatic shift in how potential boundary takeovers have been handled. Mindful of acrimonious debates that erupted when Houston annexed Clear Lake and Kingwood, local officials said they worked hard to avoid a similar situation with The Woodlands.
What it means for people in The Woodlands is a chance to make decisions about their community without the threat of becoming a part of Houston.
It also provides the master-planned community of about 84,000 a chance to be a regional player for the first time. Under the agreement, The Woodlands would enter into an economic partnership with the city to fund mutually beneficial regional projects totaling $45 million over time.
[...]
Thursday's proposal would require legislation, which [State Sen. Tommy] Williams and state Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, pledged to get passed in the upcoming session.
Lawmakers need to pass at least two bills - one to expand an existing improvement district to collect sales taxes in all of The Woodlands and one to make it possible for Houston and The Woodlands - and other cities and communities in the future - to enter into a regional agreement.
With the new laws in place, The Woodlands residents then could vote in November on whether to expand the existing improvement district - which already collects a sales tax in the retail district of The Woodlands - as a first step toward possible incorporation.
I'm guessing that a part of the negotiation process here was to sound out various other legislators, especially those from Houston, to make sure those two bills can be passed. I presume therefore that there's no strong objections to it among the Houston delegation. Anything is possible, of course, but that would be my guess.
The agreement, which also would need approval from the Houston City Council and the various governing boards in The Woodlands, would not affect Conroe's plans to annex Harper's Landing, the only Woodlands neighborhood east of Interstate 45 and not within Houston's expansion boundaries.
Something for everyone in this deal!
Under the terms of the proposed deal, Houston would agree to release The Woodlands from its extraterritorial jurisdiction - a distinction in state law that would allow annexation. That would allow residents to decide after 2014 whether to incorporate or choose another form of local self-governance.In return, The Woodlands would give up an initial $16 million to pay for certain regional projects. The money would come from existing local funding sources to be determined. It would not come from increases in municipal utility district fees or property tax increases.
The projects would include $3 million for improvements to Lake Houston Park, much of which is in Montgomery County; $3 million for other major parks, including Memorial and Hermann; $5 million for road improvements at the Texas Medical Center, and a $5 million contribution to a planned project that would extend the Hardy Toll Road closer to downtown.
The Woodlands also would make another $29 million in payments from sales taxes during the next 30 years.
I presume that the money for these projects, some of which have no clear connection to the Woodlands, is to make up for the property and sales tax revenue that Houston would have received post-annexation. One wonders what "existing local funding sources" they have in mind here. Sixteen million bucks is a lot of money for a burg the size of the Woodlands. If they're not creating a new revenue stream to cover it, they either have it lying around already (must be nice), they expect to divert it from other projects, or they might come up with a way to borrow it. We'll see.
Jeff Long, president of The Woodlands Community Association board of directors, also was surprised by the announcement.''The beneficial portion so far is being out from under the threat of annexation. That was paramount," Long said. "But the devil is in the details. We knew all along that there would be a price, so whether I can live with it or not, I have to study it first."
Indeed. Stace thinks Houston should have pursued annexation anyway, while this KHOU story suggests taxes will indeed rise for Woodlanders. I wish Tom had blogged about this, I'd love to know what his take is.
CD23 isn't the only election going on this month - the special election to fill the vacant HD29 is Tuesday, December 19, with early voting going on Monday through Friday of next week. There's phonebanking and blockwalking going on this weekend and next week in support of Democratic contender Anthony DiNovo. If you're in the area and want to help, Muse has the details. The Bay Area New Democrats are also involved - contact them if you want to help.
I mentioned this previously on Kuff's World, but now I can present to you the official unveiling of the effort by Saint Arnold and other Texas microbrewers to change the law in Texas to give them the same rights as wineries. Here's the press release.
A coalition of Texas craft breweries and beer lovers, Friends of Texas Microbreweries, today launched a campaign to allow small Texas breweries to sell directly to patrons. Currently, the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Code requires microbreweries to sell only to distributors and retailers, which puts Texas craft breweries at a disadvantage to those in other states where sales direct to customers are allowed."We can no longer ignore the fact that 14 out of 19 microbreweries have failed in Texas in part because current regulations disadvantage microbrewing small businesses," said Saint Arnold founder Brock Wagner. "This common-sense proposal will allow Texas microbrewers to compete with out-of-state microbrewers on a level playing field."
In 2003, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 11, which changed the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Code to allow Texas wineries to sell limited quantities of their beverages directly to patrons. Friends of Texas Microbreweries is proposing a similar change for microbreweries, which would allow on-premise sales of no more than 5,000 barrels of ale and malt liquor annually.
"It has been three years since Texas voters clearly signaled they support common sense beverage laws," said Fritz Rahr, founder of Rahr & Sons Brewing Company in Fort Worth. "It's time Texas craft brewers offered the same customer-friendly advantages that Texas wineries already have."
For those who (like me) can't recall Prop 11 offhand, here's a little background. First, from the Austin Chronicle endorsement of the measure.
Proposition 11: Allow wineries in dry counties to market their wares. About half the wineries in Texas (a couple of dozen) operate in "dry" counties that don't allow direct sale (or even free samples) of liquor, hampering economic development. We're being asked to fix that from above, in the constitution. Were they breweries or distilleries, which can locate anywhere, we wouldn't care, but since wineries are more geographically limited, we're willing to give 'em a pass. YES
Their only quibble was with it being a Constitutional amendment. As far as I know, the microbrewers are seeking a legislative solution, so there's no issue there.
And from the Texas Farm Bureau.
PROPOSITION 11: Allowing wineries to sell wine for consumption on or off premises.Explanation: Under present provisions of the Constitution, the Texas wine industry is controlled by a combination of state and local laws. The legislature is authorized to regulate the manufacture, sale, possession, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. It is also required to provide local options to qualified voters in various governmental entities concerning the sale of alcohol.
This proposed amendment would enable the legislature to enact laws and direct the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, or its successor, to set policies for all wineries in the state, regardless of whether the winery is located in an area in which the sale of wine has or has not been authorized by local option.
The proposed amendment would authorize properly permitted wineries to manufacture and sell wine for consumption on or off the winery premises.
Wineries could also offer free wine for tasting on the premises. The enabling legislation requires that the wine must be manufactured in Texas and contain at least 75 percent by volume of fermented juice of grapes or other fruit grown in Texas.
The crux of the issue is being able to sell directly to customers. Here are the relevant laws from the Alcoholic Beverages Code. For wineries:
Sec. 16.01. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES. (a) Except as provided by Section 16.011, the holder of a winery permit may:(1) manufacture, bottle, label, and package wine containing not more than 24 percent alcohol by volume;
(2) manufacture and import grape brandy for fortifying purposes only and to be used only on his licensed premises;
(3) sell wine in this state to or buy wine from permit holders authorized to purchase and sell wine, including holders of wholesaler's permits, winery permits, and wine bottler's permits;
(4) sell wine to ultimate consumers:
(A) for consumption on the winery premises; or
(B) in unbroken packages for off-premises consumption in an amount not to exceed 35,000 gallons annually;(5) sell the wine outside this state to qualified persons;
(6) blend wines; and
(7) dispense free wine for consumption on the winery premises.
And for breweries:
Sec. 12.01. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES. The holder of a brewer's permit may:(1) manufacture, bottle, package, and label malt liquor;
(2) import ale and malt liquor acquired from a holder of a nonresident brewer's permit;
(3) sell the ale and malt liquor only to wholesale permit holders in this state or to qualified persons outside the state; and
(4) dispense ale and malt liquor for consumption on the premises.
Naturally, this effort comes with its own blog. You'll be seeing some activity from various Texas bloggers on this as well, since beer is an issue that's close to all of our hearts. Evan of the PerryVsWorld blog is the force behind that site and the one who drew me into this. Like him, I'm excited about the possibility of making something good happen. Stay tuned for more on this as we navigate our way through the legislative session.
UPDATE: More details from the Saint Arnold Goes To Austin blog.
Once again Lights in the Heights is upon us. Houstonist has a summary, while the Chron has all you need to know.
"This year we are doing it a little differently, running from 6-10 p.m.," said Sharon Greiff, who co-chairs the event with Woodland Heights Civic Association president Terri Guerra."It normally ran from 6-9 p.m., but the problem was that since we added the parade a few years ago, people were doing that and then walking and just revving up by 9, so we decided to do it this way and see how it goes," she added.
The association faces a big job each year, putting together the massive holiday street party that draws in excess of 10,000 people to the neighborhood just east of the Houston Heights.
The event, as always, is free, and this year runs from the 400 block of Euclid and Byrne streets all the way to the Norhill esplanade seven blocks to the west.
[...]
The event will start from the intersection of Florence Street along the route with a parade, which Greiff said is a little more "robust" this year.
It will feature at least six art cars, a fire truck, marching bands and mounted police.
"The last is great because everyone loves horses," she said.
In addition to the longer hours, another small change is that lights will be strung along the Norhill esplanade, which was wired for electricity just over a month ago.
"We always got by on generators before, but between Lights in the Heights and the Home Tour folks, this is going to be a lot easier," Greiff said.
The esplanade will be home to Santa Claus, who, after the parade, will be available for photos.
Also, the WHCA will be selling T-shirts and other novelties to support the costs of this year's event as well as in 2007.
T-shirts are also on sale before the event at Buchanan's Native Plants, 611 E 11th St., C&D Hardware, 314 E 11th St. and Oo La La, 833 Studewood.
"We figured why should all of those street corner vendors have all the fun and get the proceeds," Greiff said. "So we're going to try that this year to raise money for the event.
"We've got some Santa hats that glow and blink and reindeer antlers that glow in the dark, lighted necklaces and that's it. We didn't want to go too far."
[...]
Greiff turned a bit serious when she talked about the parking situation.
"We do tell everyone that the route is closed, and it starts getting closed around 5:30 p.m.," she said. "So if you want to get parking even remotely close, come much earlier. Parking is always going to be tough because we keep this free. That's just how it is."Some local businesses welcome the extra traffic, but others are not so excited about people parking in their lots and have said they will tow. So Greiff said to exercise some common sense.
"There's street parking all around, and getting there early helps, but once you get around 6:30-7 p.m., don't even think about getting near the route," she said. "The only people allowed in or out in cars are the homeowners, not their guests.
"You'll need proof of residency like an ID or driver's license to get in. So if you get there late, you're going to walk, which isn't so bad because you'll be walking all over the route anyway.
"Carpooling helps because the more people you can pile into your car, the better off you'll be."
My advice has always been to park west of Studewood and walk from there. Arriving early is also smart.
Anyway, Marty Hajovsky brings the memories of Lights past. Here's what I wrote about it last year - thankfully, Studewood is no longer under construction, so you needn't worry about that.
If you've never been, Lights is one of the best and most fun things you can do for free in Houston. It's very kid friendly, too - I think Olivia will really love it this year. Come on over to the Woodland Heights this Saturday and see for yourself what Lights in the Heights is all about.
Miya Shay highlights an issue on which I'd like to see some action.
Yesterday, between all the babble about employee unions, several council members actually talked about something that you and I use daily: sidewalks! Mainly, Council Member Sue Lovell's not too happy that a builder bulldozing a house took a large chunk of city sidewalk along. Therefore, kids walking home in this Montrose neighborhood (near Woodhead and W. Alabama) will either walk through gunk or walk on a busy street. Yuck! But alas, Houston's sidewalk ordinance only requires builders to put back a sidewalk when they build. So, if a builder puts up homes right away, great! If they leave it empty for months.. there is nothing the city can do. So now, they are considering whether to toughen up the sidewalk ordinance. Sue Lovell would like to see builders put something down, even just some gravel or boards, within a few weeks of tearing up a sidewalk.
I wholeheartedly endorse this effort, and would plead with Council Member Lovell to go farther with it. In 2005, a little multiplex that sat on a double lot a block from my house was torn down, with two houses eventually being built in its place. When the old structure was demolished, a large chunk of the sidewalk was taken out as well, as in the case cited above. It was many months before it was replaced - basically, there was a hole in the walk until after the second house had been completed. As this is one of the usual paths I take to walk my dog, it was a major pain in the tuchus, especially during and after rainstorms. I cursed the developer's name many, many times for the duration.
In the end, the replacement sidewalk was better than what was there before, and the folks who bought those houses are super cool, so everything turned out well. But it was still a huge inconvenience for a long time. I say there should be a real sidewalk in place within two weeks of the tear out, with fines that accumulate for every day past the deadline that it's missing. If there's some valid construction reason why a ripped-out sidewalk can't be fully replaced before the house is built, I'd be willing to accept a stopgap solution as Lovell is proposing. But what we have now stinks, and I sincerely hope Lovell is successful in getting something done about this.
Lots of stuff happening in the CD23 runoff as early voting draws to an end. Here's a link dump for you so you can keep up:
Henry Bonilla goes very negative amid rumors that his lead over Ciro Rodriguez is three points, not seven. Bonilla is also being criticized for not having gone negative sooner than he did. By the way, SUSA has issued a correction to its initial summary of that poll.
The DCCC sees CD23 as their 30th pickup of the year. They've already invested close to $1 million in the race, which makes up a huge part of the fundraising advantage that Bonilla had.
If you live in the district, there are many opportunities to get involved in Rodriguez's GOTV operation this weekend. If you don't live in the district, you can still phonebank.
I did read this op-ed from Sunday by Michael Welner, the highly-paid prosecution expert in the Andrea Yates retrial, and I remember thinking "wow, what a pompous ass", but for whatever the reason I never got around to blogging about it. As it happens, there are two letters to the editor today, one each from Yates defense attorneys George Parnham and Wendell Odom, and they say everything I could have said and a lot more. I'm reprinting them beneath the fold for future reference, and I highly recommend you read them.
One more thing you should read as well is this Rick Casey column from September 30, which seems to anticipate and in my mind fairly well short-circuits some of Welner's arguments:
Welner's testimony seems to have backfired with the second jury, which found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity."Although Dr. Welner's qualifications were impressive, his presentation in court was not good," said juror Bobby Chism. "He came across as very aloof and self-serving."
[...]
"Most of us really felt that he did more harm than good to the prosecution's case," [juror Michael] Olson said, adding, "Several of us concluded that his analysis of 'the ultimate opinion' was built backwards: He started with the answer and then built his conclusion going back."
Keep those quotes in particular in mind as you read Parnham and Odom's responses below.
He must not 'get' itREGARDING the Dec. 3 Outlook article "A tragedy of secrets / What the Yates jury never knew / Panel never allowed to see important pieces of expert's research," by Dr. Michael Welner: It is understandable that Welner would be upset at Andrea Yates' jury, the judge, the district attorneys, other experts and the defense counsel as a result of the verdict in the case.
The verdict came because the jury understood the reality of mental illness, postpartum psychosis and the effectuation of its harsh and horrific results on the lives of the Yates children - Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary - as well as their mother, Andrea Yates.
By its verdict, the jury rejected both Welner's and Dr. Park Dietz's opinions. The jury "got it" but, obviously, Welner does not.
Nowhere in his article did Welner - a psychiatrist - address the severe mental illness of Andrea Yates.
Surely there exists within Welner's Forensic Panel an expert who can evaluate the mindset and thought processes of a person who suffered an undeniable psychotic illness that caused her to drown her children. Welner cited numerous reasons why Yates "knew" what she did was "wrong."
But, he ignored the most basic of psychiatric truisms when he failed to acknowledge that in the unreal world of the psychotic mind, the capacity "to know" does not coincide with the definition of "to know."
Yates surely believed she was an unfit mother, that she caused her children to "stumble," and she believed that their souls would be saved if she took their lives while they were still innocent and not yet irreparably tainted by Satan's influence. She surely "knew" that the criminal justice system would be involved: She called 911 and confessed. She was aware that she would be executed for what she did. But in her psychotic world, she did what in her mind was best for her children.
No expert witness disagreed with these statements, and Welner never addressed them, thus doing a tremendous disservice to mental health issues and to the profession of which he is a part that daily deals with the issues of mental illness.
His pontification of his perception of a judicial affront to his "professional" evaluation ignored the overwhelming evidence that disagrees with his position.
GEORGE J. PARNHAM attorney for Andrea Yates, Houston
Seemed self-servingAFTER reading Michael Welner's Dec. 3 Outlook article "What the Yates jury never knew," I feel the need to set the record straight.
Although Welner chastised the judge and the attorneys for a "runaway acquittal" and hiding the truth, what he appears to be doing is continuing a campaign to justify his much-maligned methods, opinions and testimony in the Yates case. During his two days of testimony Dr. Welner did not fare very well.
His motives and opinions were subject to scrutiny like every other expert witness that takes the stand.
It did not help his credibility that there appeared to be hidden fees in his $250,000-plus bill to the county or that he was most anxious to testify for the defense in the first trial and testified for the state in the second. Because this was a high-profile case, it is likely that his performance is being reviewed in both legal and academic arenas and perhaps he feels the need to defend his professional reputation.
Both the state and the defense had massive amounts of information and access to all the reports and information prepared by all the experts, including the information Welner complained was hidden from the jury. He was correct to say that the jury did not hear all 14 hours of his taped interviews, read his voluminous report, did not see 34 of 90 slides he prepared and his testimony was required to comply with the rules of evidence. All the other experts who testified in the trial had the same restraints.
At the end of the day, all the facts were presented in one form or another to the jury. Because the jury rejected his opinions and agreed with a number of highly qualified and respected defense experts does not mean there was a "runaway acquittal."
To come to the conclusion that the Yates trial and the jury's verdict was a travesty of justice simply because the jury didn't hear everything Welner wanted them to hear is both self-serving and disingenuous.
WENDELL A. ODOM JR. attorney for Andrea Yates, Houston
In the matter of Sen. Florence Shapiro's stated desire to end TAKS as we know it, she now has an ally in David Dewhurst.
"Our interest is to be able to move away from the test to end-of-course exams and have a standardized test where we could evaluate what the results of our teaching is (compared) to other states," Dewhurst said after speaking to the Statewide Education Legislative Briefing.High school students would take end-of-course exams, and all seniors would be required to take either the SAT or the ACT.
The state would pay for that test, which would be nearly $50 per student, Dewhurst said.
Senate Education Chairwoman Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, recently proposed scrapping the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test for end-of-course exams in the higher grade levels.
The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, she said.
"I don't know of anybody who thinks it's a bad idea," Shapiro said.
Well, so far at least I haven't seen any quotes from skeptics of this idea, so maybe it is all that. I don't have any philosophical objections offhand, but I also don't know yet what this means in practical terms. What I want, as I said in the comments to the previous post, is for the state to have a clear handle on just what it is it's attempting to measure. That includes a mechanism for assessing the usefulness and accuracy of those measurements, and a means for ensuring that kids are being subjected to an appropriate metric for their level of achievement. (One might reasonably question why kids who are in a vocational school, or kids who intend to go into agriculture, need to take a test geared towards assessing aptitude for college, for example. I'm not saying there isn't a good answer to that question, just that I hope we do have one in mind.) I don't believe TAKS does that as it is now administered, so I definitely support a reform. I just want some assurance that we're genuinely improving things, rather than trading one set of buzzwords and acronyms for another, before I sign on the dotted line.
The following was forwarded to me by a reader. I thought it was provocative. I present it here in the interest of starting a conversation.
Warning to Texas residents: a group of individuals, still at large, poses an imminent threat to the public. Several thousand Texas citizens may be at risk if the activities of these people are not monitored more closely. Registered sex offenders, you say? No, actually I am referring to the elected members of the Texas Legislature, who will soon meet in Austin for the 80th legislative session.Several bills have been pre-filed for the session which opens in January, ostensibly with the intent of protecting Texas children from the clutches of the 45,000+ registered sex offenders currently residing in Texas. Our elected officials, certainly all honorable and well-intentioned people interested in serving the public interest, want us to believe these bills will protect us and our children from harm.
To the contrary, most of the provisions of these bills are “smoke and mirrors”, an illusion designed to create the appearance of concern and activity by your elected representatives. Our elected officials, with access to current academic and Justice Department research and statistics, know that - but they are hoping we won’t find out. Otherwise, we voters might actually demand that they do their homework and provide some real solutions.
Beyond being of illusory value, the bills contain provisions that are blatantly unconstitutional, in direct violation of several fundamental principles of constitutional law in this country - principles like due process, equal protection, protection against double jeopardy and uncompensated property takings. Registered sex offenders - though convicted of felonies and misdemeanors - still remain citizens protected by our Constitution.
Our legal system requires due process - hearings, evidence, opportunity for judicial review. It provides that all citizens have equal access to our courts. It requires that individuals may not be punished more than once for an offense, no matter how heinous. Once served, a sentence of incarceration or probation cannot lawfully be extended or additional conditions of punishment imposed by another legislative body or even a court. And the total use of property cannot be denied absent just compensation for its value. These are fundamental, time-tested, basic principles that govern how our legal system is supposed to work.
But some Texas legislators, despite their sworn oath to uphold the constitution, apparently do not believe these principles apply here or at least to some citizens of Texas. Legislators will soon be taking up several proposed laws that will create “child safety zones” around schools, parks, day-care centers and similar place where children gather. Registered sex offenders will not be permitted to walk or even drive within 1,000 feet of these facilities.
More draconian still is a provision to restrict where registered sex offenders can reside in our communities, prohibiting them from living within 2,500 feet of places where children gather. Those offenders already living within that radius - even homeowners and long- time residents who have not presented a threat in the past, probably even some nursing home residents - will be forcibly evicted or face incarceration.
These provisions would not just be applied to new offenders being released from prison, but also to current parolees and those who have already served their sentences and are no longer under court jurisdiction. Some have been off of probation for years, living as law-abiding neighbors and friends in our communities. But they will all have to move elsewhere. Thousands of Texas citizens face the prospect of being literally banished from their homes and families by legislative action - a practice unheard of and considered morally and legally unthinkable in this nation until only recently. No court hearing, no evidence of a crime, no appeal. These are authoritarian governmental abuses that all of us ought to vigorously oppose.
It would appear that there would be no lawful way to comply with these residency restrictions, as onerous as the proposals are. Even if an offender lived in a rural area, say on a 500-acre farm in the Hill Country, the bills would measure the distance restrictions from the property line of the farm to the nearest school or bus stop. How many parts of Texas, aside from the isolated mountainous and desert areas of the west, are more than 2,500 feet from a school or school bus stop location?
So where will these people go in September 2007 if these bills are passed? Well, since they cannot lawfully comply with the laws, they will probably hide. A few may choose to leave the state, as is no doubt the obvious intention of lawmakers - make these people someone else’s problem. But many of them have families, homes and jobs here in Texas. So they will just live elsewhere, hoping not to be found, costing us lots of tax dollars to seek them out and punish them for breaking a law against something that was not a crime in the first place.
Iowa recently passed a similar law and the rate of non-compliance with that state’s sex offender registration statute jumped by 300%. The Iowa County Attorneys Association, the people in charge of actually enforcing that statute, is now opposed to residency restrictions that were enacted there and are being proposed here in Texas. The unintended consequence of what was probably an honest and well-intentioned effort turned out to be worse than the problem they were trying to solve.
California recently passed a similar law by public referendum and it was immediately halted by a federal judge because its provisions were in obvious violation of our constitution. A similar federal court challenge will surely be filed here if the bills pass as proposed.
The academic and law enforcement research does not support the effectiveness of these restrictions. Several prominent research groups - including child abuse prevention advocacy groups hardly sympathetic to sex offenders - have concluded that there is no statistical link between restricting the residence of registered sex offenders and the incidence of sexual assault cases.
More importantly, the proposed bills ignore the faulty theory behind sex offender registration in the first place. Let me clear up a very common misconception - most registered sex offenders don’t commit repeat offenses. Recent research by the federal Department of Justice has indicated a recidivism rate of between 4 and 15 %, lower than for most other categories of major crimes. And here is the really startling fact: by far, most sexual assaults of a child are committed by a parent, other family member or family acquaintance, not the registered offender living down the street. Most of the people on the list of registered offenders served their time, paid their debt to society and just want to be left alone.
Our elected officials do not want us to be aware of or understand these facts. They want us to be fearful enough to trust that they are looking out for us. Do not be deceived by this group of people - a group representing a direct threat to the liberty and lives of thousands of law-abiding, tax-paying, voting citizens. Citizens just like me.
What do you think? Let me know.
Yes, you're getting more spam.
Hearing from a lot of new friends lately? You know, the ones that write "It's me, Esmeralda," and tip you off to an obscure stock that is "poised to explode" or a great deal on prescription drugs.You're not the only one. Spam is back - in e-mail in-boxes and on everyone's minds. In the last six months, the problem has gotten measurably worse. Worldwide spam volumes have doubled from last year, according to Ironport, a spam filtering firm, and unsolicited junk mail now accounts for more than 9 of every 10 e-mail messages sent over the Internet.
Much of that flood is made up of a nettlesome new breed of junk e-mail called image spam, in which the words of the advertisement are part of a picture, often fooling traditional spam detectors that look for telltale phrases. Image spam increased fourfold from last year and now represents 25 to 45 percent of all junk e-mail, depending on the day, Ironport says.
Link via Kevin Drum. A lot of this is due to spammers currently being ahead in the technology arms race, but there's still a human factor at play:
But don't spammers still have to link to the incriminating Web sites where they sell their disreputable wares? Well, not anymore. Many of the messages in the latest spam wave promote penny stocks - part of a scheme that antispam researchers call the "pump and dump." Spammers buy the inexpensive stock of an obscure company and send out messages hyping it. They sell their shares when the gullible masses respond and snap up the stock. No links to Web sites are needed in the messages.Though the scam sounds obvious, a joint study by researchers at Purdue University and Oxford University this summer found that spam stock cons work. Enough recipients buy the stock that spammers can make a 5 percent to 6 percent return in two days, the study concluded.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought dozens of cases against such fraudsters over the years. But as a result of the Can-Spam Act, which forced domestic e-mail marketers to either give up the practice or risk jail, most active spammers now operate beyond the reach of American law enforcement. Antispam researchers say the current spam hot spots are in Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia.
Yes, one of the reasons why you get so much spam these days is because of the idiots who respond to those moronic stock hypes. I believe this is what Sartre had in mind when he wrote that hell is other people. All I can say is that reading stuff like this makes things like certified email and challenge-response technology look better and better.
Yet another popular comic strip artist is planning an early retirement.
FoxTrot, the popular comic strip that runs in more than 1,000 newspapers - including the Chronicle - will end daily production Dec. 30, as its creator joins the growing list of cartoonists to grow weary of the daily grind.Bill Amend, who created FoxTrot in 1998, will continue to write and draw the Sunday strip.
"After spending close to half of my life writing and drawing FoxTrot cartoons, I think it's time I got out of the house and tried some new things," he said in a statement. "I love cartooning, and I absolutely want to continue doing the strip, just not at the current all-consuming pace."
That date has got to be a misprint, unless Amend is the greatest child prodigy the cartooning industry has ever produced. I feel sure it's 1988, but am too lazy to look it up.
In earlier generations, the lives of comic strips seemed endless. After the original artists died or retired, successors continued the strips. That was because the characters and titles were owned by syndicates, the companies that distribute comic strips and other features to newspapers. The syndicates had the right to fire creators and replace them at will.That began to change - at least for the most popular and powerful cartoonists - in the late 1980s.
You know what? I think that's a good thing. I mean, I hated to see Bloom County and Calvin and Hobbes and The Far Side disappear, just as all right-thinking people did. I wouldn't put Foxtrot in their league, but it's been a good strip for a long time, and I'll miss it. But if getting a bunch of the handed-down, one-joke dinosaurs off the comics page were part of the bargain, I'd take it. There's more turnover on the op-ed pages than there is on the comics, and the ossification that kind of stodginess promotes is just as pernicious in the Style section. A regular dose of fresh blood, and a wider recognition that all good (and mediocre) things must come to an end, would serve the funnies well.
Now, I understand that artists like Berke Breathed and Gary Larson could afford to retire because they owned the full rights to their strips, meaning they got the boodle from book sales and whatnot once the weekly paychecks stopped coming. But look, there's gotta be a half dozen or more strips on the Chron's pages that are "drawn" by people who've been deceased for years. Dik Browne and Hank Ketchum and Jeff MacNelly and the like don't need the money any more. Let's give someone else a chance to be the next Watterson or MacGruder. It's only fair, and we the reading public will be better off for it.
Must be nice to have sixteen million dollars to invest in political giving.
Houston home builder Bob Perry poured $16 million into state and federal races during the recent election cycle, apparently making him the biggest individual political contributor in the country for 2005-06, a money-tracking group reported Tuesday.A legislator from San Antonio hopes the report will boost his proposal to place limits on big donors, but similar efforts have failed in the past.
Perry has been a leading political donor in Texas for several years, but the $6.7 million he gave to state candidates, mostly Republicans, and political action committees over the past two years was a 44 percent increase over 2003-04, according to Texans for Public Justice.
Additionally, he put $9.3 million into federal elections, mostly through conservative groups that bought ads attacking Democratic congressional candidates throughout the country, TPJ reported, citing Congressional Quarterly's PoliticalMoneyLine.
TPJ's full report on Perry is here. Note that he had a fairly lousy track record in 2006 - only two of his top 14 candidates won general election races, and in each case Perry had given more money to that person's GOP primary opponent (Joe Nixon $262K, Dan Patrick $55K; Mike Schofield $100K, Jim Murphy $50K). Note also that none of his Democratic benefactors was in any danger of losing his or her race. Perry gives to Republicans to make more Republicans in office. He gives to Democrats to make sure he has access to people who'd be winning without his help.
Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, has prefiled HB111 for the legislative session, which convenes in January, to limit total political contributions by one individual in state races to $100,000 per election cycle.Villarreal sponsored a similar bill in 2005, but it died in a House subcommittee.
"I think there is more public clamor for change," he said, noting that another mega-contributor, San Antonio businessman James Leininger, a leading advocate of spending tax dollars on private school vouchers, also received much attention this year for large political donations to legislative candidates.
Under Villarreal's bill, a person could give the entire $100,000 to a single candidate or committee but would be unable to donate to anyone else.
I think there's more support for it in the Lege as well, especially now that some Republicans have taken Perry and Leininger's best shot in a primary, but it's not the breadth of the support for this kind of reform that matters. What matters is the committee chairs and the Speaker. I do not believe that legislation such as Villarreal's will go anywhere as long as Tom Craddick is running things. I'll be more than happy to be proved wrong about that, but it's not the way I'd bet.
Now that he has safely been re-elected, Governor Perry can finally say what anybody with two brain cells to rub together already knows, which is that building a fence along the US-Mexico border is "preposterous".
Gov. Rick Perry, who built his re-election campaign on border security, told a gathering of border mayors today that building a wall along the border with Mexico is a "preposterous" idea."Now, strategic fencing in certain urban areas to direct the flow of traffic does make sense, but building a wall on the entire border is a preposterous idea," Perry said.
"The only thing a wall would possibly accomplish is to help the ladder business."
While Perry always opposed fencing the border, his re-election campaign de-emphasized that position.
Perry ran millions of dollars of television advertising portraying the border as an open zone of human and drug smuggling and as a potential pathway for terrorists. He launched a program to put live Internet cameras along the border and said he would ask the Legislature for $100 million for border security.
The campaign was widely seen as an effort to appeal to a Republican voting base angry at the federal government for failing to act to halt illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America.
Perry told the Texas Border Coalition that the national anti-immigrant rhetoric of the political campaigns was not constructive.
"We just concluded an election year that was very heavy on immigration rhetoric, and, I might add, very light on comprehensive solutions," Perry said.
Made for some pretty effective campaign strategy, though. Gotta give credit where it's due. Perry knew who his voters are, and he knew how to talk to them.
Speaking of campaign talk, by the way, Houtopia recalls Chris Bell using a similar line about fences and ladders. Just thought I'd mention it.
The governor also said he believes legislation that has been filed in the Texas House to do away with "birthright citizenship" is divisive.State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, has a bill that would challenge a U.S. constitutional interpretation that gives automatic citizenship to everyone born in the United States. Berman's bill would deny such citizenship to anyone born to parents who are in the country illegally.
That's very encouraging, Governor. Does that mean you'll veto Rep. Berman's bill if it or something like it manages to pass the Lege? That's the key question.
Oh, and since we brought up the border webcams, they're on hiatus, at least for now.
The Texas border-watch test site closed Nov. 30.The 27-day test cost twice as much as officials had anticipated. But because of the nearly 28 million hits to the Web site, Gov. Rick Perry's spokesman declared the initial launch of the virtual neighborhood watch program a success. A permanent program is expected to be in operation sometime next year.
"This is one tool of many the state is using to combat illegal activity along the border," [Perry spokesman Robert] Black said.
From Nov. 3 through Nov. 30, Black said, more than 221,000 viewers registered on www.texasborderwatch.com, generating nearly 15,000 report e-mails.
Black said no data were available yet on the number of apprehensions resulting from reports made through the Web site.
That's a rather important data point, isn't it? It's nice that people tuned in and all, but if we just spent $200K for 12 cameras (and Perry has promised to spend up to $5 million for 200 cameras), shouldn't we know if they, like, actually help? And though I realize this was just a pilot, was there some kind of benchmark for these things, as in "we think they'll lead to X apprehensions, of which Y will involve drugs"? Doesn't have to be anything other than somebody's wild guess. Just some number we can then compare to later. Was there ever such a number, or were we basically just doing this for grins? That's the point of pilot programs, after all - to see if what you're test driving is worth the cost and effort. All I want to know is if we have some means to try and answer that now that the pilot is over.
On the plus side, at least we'd be spending a lot less than eight billion dollars to see if this technology is effective. So there's that to be grateful for.
El Paso Times link via Pink Dome. And click the More link for a statement by People for the American Way in response to Perry's remarks.
Statement from People for the American Way:
"We welcome Gov. Perry's new, more constructive tone on immigration issues. He understood one of the central messages of the recent elections - that immigrant bashing is not only mean spirited and counter productive, it is also politically unpopular, especially in Texas."We're particularly glad he spoke out against the short sighted and imprudent bills filed by Representatives Leo Berman, Burt Solomons and others that would cut off immigrants' rights and access to education. Gov. Perry realizes what these legislators apparently do not - that the economic and social future of Texas depends on a healthy, well-educated workforce that, like it or not, will continue to be increasingly Hispanic. Let's hope the governor's new tone translates into an equally constructive legislative agenda
"We are working with the business community, church leaders and other civic and community organizations to promote real, substantive immigration reform at the national level and to oppose proposals that appeal to fear, division and racism. We look forward to working with the Governor on these and other issues"
Paul Burka attended a committee meeting by the Study Commission on Transportation Financing, at which David Ellis, a co-author of a report by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) at Texas A&M, gave some interesting testimony about road funding. Executive summary: We don't need to toll to pay for Texas' road needs. In particular:
Over the next 25 years, the population of these areas is projected to increase by 2.8% per year, employment by by 2.3%, vehicles by 2.7%, and daily miles drive by 3%. Over the same period, the number of lane miles that can be built with currently available funding will increase by just .25% per year. Tx-Dot estimates that the state will need an additional $68 billion over the next 25 years to improve mobility. The TTI's estimate is slightly lower, $66.2 billion. Two-thirds of the needed new construction will be in the state road system, or some $44+ billion; the remainder represents improvements to local roads.The money for highway construction comes from three sources: vehicle registration fees, the state gasoline (more properly, motor fuels) tax, and reimbursements from the federal gasoline tax, of which Texas sends more revenue to Washington than it gets back. Of these sources, the one that matters the most is the motor fuels tax. But the tax has been losing ground to inflation in recent years.
Now, here is the crucial part of Ellis's testimony: There are scenarios under which roads can be financed:
1. Raise the motor fuels tax, currently 20 cents per gallon, to 51 cents. Interestingly, a Tx-Dot engineer had previously told the committee that the motor fuels tax would have to be raised to $1.40 per gallon to pay for the needed new construction. Needless to say, the Legislature is not going to raise the tax by 31 cents, much less a buck twenty.
2. Raise the motor fuels tax by 8 cents and index it to inflation, using not the consumer price index, but a special highway construction index. The rate of inflation has been 1/2% to 1 1/2 percent per year.
3. Don't raise the gasoline tax at all. Instead, index it and put the incremental revenue in the mobility fund, where it can be used to pay off bonds. And here's the bombshell: "Under this scenario," Ellis said, " it wouldn't be necessary to toll as a means of financing, although that's certainly an option."
While I agree that Option 1 will never happen - among other things, that would give Texas the highest state gas tax in the country, which would make it political poison regardless of its merits - I just want to point out (again!) that even at that level of taxation, you're way better off than you'd be on almost any toll road. At 20 gallons a week, you're talking an extra $6.20 per week, which is at worst three days' worth of round trips on HCTRA roads. The math will always favor raising the gas tax, because the gas tax has the broadest base. Toll roads are paid for by far fewer people, so their rates are much higher. I'm going to keep saying this until everyone is sick of it, or until it becomes a standard point of discussion about toll roads, whichever comes first.
If there's going to be anything done on this front, I see Option Three as being potentially viable. We'll see if anyone runs with it.
Eye on Williamson and SA Toll Party have already been on this. EoW also has more about the reaction to Ellis' testimony, which sounds priceless to me. Reading all this, it occurs to me that there's another explanation for the pro-TTC billboards, which is not for defensive purposes but for offense, as was suggested in the comments to that post. Food for thought.
The Texas Progressive Alliance has named Carolyn Boyle and Texas Parent PAC its "Texan of the Year" for 2006.
Which is to say we got smart this time and picked someone who couldn't get Leiningered in the next primary. Of course, given the thrashing that Boyle and ParentPAC handed out to Leininger candidates this year, perhaps we need't have worried. Their impact on the political landscape in 2006 was huge and positive. They focused on public education, and helped to rid the Lege of some of its biggest enemies while greatly increasing the ranks of its friends. And they did it in a truly bipartisan manner, something that is a lot easier to talk about than to actually do.
How much impact did ParentPAC have? Look at this list of people they helped get elected to the Legislature:
H.D. 32: Juan Garcia, D-Corpus Christi (defeated Rep. Gene Seaman)
H.D. 47: Valinda Bolton, D-Austin (open seat)
H.D. 48: Representative Donna Howard, D-Austin, (special election victory against Ben Bentzin in Feb.)
H.D. 54: Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen (open seat)
H.D. 71: Susan King, R-Abilene (open seat)
H.D. 72: Drew Darby, R-San Angelo (defeated Rep. Scott Campbell in the primary)
H.D. 85: Joe Heflin, D-Crosbyton (open seat of former Speaker Pete Laney)
H.D. 94: Diane Patrick, R-Arlington (defeated Rep. Kent Grusendorf, the House Public Education Committee chair, in the primary)
H.D. 101: Thomas Latham, R-Sunnyvale (defeated Rep. Elvira Reyna in the primary)
H.D. 107: Allen Vaught, D-Dallas (defeated Rep. Bill Keffer, another House Public Education Committee member)
H.D. 118: Joe Farias, D-San Antonio (open seat)
H.D. 134: Ellen Cohen, D-Houston (defeated Rep. Martha Wong)
Given that no one had ever hear of ParentPAC at this time in 2005, that's pretty darned amazing. The Lege, and therefore the state of Texas, is a better place because of them. That makes them a very worthy awardwinner. Congratulations, Carolyn Boyle and Texas ParentPAC!
Vince has more, including the full press release.
Sweet. I didn't even have to blog about this.
Texas bloggers: Retract your claws. Vicki Truitt means you no harm.The Keller state representative has been public enemy No. 1 for bloggers for the past three weeks because of a bill she pre-filed relating to defamatory comments on Web sites.
It turns out Truitt had meant to file a much narrower bill that was not directed at bloggers. She now plans to enter substitute language in January.
But the allegations that bloggers have hurled at Truitt, ranging from personal attacks to vulgar rants, will apparently live online for some time.
"When you're a public elected official, you better be prepared to be slammed, and if you're not willing to then you better not be in the business," Truitt said.
Truitt filed House Bill 129 on Nov. 13, the first day lawmakers could file bills for the legislative session that begins in January. The bill specified that the author of defamatory statements expressed on the Internet would be subject to the same libel limitations as the author of any other statement "in any other written or graphic form."
Outrage on the blogosphere was quick.
Eileen Smith, editor of Austin-based InThePinkTexas.com, ripped into the bill two days later in a post titled "My Other Blog is Yo Mama." The post now appears on the first page of a Google search for "Vicki Truitt."
More than 30 readers commented on the post, many heckling Truitt. Noting that if the bill passed it wouldn't go into effect until September, reader Roaring Gnome suggested, "I think you should dedicate all posts after Sept. 1, 2007 to making fun of Vicki Truitt's absurdly big hair. It would NOT be a false statement, so I think you'd be covered."
I love Eileen's comment about that:
I can't decide which is funnier. The fact that the Star-Telegram printed 'yo mama,' or that commenter 'Roaring Gnome' was actually quoted as a source.
Actually, I think the comments to the story itself are pretty funny, given what the whole fuss was about. Either way, we truly do live in wondrous times.
Truitt said the bill stemmed from a talk with a constituent who had gone through a messy divorce. His ex-wife had put personal information about him on DontDateHimGirl.com, a Web site where women post photos and descriptions of men they say are dishonest or deceitful.Truitt said the bill was designed to allow people legal recourse if someone knowingly publishes information about them online that could lead to identity theft.
"We're just trying to keep people from getting mad at somebody and putting their Social Security number and credit card numbers out there," Truitt said.
After discussing the bill with the Star-Telegram, however, Truitt said she reread the bill and decided it was probably too broad. She said she would narrow its scope.
"We're trying to protect people's private information," she said.
Truitt's legislative director, Dan Sutherland, said that legal advisers had suggested broadening the bill's language to include all defamatory comments, but that stifling bloggers or anyone else on the Internet was never their intention.
"In the conversations I had with legislative counsel, we never talked about blogs," Sutherland said. "Apparently the people who write blogs think it was targeted at them, so we're trying to clarify it."
Sutherland described the blogger reaction to the bill as "amazing" but noted that allowing public comments to help reshape proposed legislation is part of the democratic process.
"It's not unusual for any representative to file something, and once people start reading it, they bring things to our attention they hadn't thought of or got lost in the translation," Sutherland said.
Yeah, you could say that.
The story lists (but does not always hyperlink) various blogs that reacted to the initial news of Truitt's bill. Which is nice but not terribly useful, as even for the sites they link to it's just to the index instead of the posts in question. Why they didn't use Technorati or Google Blog Search for a more complete accounting I couldn't say.
We have a poll for the runoff.
In a runoff election today, 12/4/06, in Texas's 23rd Congressional District, incumbent Republican Henry Bonilla appears to edge Democrat Ciro Rodriguez, 53% to 46%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WOAI-TV San Antonio. The runoff is in 8 days, on 12/12/06. Bonilla gets 70% of White votes. Rodriguez gets 72% of Hispanic votes. In SurveyUSA's turnout model, 59% of likely runoff voters are white, 36% are Hispanic. If Hispanics, who are 55% of the population in TX 23, make up more than 36% of those who vote in the Runoff, the contest will be closer than SurveyUSA's numbers here show. Bonilla gets 94% of Republican votes. Rodriguez gets 89% of Democratic votes. Independents split. Bonilla wins by 25 points among higher-income voters, and by 15 points among middle-income voters. Rodriguez wins by 25 points among lower-income voters. Texas's Congressional map was redrawn after a Supreme Court case in August 2006. Since there was no time for party primaries, there was a special election on November 7th in the affected districts, in which more than one candidate per party could run. In the 23rd Congressional District, Bonilla defeated Rodriguez and several other Democrats, but received only 48% of the vote, triggering the runoff. Those who voted for other candidates on 11/7/06 now prefer Rodriguez by 3:1. Bonilla was first elected to Congress in 1992. Rodriguez represented Texas's 28th Congressional District from 1997 to 2005.
Two points: One, as Carlos Guerra reminds us, 27 percent support among Hispanic voters would be high for Bonilla.
Now seeking his eighth term in a runoff against former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, Bonilla's first victory came by ousting scandal-plagued Albert Bustamante. Later, he was quick to hop on Newt Gingrich's bandwagon, becoming an avid supporter of 12-year term limits for House and Senate members.Bonilla also became a trusted and loyal soldier for DeLay, and in 1999 was made head of American Dream PAC, whose mission, he said, was "to give significant, direct financial assistance to first-rate minority GOP candidates."
But with each re-election, Bonilla's Mexican American support slipped, and in 2002, only 8 percent of those voters cast ballots for him.
To keep Bonilla in office, DeLay's 2003 redistricting plan shifted 100,000 voters from heavily Mexican American areas out of his district, and in 2004, the more heavily Anglo district re-elected Bonilla by a margin of more than 2 to 1.
And two, according to the crosstabs, Rodriguez wins the people who voted for one of the non-runoff candidates, all of whom have endorsed him, by a not-as-good-as-it-could-be 74-23 margin.
The point I'm making here is that there will be more factors at play than just Anglo versus Hispanic turnout levels. In a race like this any poll is going to be an educated guess at best. Having said that, this isn't all that bad a result for Ciro Rodriguez. A win is definitely within reach.
If you want to help with that, you can get involved with blockwalking, online phonebanking, or just volunteer or contribute.
Otherwise, as BOR notes, there's still some pending action by the Justice Department that may wind up pushing Election Day back a week, though it seems unlikely at this time. And finally, South Texas Chisme and The Stakeholder remind us that way back when nanny problems were all the rage, Henry Bonilla was in on the action.
I think we can all agree that the 2006 strategy among the powers that be among Texas Democrats, which was to focus on the State Legislature while largely ignoring the statewide races, was a success on its own terms. Dems have six more seats in the Lege than at the start of the 2005 session, and no Dem-held seat was lost. All well and good.
What I hope is as we plan to finally make that statewide push in 2010, we do another round of warmups and infrastructure-building in 2008 by putting some of the money that won't be needed for statewide races that year into Congressional races. I can't do a full analysis of most of the races from this year that interest me until the Secretary of State puts out its complete set of precinct data, but doing what I can with the county results suggests to me that there will be several opportunities for competitive races if a good candidate can be found (in many cases, the same candidate as this year would be fine) and - most importantly - those candidates get properly funded from the get go. There just wasn't enough of that this year, and I believe the effect of that is visible in the data.
While everyone will agree that 2006 was a great year for Democrats nationally, it's not clear how much of that effect spilled over into Texas. The day after Election Day I attended a panel discussion of the results, at which Ted Delisis opined that Texas has tended to lag two years behind the rest of the country in public opinion; in the case of this election, he said it was because George Bush is still fairly well liked here. I believe Bush will be much more of a non-factor in 2008, and I think that will help the Dems more than it did this year.
There's another thing to consider, and that's Iraq, which to my mind did not play a large role in Texas in 2006, certainly not as big as it did elsewhere. For sure, various Dems from Ankrum to Harrell and Henley to Harris et al made it a focal point of their campaigns, but getting back to my first point, they largely didn't have the resources to really force the issue. In 2008, I don't think the situation in Iraq is going to be any better than it is today, and I think the Texas Congressional Republicans, who were some of the largest cheerleaders for this war, will have to face up to some of their words and actions. Either they'll be stuck with the same stale "stay the course" rhetoric, or they'll be forced to explain why after all this time and all this bloodshed they've changed their minds.
You may say that thanks to the DeLay gerrymander, no Texas Republican (outside of Henry Bonilla, of course) is in any danger. I say the results from this year show not only that the gap isn't quite as wide as you might think in many districts, but as CQ Politics showed in its survey of races around the country where Democrats knocked off Republican incumbents, past election results are not always a good predictor, at least in a year where things favor one party. Consider these quotes:
"McNerney garnered just 40 percent of the vote in a 2004 challenge to Pombo, and began his rematch bid this year as a distinct underdog in this Republican-leaning district..."
"Shaw over the years had won, often by wide margins, in Democratic-leaning areas."
"Chocola won a second term in 2004 by a 10-point margin over Donnelly, and district voters that year gave Bush a 13-point edge over Kerry."
"Boyda’s prospects in this rematch initially were not seen as that promising, based on the results of her 2004 run against Ryun in which she lost by 15 points. The 2nd is also one of the more Republican-leaning districts picked up by the Democrats this year, having favored Bush by 20 points two years ago."
"Just two years earlier, [Northrup] had run way ahead of Bush, piling up a career-high 60 percent of the vote after a series of much closer races."
"Gutknecht, in his past two contests, had garnered 60 percent in 2004 and 62 percent in 2002."
"Bass’ most recent victim at the polls was Hodes, who lost an initial challenge two years earlier by a 20-point margin."
"[Gillibrand] had to overcome a perception that she was a longshot in an upper Hudson Valley district that gave 53 percent to Bush in 2004 and elected Sweeney to a fourth term that year with 66 percent over a much weaker opponent."
"[Weldon] was able to tout his senior position on the Armed Services Committee, and he easily exceeded Bush two years ago by winning with 59 percent."
I'm just saying, as Jonathan Krasno did, that there's more to it than district boundaries.
What might mitigate against this possibility for Democrats? Given that I think a continued disintegration of Iraq is inevitable, I can think of two things. One is that the Democratic Congress will be perceived, justly or not, as having done a bad job since becoming the majority. If there's a national perception that "they're no better than those bums we just threw out", then all bets are off. I think there will be enough opportunities to provide oversight to keep the focus on Bush and the Republican Congressional practices, but it's folly to think that they can't misplay their hand, or that the GOP won't do everything in its power to make them look bad. So while I believe the atmosphere in Texas will be good for Democratic Congressional challengers in 2008, it's certainly not guaranteed.
The other thing, of course, is the Democratic Presidential nominee. For better or worse, having Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket will be welcomed by Republicans around here a lot more than by Democrats. On the other hand, we may get Barack Obama instead, and I daresay that would be considered good news by any Democratic hopeful. I think Kos is right when he says that if Obama runs for the nomination, he wins it. If it's someone else, we'll just have to see how it plays.
Bottom line: If the people who brought us this year's strategy are serious about making statewide races a priority in 2010, I say they need to target Congressional races in 2008. I hope they see it that way as well. I'll have more to say about some of the 2006 Congressional race results in the coming days, as I keep working through the precinct data analyses.
BOR has done a series of posts on how the Dems made gains in this last election cycle. The latest entry gives props to the least well known of the factors, the House Democratic Campaign Committee, or HDCC. Check it out.
Christof notes that the much-derided Trans Texas Corridor is the subject of a fawning (and, not surprisingly, deceptive) billboard in Midtown. I'll leave the fact checking to Christof, but the very existence of such a thing raises an obvious question: Why is there such a billboard, in Houston (where the TTC is not going to be, at least not any time soon) of all places, right now? The TTC was an issue in the November elections, but that's over and the pro-TTC candidates won. So why is this thing being sold now?
Best guess I can come up with is the expectation that there will be a serious effort in the Lege to roll back the TTC in some substantive way. Offhand, I'm not aware of any major legislation that's been pre-filed to do this, but there's so many bills out there that it's possible something is lurking. The issue is getting some more mainstream press attention - Paul Burka's column in the current Texas Monthly (reprinted here) concludes by saying that if there is no oversight added to the TTC as it now stands, "we are headed for the worst public policy fiasco in my lifetime". This may be part of a PR effort to head off such thinking.
Anyway. Whatever the reason, the timing and location of this billboard is still curious. What do you think?
As you can see, the sliding floor has slid. With that, the action has moved around back, to the south end of the warehouse. Click on for more.
First, here's a closer look at the formerly sliding floor. The roof is still there, but what's underneath it is mostly gone.
Here's where the action is now. I suspect they'll be at this for a few days. I'm not sure what their algorithm is for this; maybe they'll work their way back to the Allen Parkway side of things from here? We'll see.
This is the view immediately south of the warehouse. I took this picture from the same spot as the one above, I just turned to the south to get this view. I don't know if this empty lot, which runs all the way to West Dallas, is a part of the Ismaeli Center, or if it will be developed into something else. We may not know the answer to that for awhile.
Vince has put together a Best and Worst of 2006 survey that's worth checking out. I just finished filling in my responses - click on the More link to see what I entered., or click here to see PDiddie's.
1. Texas' candidates this year had a lot to say. What was your favorite "soundbite?" (A soundbite is something a candidate repeated frequently or something a candidate said only once that you felt was particularly memorable).
I don't have a favorite, so I'll go for memorableness. I hate to say this, and I know Muse is going to kill me, but the "Vote Twice For Shelley" jingle was extremely effective as an earworm. If you can't forget something no matter how hard you try, it qualifies as memorable to me.
2. What Texas candidate do you believe had the best website this election cycle?
Chris Bell
3. Of all the political commercials that ran in Texas this cycle, which one do you believe was the best commercial that exhibited a candidate or campaign in a positive light?
4. What do you think was the best negative political advertisement of the 2006 election cycle?
The whole "Real Men of Genius" thing is getting overworked in the way that the MasterCard "Priceless" thing has been, but Rick Perry's use of it was still pretty good.
5. What do you believe was the worst TV or radio commercial by any candidate this election cycle?
Martha Wong's "Ellen Cohen Is Canadian!" ad was, hands down, the worst political ad I've ever seen.
6. From Chris Bell's use of the governor's mansion electric bill to Fred Head's use of Susan Comb's steamy romance novel, candidates up and down the ballot had some unique attention getting techniques this cycle. Which one was your favorite?
Shelley Sekula Gibbs' flagrant abuse of the color pink.
7. What race do you believe represented the biggest upset of 2006? (Primary or General election).
Joe Heflin's holding HD85 for the Democrats. Pete Laney said he'd do it, Carolyn Boyle said he'd do it, and I just couldn't bring myself to believe it. Well, I believe it now.
8. What do you think was the best political news story of 2006?
ParentPAC's emergence on the scene and their amazing success right out of the gate.
9. What do you believe was the worst gaffe by a political candidate this election cycle?
Gene Seamon blaming CondoGate on his wife.
10. What, during the course of 2006, do you believe was the most overrated thing when it came to Texas politics? (It can be a candidate, a group, a story, anything!)
"Only Carole Keeton Strayhorn can beat Rick Perry!"
11. If you had the chance to name one Texas politician the "Biggest Political Prostitute Of 2006," what candidate would you give that title to?
Tom DeLay (Lifetime Achievement Award)
12. Of all the political news and events of 2006, what (or who) do you believe was the biggest political 'bomb' of the year?
Kinky Friedman. Much ado about nothing.
13. What's the dumbest statement a politician uttered this election cycle?
"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great," Allen said, as his supporters began to laugh. After saying that Webb was raising money in California with a "bunch of Hollywood movie moguls," Allen said, "Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Allen then began talking about the "war on terror."
I know this is supposed to be about Texas, but that was dumber than anything said here.
14. What Texas newspaper, reporter, television station, etc., do you believe had the best overall political news coverage in 2006?
15. What Mainstream Media Outlet do you believe had the worst political news coverage for 2006?
No selection
16. What Texas blog do you believe is the best Texas Politics blog on the web? (Note: you cannot vote for Capitol Annex).
I have too many favorites, so I'll pass on this.
17. What Texas politics blog covering a specific region (i.e. San Antonio, Fort Bend County, Harris County, etc.) was the 'best' in 2006?
Here I'll give props to the Fort Bend crowd - Muse, Hal, Juanita, Bryan, Fred, and Mark.
18. Don't lie: you know you read Texas Republican blogs, too...just to know what the other side is saying. Which Texas right-wing Republican blog is your favorite?
Juanita, a/k/a Susan DuQuesnay Bankston, the proprietor of the World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, has herself a spiffy new home. She still refuses to call it a "blog", but we're working on her about that. Update your bookmarks accordingly.
Via Saint Arnold Goes To Austin, this amusing description of Houston geography from USA Today:
Located in downtown Houston, this highly regarded beermaker is named after the seventh-century French Catholic bishop who admonished his flock that suds were safer than drinking water, thus earning him the moniker Patron Saint of Brewers. "The tasting area has Oktoberfest-like picnic tables - plus something I treasure, a great tasting glass," Kuderka says. The Elissa brand makes a great starter.
Emphasis mine. In case you've never been, here is where the brewery actually is. 'Nuff said.
I should note that the article in question is about the best breweries in America to visit. On that score, we agree. Though the brewery tours are sadly no longer free, they're still a great value. Definitely worth it, and frankly now that the crowds may be a bit thinner, it's probably a better experience overall. (Yes, it's been too long since I've been. I may need to rectify that soon.)
Two years ago, I noted a student-led effort at the University of Texas-Arlington to revive that school's long-dormant football program. Now, via Marc, I see they're still at it.
Sam deBerry had hoped hundreds of people would march to bring football back to the University of Texas at Arlington, but about 70 turned out for a noon rally Wednesday."It speaks volumes of where we are as a school," deBerry said. "If any other campus had a rally, they would have had thousands of students. We have very little school spirit."
The Mavericks for Football Now and other students, many in T-shirts emblazoned with the words, "Got football? (we don't)" walked with deBerry from the University Center Mall to Davis Hall, where the university president's office is housed.
"What do we want?" deBerry yelled through a bullhorn.
"Football," the small crowd of football activists yelled back.
DeBerry started the group this year to attempt what no one has been able to do, bring a football team back to UT-Arlington. The program was disbanded after the 1985 season.
Armed with a petition with about 3,000 signatures and a booming voice emanating from a bullhorn, deBerry asked James Spaniolo to come outside.
"Mr. President, your student body would like a word with you," deBerry said.
[...]
One student who did not want to be identified asked deBerry why he would want football when barely anyone turns out to watch the basketball team, which plays in an auditorium.
Somewhat dejected, deBerry and other members of the group folded up their large "WE WANT FOOTBALL" banners and walked away.
The movement will continue, deBerry said. The group is forming a club football team to play in the Texas United Football League and will begin a $20 million pledge drive after the new year.
"We fight the good fight. We won't rest until we bring football to UTA," he said.
Seems pretty quixotic to me, but I wish them luck anyway. Marc, who has a longtime connection to UTA, gives some good comments about the matter. Check it out.
I received the following email from Rad Sallee, which was copied to James Campbell, regarding my question about the Richmond Rail Effect story:
FYI, I sent this to reader rep James Campbell to post online at his discretion:Although I knew that Mr. Kuffner, and Christof Spieler as well, had posted similar analyses on their blogs, we did our own work and made no use of anyone else's. This is no different from doing a story on a traffic accident that someone else has reported.
Assistant City Editor Don Mason and I were discussing the story as soon as the election night results were in. When the county clerk posted the canvass report online, I got started.
I wish the story had run earlier. It was edited and essentially ready to go on Sunday, Nov. 26 (it was on the blogs before then), but Rep. Wong had not been reachable and some questions about the percentages surfaced just before the Sunday copy deadline.
Knowing that the story would be picked over by both sides, and wanting to give Rep. Wong a say (which she later declined) we acted out an abundance of caution and held it a week.
Rad
So there you have it. On to other matters.
Continuing with my series of reports on how Harris County candidates did this year, I'd like to focus on three State Rep candidates who clearly exceeded the baseline Democratic performance of their districts.
We'll start in HD129, where Sherrie Matula provided John Davis' first Democratic challenge since 1998, an election that Davis won with over 70% of the vote.
Matula Pct SW Avg SW Pct CW Avg CW Pct
===============================================
14,379 42.31 +3,037 +7.80 +1,189 +4.76
Matula garnered slightly more than 3000 votes over the average Democratic statewide candidate, and nearly 1200 votes more than the average Democratic countywide candidate. She ran nearly eight points better than the statewides, and nearly five points better than the countywides. She was the second best votegetter among Democrats, trailing only Nick Lampson, while Davis lagged behind everyone except Elsie Alcala and Don Willet, each of whom he exceeded by fewer than 70 tallies.
It should be noted that this district was about as red as it was in 2004, when it was basically a two-to-one GOP area. The high Democratic score then was Kathy Stone's 35%. The baseline, which clocked in at 37.55% for county candidates, clearly inched up some, to which I'd credit Lampson and Matula, a little bit of demographics, and the overall climate. Everything Matula accomplished was done on a miniscule budget. She worked this the old fashioned way, by being everywhere and talking to everyone. In a higher turnout year, with a real campaign warchest, who knows what might happen? Among other things, Davis is rumored to be looking at SD11, where incumbent Mike Jackson is rumored to be retiring. This is a district that won't look terribly competitive based on the raw numbers, but should be treated as though it is for Matula's expected second go-round. It's definitely within range.
Next up is someone with whom we're already pretty familiar, Ellen Cohen.
Cohen Pct SW Avg SW Pct CW Avg CW Pct
===============================================
25,180 55.75 +5,545 +9.86 +4,743 +7.33
It's nearly impossible to overstate Cohen's dominance in this race. By my count, she won four precincts in which no other Democrat achieved a majority; she ran at least 9 points better than the combined average percentage in those precincts, including one (Precinct 87), which she won by eight votes, in which the baseline Dem performance was 36.9%. Cohen would have won HDs 138 and 144 had she performed at this level in them.
The thing to keep in mind with Cohen is that even with her big bucks, and even with Martha Wong's godawful campaign, she still had to be at least an above average candidate to win. HD134 is still Republican turf, even if it's less so than it once was. As I said before, of the 29 candidates who were on the ballot everywhere in HD134 (*), only six Democrats carried it (Henley, Moody, Sharp, Green, and R. Garcia being the other five; Matula's level of performance would have been more than enough to win as well). Cohen made it look easy, but don't let that fool you. She worked for it, and she earned it. Though I expect the Republicans to mount a serious challenge to her in 2008, I think this seat is hers for as long as she respects and votes the district.
And as good as Ellen Cohen was, she still wasn't the top performer in Harris County. That honor goes to Diane Trautman in HD127.
Trautman Pct SW Avg SW Pct CW Avg CW Pct
=================================================
14,297 40.78 +4,200 +11.36 +3,303 +8.53
Trautman was five and a half points better than the next strongest Democrat in this district. Seven Democrats failed to crack 30% there. She had at least 2000 more votes than any other Democrat, and exceeded most people by at least 3000. That's an awful lot of ballots on which she was the only Democrat.
Another way of looking at it is this: Trautman lost this deep red district by 6,461 votes. There were 11,265 straight-ticket Republican ballots cast, and 5,210 straight-ticket Dem ballots, meaning that straight-ticket voting accounts for all but 406 votes of her deficit. Everybody else lost by at least 10,000 votes, meaning they lost the non-straight-party voters by at least 4000. Given that there were about 20,000 non-straight-ticket ballots, that means she ran close to even where everyone else was losing at least 60-40. Any way you approach it, what she did was just mind-boggling. Oh, and she would have won HDs 133, 134, 138, and 144 at this level of performance.
As with Matula and HD129, this is a district that has no right to be competitive. It too saw its Democratic performance tick up a bit, but given that it was at about 28% in 2004, it's hard to imagine otherwise. Still, it did increase by about four points at the county level, and I can't help but think that Trautman was a big part of that. Unlike Matula and Cohen, it's not known yet if she'll try again in 2008. Joe Crabb has also had retirement rumors surround him for awhile; given how much he's disliked, that may not be a good thing from a Democratic campaign perspective. Frankly, I could make a pretty good case for Trautman to try a different race, one that would be a bit more winnable - City Council District E leaps to mind, as Addie Wiseman is term-limited. Hell, she'd probably give Ted Poe or State Sen. Tommy Williams a good run for their money. Whatever she tries, if she does decide to have another go, she'll be formidable.
Next up: The targets for 2008.
(*) - As is my habit with these analyses, I'm excluding the four-headed Governor's race from consideration, as it's too weird to add much of value. That said, Chris Bell was the high votegetter among the gubernatorials in HD134 - he got 36.5% of the vote there to Rick Perry's 32.8%, with Strayhorn (17.3) and Friedman (13.3) much farther back.
There seems to be some confusion about what I was trying to show with my posts on the Richmond Rail Effect from this past election. I think way more is being made about what I said and what the data says than I intended. Let me try to clear this up.
My thesis was very simple: Would John Culberson's vehement anti-Richmond rail stance help him in the precincts that immediately surround the affected stretch of Richmond Ave? Rich Connelly summed up what I was looking for in his Houston Press article on Jim Henley:
Usually [the inner-loop neighborhoods along Richmond] could be relied on for some Democratic support, but they are mightily pissed at Metro for trying to build a light-rail line through their neighborhoods. Culberson has made clear he agrees with them, and if reelected he'd be a formidable ally for the residents.
In other words, much of the area right around Richmond, especially in Montrose, is Democratic. Under normal circumstances, Culberson would expect to do poorly in them. The one thing that might change this dynamic is a hyperlocal issue that directly affects the people living there - the proposed construction of a light rail line on Richmond Avenue.
So imagine you're a typical Montrose liberal who happens to oppose rail on Richmond. Normally, you'd support Jim Henley against John Culberson because Henley is more in tune with your general belief system. But not this year. This year, you don't care about Iraq or immigration or gay marriage or the culture of corruption or any of those other things. This year, you will break out of your normal habit of pushing the Democratic button, at least in this election (and maybe one other), because you care more about that damned light rail line than you do about those other things, and you know that Culberson has promised to do everything in his not-inconsiderable power to keep it out of your front yard. It's as simple as that.
And that's what I was looking for in the data - any evidence that the normal partisan preference for those areas might have changed this year, in this election. If so - if Culberson had gained support in places like the liberal Montrose precincts - I would have concluded that his vocal anti-Richmond rail stance had won over people who would not otherwise be inclined to vote for him. I'd come to that conclusion because what else could explain it? Nothing that I can think of.
The rest you already know. There is no evidence in the precinct data to support the idea that being anti-Richmond rail moved votes into Culberson's column. He lost support in every precinct surrounding Richmond except for Afton Oaks. He lost votes overall in the surrounding area. He underperformed relative to other Republicans in those precincts, meaning that it wasn't the case that it was just the bad year for the GOP that did him in. He even lost support in the precincts along Westpark, just as he lost support along Richmond. In short, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that being anti-rail on Richmond was a winning issue for Culberson. Which is what I've been saying all along.
As for Martha Wong, I'd agree that the Richmond rail issue was not as big a deal in her campaign as it was in Culberson's. But her position was no secret:
Houston Chronicle, February 17:
Some 350 people arrived in cars, buses and light rail trains Thursday to hear 28 of them advise the Metro board on whether its planned University line should go on Richmond Avenue.[...]
State Rep. Martha Wong, one of five elected officials who spoke, also favored Westpark. Wong said many small businesses on Richmond would suffer while Westpark has relatively few to be affected.
"We voted on it to go down Westpark, and we feel you ought to follow the vote," said Wong, R-Houston.
Houston Chronicle, March 16:
Opponents of a Metro light rail line being considered for Richmond Avenue found no allies in their fight to reroute the line to Westpark Drive at West University Place's City Council meeting Monday.State Rep. Martha Wong, R-District 134, and a small contingent of business owners and stakeholders trying to stop Metro from placing its University Line project along Richmond Avenue appeared before the council to gauge the city's interest in joining them in their effort to route the line on Westpark.
Houston Chronicle, August 17:
[West University] Council voted unanimously to support the Metro Solutions Transit Plan to construct the University Corridor light rail line along Richmond Avenue, a topic that has been emotionally debated, particularly by southeast residents.[...]
[Council member Mike] Woods criticized state Rep. Martha Wong, R-Houston, saying he feels Wong's apparent support of a Westpark rail alignment does not represent the interests of West University.
"In the spring, she came before council stating her support for a Westpark line and asking for ours," he said. "I don't feel that rail on the Westpark side is in the best interest of Greater Houston. Rail is a regional issue, and the discomfort to immediate areas during construction is unfortunate but inevitable to the success of an effective rail system."
Houston Chronicle, September 22:
On another issue during the debate, Cohen deflected a question about whether Metro's University light rail line should run on Richmond, saying that the Legislature has nothing to do with Metro.Wong reproached Cohen, saying the Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973.
And finally, Blue Bayou related a conversation between Wong and one of her constituents, who favored rail on Richmond.
Basically, anyone who paid any attention to the issues in this affluent, educated, well-informed district knew who stood where. And again, if there was any propensity for voters to override their normal preferences based on opposition to rail on Richmond, it simply does not show up in the precinct data. Wong did worse than Culberson in these areas. And again, as before, I can't say that being against rail on Richmond cost Wong votes, but I can and do say that it did not gain her any.
I hope this clears things up. Any questions, let me know.
One of Olivia's current favorite books is a well-loved copy of Happiness Is A Warm Puppy that belonged to me as a kid. I was reading it to her yesterday, and when we finished, I asked her "So, Olivia, what makes you happy?" She gave her answer without hesitation - "Chocolate cake!" She is sooooo her mother's daughter...
I think a story like that deserves a picture, don't you? Here's Olivia doing another of her favorite things: decorating the Christmas tree.
And here's her favorite ornament:
Yes, that's a genuine Derek Jeter Christmas ornament, given to me by my excellent mother-in-law. Olivia loves loves loves the Derek Jeter ornament. Okay, so maybe she's a little bit my daughter, too.
My fellow Stuyvesant graduate Ed Muir has a post on the NCLB blog about the state of school buildings in America today.
What we found was sobering, but not surprising. Although many schools are properly maintained and in good condition, far too many are not, The Society of Civil Engineers, for example, gave America's schools a "D" grade for quality of infrastructure.This issue has direct educational and health consequences for kids. For example, poor acoustics and indoor air quality hurt performance in the classroom. Mold and improper ventilation are linked to respiratory troubles such as asthma. Schools with poor facilities have higher teacher turnover, which also directly affects student learning.
AFT is advocating for new investments in school construction and rehabilitation. We're also calling for changes in how schools are built. We're asking AFT members across the country to join this effort by checking out this part of the AFT website, which includes links to our report and others on this topic, video and lots of pictures of schools. It also gives parents and school staff the chance to take our online survey and has information on how they can help with the campaign. And if the school you work in is in disrepair, please send us a photo at psrp@aft.org. We'll be updating the site and using these photos in our campaign.
We've asked some of our favorite teachers who blog to post on how the quality of the facility they work in affects their interaction with kids. We'll be linking to them on Monday.
Our thanks go out to our fellow bloggers for taking the time to weigh in on this issue because, as one teacher in Guam put it: "I believe learning is affected when it rains in the room."
Yes, I imagine that would affect my ability to pay attention as well. I'll check back and link to some of the more interesting stories later. In the meantime, I know I've got some teachers, teacher's spouses, and other folks associated with education in my readership. If you've got a story to tell or a picture to share, go ahead and send it to psrp@aft.org and let them know about it. Thanks.
And as long as I'm citing Debutant, I'd like to thank her for reminding me that this is the time of year when all the naked calendars for good causes get released and publicized. Here's one by a group of LiveJournalers, who are banding together to help one of their own with Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Take a look and maybe buy yourself a copy. You need a calendar, right?
Or you could try the 2007 version of the Austin musicians' naked calendar, this time benefitting the Austin Children of Musicians, Artists and Writers Fund, which according to cover girl Idgy Vaughn is "a stopgap organization providing emergency relief funds for rent, food, and medicine". As with last year's version, I spotted this at the Mucky Duck while there to buy tickets to a show. Those of you who followed the show "Rock Star Supernova" will be interested to know that Patrice Pike is the featured model for December. Again, you need a calendar, right? Now you have some good choices and can support some good causes. Check 'em out.
I meant to do this last week but didn't manage it. It's been a year and a month since Debutant was diagnosed with cancer. She's free of it now, but there are still plenty of ups and downs. She could use a little positive reinforcement. Be a mensch and go say Hi. Thanks.
Via The Muse, this week will be Shelley's last in Congress. And to think, she never got to reform Medicare or cut anyone's taxes. Hardly seems worth the effort to have elected her in the first place, does it?
I have four things to say about this Chron article regarding the Richmond rail issue and its possible effects on the Wong-Cohen race:
1. I covered this exact topic more than two weeks ago, both here and at Kuff's World.
2. I have sent an email to Rad Sallee and James Campbell pointing this out and asking why my work was not acknowledged. I will print any response I get.
3. The story contains two factual matters that need to be addressed:
Wong ran stronger in boxes farther west. In Precinct 233, which includes the Greenway Plaza complex, Cohen had only a narrow majority. This is one of several locations where Metro could cross the line over from Richmond to Westpark.And Wong swamped Cohen with 62 percent of the vote in precincts 177 and 178, which include Afton Oaks and adjoining Highland Village. Afton Oaks residents have led opposition to the Richmond route.
All of this is true. It also fails to mention that Wong had carried Precinct 233 in 2004 (as Culberson did in both 2004 and 2006), and that Wong lost support in boxes 177 and 178 when compared to 2004 (64.89% in '04 versus 59.07% in '06 for Wong in 177, 67.24% and 66.27% in 178). In fact, Wong lost support in every single precinct that contains Richmond Ave from 2004 to 2006. There is no "other hand" for her here.
Daphne Scarbrough, a leader of the Richmond Avenue Coalition, which opposes rail there, said she thinks the issue played little if any role in Wong's defeat."Our area is much more Democratic than it is Republican," said Scarbrough, who owns and lives above a metal arts shop on Richmond near Shepherd.
If by "our area", Scarbrough means "the precincts east of Kirby that include Richmond", then Scarborough is right. That's definitely Democratic turf. However, if she meant all of HD134 (which is my interpretation), then she's wrong. The average Democratic statewide candidate got 54.89% in HD134, and the average Democratic countywide candidate got 48.42%. Only six Democrats - Jim Henley, Bill Moody, Jim Sharp, Mary Kay Green, Richard Garcia, and Cohen - got a majority of the vote there. That makes HD134 less Republican than it was in 2004 and 2002, but still Republican overall.
4. Finally, short of exit polling, you can't really say that rail was a factor in Wong's defeat. It wasn't that big a theme in the campaign - education, health care, and the gay marriage amendment were all more dominant. What you can say, what I did say about Culberson as well, was that being anti-Richmond rail did not help Wong. She did not pick up any support in the areas that would be inclined to vote for Cohen based on other issues; in fact, as noted, she lost support everywhere, including in the one precinct where anti-Richmond sentiment was strongest. Being anti-Richmond rail may or may not have cost Martha Wong votes, but it sure didn't help her gain any votes.
Having said that, these paragraphs don't make sense to me:
Hot opposition to rail on Richmond flared red in the Nov. 7 election, but a Houston Chronicle analysis of the vote suggests that outside the most vocal neighborhoods the passion drops off.[...]
Wong first won the District 134 seat in 2002 and held it in 2004, but this time she lost by 12 percentage points despite the district's Republican-leaning history. In the district's seven precincts that include or border Richmond, Cohen drew 59 percent of the vote and Wong 38 percent, with the remainder going to a Libertarian candidate.
In 2004, Wong took 45 percent in those same precincts, which run from Graustark to the West Loop. Although some of the precincts extend north to Westheimer, all of their voters live less than a mile from Richmond and most are much closer.
The problem with this is that paragraph 1 implies that there was some kind of anti-Richmond rail effect that was visible in the returns from the precincts close to Richmond Ave, when as we've already seen what there was specifically contradicts that, which those subsequent paragraphs acknowledge. The story is very simple: Being anti-Richmond rail did not help Martha Wong. It may or may not have hurt her, but it did not help her. Period.
Now we'll see what feedback I get from the Chron. Stay tuned.
Let me first state that I don't really care who will face Ohio State for the BCS championship in January. I don't care if it's Florida or Oklahoma or any other arbitrary opponent. As you know, I support a playoff. Stuff like this just demonstrates why.
The one thing I do care about is that it not be an Ohio State-Michigan rematch. Not because I think Michigan isn't one of the top teams this year, or because I think it would be unfair to any of OSU's other potential potential opponents. No, it's because I think it would be unfair to Ohio State. I look at it this way: A rematch means that OSU has to beat Michigan twice in order to be national champs. Michigan would only have to achieve a split for the same end. To my way of thinking, that ain't right. It effectively renders the original OSU-Michigan game moot. If this was going to happen, the Big Ten would have done the world a favor by un-scheduling OSU-Michigan once it became clear they were #s 1 and 2, and letting it all happen in January instead. At least then it could have legitimately been a winner-take-all affair.
Now I know that in any meaningful playoff setup, OSU and Michigan might have met again, including possibly in a title game. But in that scenario, Michigan would have had to beat other teams to get there, and if the system gave emphasis to conference champions they would have had to overcome a low seed as well. None of that would be the case here, and I can't abide the idea that going one-and-one against a team is good enough to determine who deserves a better ranking. If we want to talk about making this a best two-of-three, with OSU leading one to zero, then I'll listen. Otherwise, forget it. I say anybody-but-Michigan, or else the BCS will have found a new way to be meaningless.
UPDATE: It's Florida. Fine by me. Let the whining and recriminations begin!
The following email was sent by Chris Bell, who as you know was once an At Large City Council member in Houston, to each current member of City Council:
Dear Members of Houston City Council:Please consider the message that will be sent if At Large Position 3 is allowed to remain vacant for over a year: "The seat is meaningless so it doesn't need to be filled." Do you consider your seat on City Council meaningless? I doubt it seriously and therefore you should do everything in your power to make sure At Large Position 3 is filled as quickly as possible.
Of course it's unfortunate the situation wasn't handled differently and that such an expensive special election could not have been avoided. Would I rather see three or four million dollars spent in my neighborhood than on a special election? Certainly. But more than anything else, I want to see Houston's system of government protected and if you start treating seats on City Council as meaningless, the system will be destroyed.
Please speak out and do everything you can to get Mayor White to move forward with calling the special election in accordance with current law. It's the right thing to do. Thank you.
Chris Bell
I agree. The money is not as important as the principle. It sucks that various political shenanigans have put the city in this position, but the law is the law, and it should be followed. I'm willing to support an effort to modify that law for the next time this happens, but we're stuck with it for now. Mayor White, please reconsider your decision.
The perjury conviction against former undercover officer Tom Coleman, the central figure of the Tulia drug bust fiasco, was upheld last week.
The Texas 7th Court of Appeals, in an opinion issued Monday, upheld the aggravated perjury conviction against the undercover agent involved in the infamous Tulia drug sting.Tom Coleman, in his appeal to the court, raised five points of error in his conviction. All five points were overruled by the 7th Court of Appeals, according to court records.
[...]
In his appeal, Coleman argued that the attorneys representing the state at his trial - attorneys Rod Hobson and John Nation were appointed as special prosecutors in the case - did not have the authority to represent the state at trial, a contention the appeals court overruled.
Coleman also argued that the trial court "erroneously" admitted court reporter record excerpts from the 2003 hearing during his trial, but the appeals court found that he presented "no basis for a conclusion the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the reporter's record excerpts from the (hearing.)"
Other points of error Coleman alleged included that the court improperly defined terms for his aggravated perjury charge and that the charge listed the wrong day his perjury occurred. Coleman also challenged the evidence that established the relevance of his false statement.
Good. May he rot in jail. Link via Grits, who has a good summary of what has happened since the Tulia story first broke.
The Robinson Warehouse demolition just keeps rolling along. Since Wednesday, the main feature here is the imminent destruction of that third floor area, which thanks to the removal of the second floor appears to be sliding forward into the pit beneath it. As I took these pictures, the wrecking ball was working on one of the support columns holding that piece up. If they're working over the weekend, I'd expect this to be gone by Monday.
Click on for more.
Here you can see the wrecking ball in action. That column it's bashing is not long for this world.
Here's a view of the front facade from the southeast corner at Montrose and Allen Parkway.
Not much change here from the last time.
Another view of the front. I wonder if this will be next to go, or if they'll work their way back and save this for last.
I suppose it was just a matter of time.
Jeff Skilling, Andy Fastow and the rest of the Enron gang will have a new home very soon.No, not prison. The stage.
Enron - the Musical makes its world premiere tonight at Lambert Hall, where it will play for two weekends.
Unlike its high-flying, glitzy subject matter, the musical is a shoestring operation. Its performances will take place on the set of the current children's show Santa's Magic Timepiece. With his best Mickey Rooney "we're putting on a show" enthusiasm, producer/writer/director Mark Fraser insists that backdrop will work just fine.
Fraser, who earns his living as a manufacturers' representative, wrote the show's lyrics, too - but not the music. The show uses that favorite device of revues, comedy clubs and piano bars: parody lyrics attached to familiar show tunes.
Enron opens as the staff of accounting giant Arthur Andersen follows an alert from Enron to destroy all evidence. David Duncan, a lawyer at Andersen, croons The Sound of Shredding (to the tune of The Sound of Music).
At the peak of his power, Skilling sings (to the tune of Springtime for Hitler), "Springtime for Skilling and Enron stock!"
To the tune of Thank Heaven for Little Girls, Fastow and henchman Michael Kopper sing:
Thank heaven for off-book dealsFor off-book deals improve our balance sheet ...
They raised our stock and fooled folks on Wall Street
Those partnerships we set up were appealing
But now they're not 'cause we got caught for fraud and stealing.
And so it goes, through such ditties as How Do You Solve a Problem Like Jeff Skilling?, 76 Indictments ("came down today / with 110 execs out on bail") and Get Me to the Court on Time.
Sounds like something Mort Drucker might have cooked up for MAD Magazine, not that there's anything wrong with that. For sure, this can't be any worse than The Crooked E. It's just running this weekend and next, though, so if this appeals to you, hop to it.
All right, enough with the politics and environment and stuff. Let's talk about truly important matters: the 100 greatest television catchphrases, according to the folks at TVLand.
The TV Land cable network has compiled a list of the 100 greatest catchphrases in TV, from the serious - Walter Cronkite's nightly signoff "And that's the way it is" - to the silly: "We are two wild and crazy guys!"The network will air a countdown special, The 100 Greatest TV Quotes & Catch Phrases, over five days starting Dec. 11.
"We have found that television is such a huge part of baby boomers' DNA that it makes sense that so much of America's pop culture jargon has come from TV," said Larry Jones, TV Land president.
The greatest number of moments, 26, come from the 1970s. TV Land identified nine moments from this decade. Ten are from commercials, and 28 from comedies, including six from Saturday Night Live.
Couple of points here:
- I don't care if they were moments that occurred on television, quotes that came from current events should not be on this list. I'm speaking of things like "Ask not what your country can do for you ..." and "One small step for man ..." and the like. To me, TV catch phrases should be associated with TV shows and ads. I'll give a dispensation for sporting events ("Do you believe in miracles?") and Walter Cronkite, but I draw the line at the actual news.
- Again, to me, for a catchphrase to qualify here, it should be sufficiently steeped in the popular culture that someone who has never seen the show or ad in question recognizes the quote and understands the context. That may discriminate against newer shows, but in the case of quotes like "Suit up!" from "How I Met Your Mother", I call that no great loss.
- They really could have mined "Saturday Night Live" and "Seinfeld" for a lot more than they did. I cannot believe that neither "Not that there's anything wrong with that" and "Master of my domain" were included.
- Having said all this, and bearing in mind that such things are always highly subjective, this is not a bad list. Quite a few of these will bring back vivid memories for most of us whose formative years were the 70s and 80s.
As TVLand.com does not provide the actual list, I'll reproduce it below from the Chron story for posterity. Click on to see what they've got, and tune in if this interests you enough to hear the backstories.
- "Aaay" (Fonzie, Happy Days)
- "And that's the way it is" (Walter Cronkite, CBS Evening News)
- "Ask not what your country can do for you ..." (John F. Kennedy)
- "Baby, you're the greatest" (Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden, The Honeymooners)
- "Bam!" (Emeril Lagasse, Emeril Live)
- "Book 'em, Danno" (Steve McGarrett, Hawaii Five-O)
- "Come on down!" (Johnny Olson, The Price is Right)
- "Danger, Will Robinson" (Robot, Lost in Space)
- "De plane! De plane!" (Tattoo, Fantasy Island)
- "Denny Crane" (Denny Crane, Boston Legal)
- "Do you believe in miracles?" (Al Michaels, 1980 Winter Olympics)
- "D'oh!" (Homer Simpson, The Simpsons)
- "Don't make me angry ..." (David Banner, The Incredible Hulk)
- "Dyn-o-mite" (J.J., Good Times)
- "Elizabeth, I'm coming!" (Fred Sanford, Sanford and Son)
- "Gee, Mrs. Cleaver ..." (Eddie Haskell, Leave it to Beaver)
- "God'll get you for that" (Maude, Maude)
- "Good grief" (Charlie Brown, Peanuts specials)
- "Good night, and good luck" (Edward R. Murrow, See It Now)
- "Good night, John Boy" (The Waltons)
- "Have you no sense of decency?" (Joseph Welch to Sen. McCarthy)
- "Heh heh" (Beavis and Butt-head, Beavis and Butthead)
- "Here it is, your moment of Zen" (Jon Stewart, The Daily Show)
- "Here's Johnny!" (Ed McMahon, The Tonight Show)
- "Hey now!" (Hank Kingsley, The Larry Sanders Show)
- "Hey hey hey!" (Dwayne Nelson, What's Happening!!)
- "Hey hey hey!" (Fat Albert, Fat Albert)
- "Holy (whatever), Batman!" (Robin, Batman)
- "Holy crap!" (Frank Barone, Everybody Loves Raymond)
- "Homey don't play that!" (Homey the Clown, In Living Color)
- "How sweet it is!" (Jackie Gleason, The Jackie Gleason Show)
- "How you doin'?" (Joey Tribbiani, Friends)
- "I can't believe I ate the whole thing" (Alka Seltzer ad)
- "I know nothing!" (Sgt. Schultz, Hogan's Heroes)
- "I love it when a plan comes together" (Hannibal, The A-Team)
- "I want my MTV!" (MTV ad)
- "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl ..." (Larry, Newhart)
- "I'm not a crook ..." (Richard Nixon)
- "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV" (Vicks Formula 44 ad)
- "I'm Rick James, bitch!" (Dave Chappelle as Rick James, Chappelle's Show)
- "If it weren't for you meddling kids!" (Various villains, Scooby Doo, Where Are You?)
- "Is that your final answer?" (Regis Philbin, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire)
- "It keeps going and going and going ..." (Energizer Batteries ad)
- "It takes a licking ..." (Timex ad)
- "Jane, you ignorant slut" (Dan Aykroyd to Jane Curtin, Saturday Night Live)
- "Just one more thing ..." (Columbo, Columbo)
- "Let's be careful out there" (Sgt. Esterhaus, Hill Street Blues)
- "Let's get ready to rumble!" (Michael Buffer, various sports events)
- "Live long and prosper" (Spock, Star Trek)
- "Makin' whoopie" (Bob Eubanks, The Newlywed Game)
- "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! (Jan Brady, The Brady Bunch)
- "Mom always liked you best" (Tommy Smothers, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour)
- "Never assume ..." (Felix Unger, The Odd Couple)
- "Nip it!" (Barney Fife, The Andy Griffith Show)
- "No soup for you!" (The Soup Nazi, Seinfeld)
- "Norm!" (Cheers)
- "Now cut that out!" (Jack Benny, The Jack Benny Program)
- "Oh, my God! They killed Kenny!" (Stan and Kyle, South Park)
- "Oh, my nose!" (Marcia Brady, The Brady Bunch)
- "One small step for man ..." (Neil Armstrong)
- "Pardon me, would you have any Grey Poupon?" (Grey Poupon ad)
- "Read my lips: No new taxes!" (George H.W. Bush)
- "Resistance is futile" (Picard as Borg, Star Trek: The Next Generation)
- "Say good night, Gracie" (George Burns, The Burns & Allen Show)
- "Schwing!" (Mike Myers and Dana Carvey as Wayne and Garth, Saturday Night Live)
- "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" (Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle)
- "Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" (Trix cereal ad)
- "Smile, you're on Candid Camera" (Candid Camera)
- "Sock it to me" (Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In)
- "Space, the final frontier ..." (Capt. Kirk, Star Trek)
- "Stifle!" (Archie Bunker, All in the Family)
- "Suit up!" (Barney Stinson, How I Met Your Mother)
- "Tastes great! Less filling!" (Miller Lite beer ad)
- "Tell me what you don't like about yourself" (Dr. McNamara and Dr. Troy, Nip/Tuck)
- "That's hot" (Paris Hilton, The Simple Life)
- "The thrill of victory, the agony of defeat" (Jim McKay, ABC's Wide World of Sports)
- "The tribe has spoken" (Jeff Probst, Survivor)
- "The truth is out there" (Fox Mulder, The X-Files)
- "This is the city ..." (Sgt. Joe Friday, Dragnet)
- "Time to make the donuts" (Dunkin' Donuts ad)
- "Two thumbs up" (Siskel & Ebert, Siskel & Ebert)
- "Up your nose with a rubber hose" (Vinnie Barbarino, Welcome Back, Kotter)
- "We are two wild and crazy guys!" (Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd as Czech playboys, Saturday Night Live)
- "Welcome to the O.C., bitch" (Luke, The O.C.)
- "Well, isn't that special?" (Dana Carvey as the Church Lady, Saturday Night Live)
- "We've got a really big show!" (Ed Sullivan, The Ed Sullivan Show)
- "Whassup?" (Budweiser ad)
- "What you see is what you get!" (Geraldine, The Flip Wilson Show)
- "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" (Arnold Drummond, Diff'rent Strokes)
- "Where's the beef?" (Wendy's ad)
- "Who loves you, baby?" (Kojak, Kojak)
- "Would you believe?" (Maxwell Smart, Get Smart)
- "Yabba dabba do!" (Fred Flintstone, The Flintstones)
- "Yada, yada, yada" (Seinfeld)
- "Yeah, that's the ticket" (Jon Lovitz as the pathological liar, Saturday Night Live)
- "You eeeediot!" (Ren, Ren & Stimpy)
- "You look mahvelous!" (Billy Crystal as Fernando, Saturday Night Live)
- "You rang?" (Lurch, The Addams Family)
- "You're fired!" (Donald Trump, The Apprentice)
- "You've got spunk ..." (Lou Grant, The Mary Taylor Moore Show)
One of the pieces to the clean air puzzle for Houston is tightening emissions standards for motor vehicles to match the tougher-than-federal California requirements. State Sen. Rodney Ellis has filed just such a bill for the 80th Lege.
[Ellis' bill] would require all new cars sold in the state after the year 2008 to meet the standards of California's Low-Emission Vehicle program."Senate Bill 124 is critical to help Texans comply with the law and ensure healthy air for its citizens," Ellis, D-Houston, said at a Capitol news conference on the bill, which has garnered support from the mayors of Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin.
The proposal also represents the state's first significant global warming legislation as the California rules also limit greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2004, California added carbon dioxide to its list of regulated tailpipe emissions. The state requires a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.
Ellis predicted his bill would face a battle royal in the Legislature next year, but said he thought Texas citizens favor the idea.
I believe Ellis is absolutely correct about the first part of that statement. The second part remains to be seen, because I feel confident that there will be a widespread marketing campaign against his measure. The question is how much support there will be after a few weeks of negative (and mostly likely misleading) "issue ads" on the subject.
"We don't believe there's any environmental benefit to Texas adopting California's environmental standards," said Charles Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "But we do think there will be significant costs to consumers and will impose an added bureaucracy."Ellis' bill will be watched closely by both sides for the effect it could have beyond Texas' borders. If Texas were to switch to California's rules, more than half the country's population would be subject to that state's regulations.
"It's possible that Texas could be a tipping point, and, frankly, make Detroit do something that's smarter than what they're doing right now," said Jim Marston, Environmental Defense's regional director in Texas.
It's unclear how much the smog rules would cost consumers because many automakers already produce vehicles that comply with both federal and California rules. However, the new carbon dioxide provision, which Texas likely must also adopt if it goes along with the California rules, could prove costly to consumers.
Under the rule, each auto manufacturer must reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of its vehicles sold in a state by 30 percent, from 2003 levels, by 2016. That will require selling more fuel-efficient vehicles, and developing sport utility vehicles and trucks that consume less gasoline.
Environmentalists estimate the increased costs of developing these technologies at about $1,000 per vehicle. Auto manufacturers put the cost closer to $3,000.
Generally speaking, the first thing you should do is disregard every gloom-and-doom statement that will emanate from an auto industry flack. These guys have bitched and moaned about every regulation imposed on them since the dawn of time. They fought against seat belts, they fought against air bags, they fought against fuel efficiency standards, and when they lost those fights they turned around and made the features they were forced to add selling points. The whole thing is a big heaping pile of FUD, and should be taken as such. Once we're all straight on that, we can have the real debate.
UPDATE: On a related note, here's some info on the lawsuit against the EPA over the regulation of greenhouse gases and California's specialized guidelines. Thanks to Jim D. for the pointer.
As we have seen, the runoff dates for CD23 and HD29 are a week apart, with CD23 coming first on December 12. That date, which is the Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe for Catholics, has drawn complaints by Latino organizations. They have now taken those complaints to the Justice Department.
LULAC has objected to the date for the District 23 runoff because it falls on the Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a religious holy day celebrated by many Catholic Hispanics by attending Mass, holding processions and family gatherings and other events. The district that stretches from near El Paso to South Texas and takes in several counties on the border has a 61 percent Hispanic voting age population."The state representative district is predominantly white-Anglo population and would not be affected by 'El dia de la Virgen de Guadalupe'," LULAC national attorney Luis Vera Jr. said in the DOJ filing, using the Spanish translation of the Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe.
The 23rd district's voters are "adversely affected by setting it on the holiest of religious holidays. There can possibly be no other reason for the different dates than an attempt to suppress the Latino vote."
Vera also contends the state could have set the District 23 [runoff date] on a Saturday and that it did not have to be on a Tuesday.
[...]
Because Texas has a history of discriminating against minority voters, it is required to seek approval of election changes and decisions from the Department of Justice. Vera is asking DOJ not to approve the runoff date unless the state extends early voting to include a Saturday or Sunday and the election date is not on a holy day and a day that provides adequate time for all voters to be notified of the election.
I'm not equipped to evaluate the legal merits of LULAC's complaint here, but I will say that I can think of no good reason why early voting would not include both a Saturday and a Sunday. According to South Texas Chisme, who has been following the backs and forths in this, the Bexar County Commissioners' Court has extended early voting to do just that, in defiance of the Secretary of State. I really don't understand what the state's resistance is about here, especially if by adding the extra Early Voting dates the complaint to Justice would be dropped. Well, okay, I do understand their resistance, but I'm trying to think of a non-partisan objection. And I'm coming up blank.
On Wednesday at Kuff's World, I discussed the possibility of Mayor White taking steps to avoid holding a special election to replace Shelley Sekula Gibbs for the remainder of her term on City Council. Today, Kristin Mack confirms that such a plan is in the works.
White plans to ask the Legislature for more leeway.A special election to fill Sekula-Gibbs' City Council seat can be no earlier than May, meaning whoever won would have to run again in November to keep the job.
"I don't want to spend $3 million just so a seat can be filled six months early," White said, factoring in the cost of a citywide election and a potential runoff. "I would like to see if the Legislature could change the law to allow the Houston City Council to decide whether to conduct the election in May or November, taking into account the cost of the election."
He will base his argument for the legislation partly on a provision in the state Election Code that says a special election should be called "as soon as practicable after the vacancy occurs."
[...]
White still faces a time crunch.
City Council has to call an election within 62 days of the next uniform Election Day, which is May 12. That means the mayor is looking at a March deadline for passage of a bill. And knowing the slow pace of the Legislature, especially in the early days of the session, it's entirely possible that lawmakers wouldn't meet that deadline.
He'd also have to get a supermajority in support of this plan so that it would take effect immediately upon being signed by Governor Perry instead of the constitutionally-mandated 90 days later. Nobody was identified as a potential bill carrier, so it's unclear as yet how much of this is theoretical and how much is already underway. I'm going to try to follow up on that.
One more thing:
Whether the election is May or November, a field of candidates already is firming up.Melissa Noriega, wife of state Rep. Rick Noriega, is in. She says she is definitely running in November. As for May, she can't say with any certainty, since no election has been called.
Retired Air Force officer Roy Morales, who ran for an at-large position in 2005, is running, as is business consultant Andy Neill. City employee Noel Freeman already has a Web site and blog.
Lawyers Jay Aiyer and Nandy Berry - wife of Councilman Michael Berry - are still weighing their options.
Tom Reiser, a Republican who used almost $1.2 million from his own pocket in a losing 2002 congressional race, is also interested.
You read that last one here first.
Didn't quite get the chance to do the next writeup that I have in mind, but in the course of noodling around with it, I found another nice little illustration of why Dan Patrick was not exactly all that and a bag of chips. While looking at the data in HD138, I noticed the following:
Pcnct Culberson Henley Murphy Thibaut Patrick Kubosh
=======================================================
130 933 302 918 320 902 326
356 778 397 786 386 782 406
395 600 245 608 246 581 270
438 742 237 737 246 725 250
483 918 562 884 598 915 583
492 658 310 652 328 645 340
493 574 243 581 242 543 272
499 884 317 896 321 844 352
504 789 328 777 348 758 358
625 513 290 501 303 515 297
626 616 410 598 428 583 453
706 102 65 103 65 107 64
727 207 283 193 280 194 298Total 8,314 3,989 8,234 4,111 8,094 4,269
We already knew that Patrick trailed most of the State Rep candidates, Murphy included. This is the precinct breakdown of that, with Culberson/Henley thrown in for extra contrast. Even though Culberson and Murphy had to contend with a Libertarian on the ballot as well as their Democratic opponents, at least one of them topped Patrick's vote total in 10 of the 12 precincts, with both of them doing better than Danno in 8 of them. Maybe three-term Congressman Culberson should be leading the pack here, even with a Genuine Celebrity on the ballot and even though Henley provided a fairly strong challenge, but what about fellow first-time candidate Jim Murphy? You'd think Danno's star would have outshined Murphy's, but you'd be wrong. And note again that this is not due to undervoting - Michael Kubosh picks up all of the tallies that evaporate from the R column. The total spread across the three races is a mere 58 votes, so this is as concise a comparison as you could want.
Anyway. It doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know, but it's a nice capsule review of the phenomenon. More to come from other races soon.
Since I last blogged about the West 11th Street Park, they have taken an important step forward in their quest to preserve the place: The City of Houston has agreed to put up $4 million towards its purchase.
The Houston City Council on Wednesday approved an agreement expected to result in the city purchasing the 20-acre property from the Houston Independent School District for $9 million, averting the prospect of a sale to private interests that likely would replace the pines and oaks with townhomes or condominiums.The city has provided $4 million toward the purchase price. The Parks Board and the Friends of West 11th Street Park, a neighborhood group headed by Cherry, have raised an additional $1.6 million, leaving a shortfall of more than $3 million.
The city's option to buy the property expires Jan. 5. Private fundraising is unlikely to raise the needed amount in that time, so the Parks Board, for the first time in its 30-year history, will seek a loan for the balance.
If necessary, the city will sell up to 5 acres of the property to pay off the loan.
The Parks Board was willing to take the risk because of the unique value of the property, said Roksan Okan-Vick, the board's director.
"It's a fantastic bird habitat, and it's one of the tallest stands of pines inside Loop 610," Okan-Vick said.
She said the Parks Board has spoken to potential lenders. But Chris Ehlinger, a banker who chairs the civic club for the Timbergrove Manor subdivision near the park, said it is far from certain that the board will obtain the loan.
"I'd say we're on first base rather than third base" in the effort to preserve the park, Ehlinger said.
The ins and outs of the deal are covered in their FAQ. Ideally, a millionaire in shining armor will come along and give the remainder of the purchase price to the Friends of the West 11th Street Park so that the whole thing can be bought and preserved. Putting up 5 acres as collateral for the full 21 is certainly better than risking the loss of them all, however. You can still help them if you want to by contacting them at west11thstpark@earthlink.net. In the meantime, hope for a sugar daddy or at least a benevolent loan officer.
Boy, remember when this hurricane season was going to make last year look like nothing? Those were the days, huh?
The forecast service AccuWeather said the northeast United States was "staring down the barrel of a gun," and respected forecasters were calling for 15 to 17 named storms.But like a meteorological Ishtar, the 2006 hurricane season, which officially ends today, failed to deliver.
Just nine named storms formed. The worst conditions the Northeast received came from Tropical Storm Beryl, with 50 mph winds and a 1-foot storm surge in July, and rain from remnants of Hurricane Ernesto, which wiped out one day's play of the U.S. Open tennis tournament in September.
The season's first storm, Alberto, yielded Houston's closest "brush" with the tropical weather. It came within 700 miles of Southeast Texas in June.
The relatively quiet season followed that of 2005, notable not only for its volume - last year's 28 named storms shattered the single-year record - but the beastliness of several storms, including Katrina, Rita and Wilma, three of the most intense hurricanes ever to traverse the Gulf of Mexico.
This year, Alberto and Ernesto brought the most trouble, causing about a dozen U.S. deaths and $100 million in damages. Last year's comparative totals were more than a hundredfold worse: in excess of 2,000 deaths and $120 billion in damages.
Actually, if those numbers are accurate, it's a thousandfold difference. Either way, it's no comparison. What the heck happened?
[Two factors] in particular are responsible for dampening this year's hurricane season, meteorologists say.One was greater-than-normal levels of dust, blown off the Sahel region of Western Africa over the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Storms need warm, moist air to develop and thrive. Dry air chokes them.
There also was considerable dust in 2005, but storms like Katrina and Rita developed farther westward in the Atlantic, closer to the United States, providing moister air during their formative stages.
The second factor, which came into play during the second half of the season, was El Nino, a natural warming of ocean temperatures in the eastern and central Pacific, which tends to moderate Atlantic hurricane seasons. Before this year's season began, scientists were not forecasting an El Nino.
Does this augur well for next year? Who knows?
Three months before El Nino developed this summer, the computer models still didn't see it coming. So, any chance of forecasting ocean conditions beginning next June may be somewhat hopeless.
"The bottom line," [Weather Underground's Jeff] Masters said, "is that we really don't understand how to make long-range forecasts that are all that good."
Would have been nice to have been told that before all the doom-and-gloom forecasts this spring, but better late than never. I'm of course happy things turned out this way, but I don't regret the money we spent this year on storm shutters, nor do I expect to cancel our plans to buy more of them to increase our coverage. It's fine to be giddy, but there's no call to be foolish.