HB626: Not any better

OK, forget what I said about HB626. The new version isn't any better.

Instead of spending $220 for fresh copies of naturalization papers, the bill would now simply make the Secretary of State vet birth certificates and naturalization papers when cross-checking voter registration applications with social security and drivers license records.

[...]

Whether Anchia, Gallego, and Hochberg sign off on it or not wouldn't change the fact that if the Secretary of State can't find the naturalization papers, then s/he wouldn't approve the registration, hence the application is dropped.

So your future voter registration would be in the hands of a bureaucrat. You can imagine the potential for error, especially if you have a very common name, or an easily-misspelled name. It's almost preferable to make people spend their own money on the certified copies. And you just know that the SOS office will be underfunded and understaffed for this, because when has the Lege ever allocated anough money for this sort of thing? No thanks, I say.

Compromise on HB626?

Well, this sounds promising.

Phil King has been talking to Democrats about a possible solution to the voter registration bill, which, in its original form, required voters to prove their citizenship in order to register to vote. This onerous requirement would have made it impossible in practice to conduct a voter registration drive, since most folks don't have certified copies of birth certificates or a passport lying around their houses. King's floor substitute shifts the burden of verifying citizenship to the Secretary of State's office. Under a recent federal law that took effect on January 1 of this year, states must cross-check voter registration applications with social security and drivers license records. King's proposal would add birth certificates and naturalization papers. If the voter's citizenship still cannot be verified, the secretary of state would contact the appropriate local officials who would get in touch with the prospective voter to see if additional information is available.

The Democrats (Anchia, Gallego, Hochberg) are currently vetting the proposal. That may take awhile.

Like Eye on Williamson, I'm not exactly sure how this would differ from what we're currently doing. Be that as it may, if the Democrats Burka names say they're okay with what comes back, then I expect I'll be okay with it as well. We'll see what happens.

UPDATE: I'm now hearing that any optimism on this may be premature. Stay tuned.

Early voting in Farmer's Branch

Our local election may not generate much turnout, but that's not the case for the Farmer's Branch referendum to make it illegal to rent an apartment to an undocumented immigrant.

[A] popular former Farmers Branch mayor, David Blair Jr., has come out against the ban and last week detailed his concerns to the City Council, which has unanimously backed the ordinance requiring landlords to check the citizenship or immigration status of apartment complex renters.

"This has been tremendously divisive," Blair, who served as mayor from 1988 to 1996, said in an interview. "This wasn't vetted by the community before they took action and it was done very quickly."

Echoing a chief campaign theme among opponents, Blair said the city's legal costs to defend the measure already have reached $270,000, and another $440,000 has been budgeted. "I don't see it ending there," Blair said, adding that he doubts federal courts that have allowed illegal immigrants access to public schools and heath care will favor a local law that bars them from renting apartments.

Still, Blair said his sense is most people favor the ordinance, which he expects to pass.

"I think they are looking at it (the city's measure) very narrowly. They see it as a vote against illegal immigration," he said. "People are very frustrated with the federal government's immigration policies."

Although the city of 27,000 is roughly 40 percent Hispanic, Anglos will decide the outcome. Fewer than 10 percent of the city's 14,000 registered voters are Hispanic.

Organizers on both sides are predicting a turnout of four to 10 times normal for a city election. Last year's council election drew 800 voters, under 6 percent of those registered.

"Nobody wants to talk about anything else," said Tony Salerno, one of five candidates running for two open council seats. Salerno and two others are opposed to the rental ordinance. "The first thing people want to know is which way are you going on the (rental) ordinance."

My guess is that it passes with a shade under 60% support. And then never gets enforced as one court after another strikes it down. We'll see.

Early voting starts today

Here's where and when to vote between now and May 8. I'll be casting my ballot for Melissa Noriega, and I hope you will, too. Lord knows, you shouldn't experience much of a line wherever you go to vote.

Matt Stiles has a PDF graphic of the companion piece to yesterday's article on the race, in case you missed it. All of my candidate interviews can be found here if you haven't had a chance to listen to them yet.

Round Two of voter ID today in the House

BOR reminds us on the next assault on the right to vote that will come up in the House today, Rep. Phil King's odious HB626. Here's a list of legislators to call and urge a No vote on this sucker.

At this point, I've made all the arguments I know how to make. Either you think voting is a right that needs to be protected, or you think it's a privilege that can be restricted at whim by a legislative majority. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Open letter to Mayor White about Houston Media Source

Robb Fickman of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association has written an open letter to Mayor White asking that Houston Media Source continue to be funded by Council. Apparently, Mayor White has proposed defunding HMS and giving its money to the Houston Police Department. I confess, I've never paid much attention to HMS, and as such I don't consider myself to have a dog in this fight, but I'm passing this along for those who do.

Money talks, but only if you can hear it

Lisa Gray uses her new column space to make a plea for saving the River Oaks Theater, River Oaks Shopping Center, and Alabama Bookstop.

Yes, it's a long shot -- but it's not too late for one of those "win-win" outcomes that the City Council likes to tout. It's not too late for Barnes & Noble and Weingarten to emerge from this debacle as heroes, saviors of the city's heritage.

But first, we need to get their attention. And to do it Houston-style.

This week, let's stage a buy-in.

Sometime between now and next Sunday, let's all visit the Alabama Bookstop. And let's all purchase something: a book, a magazine, a birthday card, a Mother's Day gift. Let's drink lattes in the coffee bar. Do our Christmas shopping. Whatever.

The point is to show that we care enough about the city's historical buildings to make a point of spending our money in them. We'll show that we're paying attention and that we'll reward preservation of the places that make Houston special.

We won't have to make threats. We won't have to hint what we'll do if the first domino falls, or scream that we'll remember who destroyed Houston's landmarks.

Our dollars will say that for us, and they'll say it in the language that Weingarten and Barnes & Noble understand.

When money talks, Houston listens.

This is an expansion on a theme she explored as a features writer last September, which I blogged about here. I should also note that the petition to save the Alabama Bookstop specifically mentions not patronizing the new Barnes and Nobles if Weingarten goes ahead with its plan to destroy the Bookstop.

Which, as I said before, I'm totally down with. I'll make a point of buying something at the Bookstop this week in solidarity. What I think is more important, however, is to make sure that people keep buying stuff at the Bookstop after the new B&N has become reality. Shopping there now, while nice, isn't going to affect Weingarten or B&N in any way. Hell, they may not even notice the effort. Having a no-customer grand opening for the B&N, along with a publicity campaign saying that will continue until we get some guarantees, now that they'll pay attention to.

I realize that my plan assume the River Oaks Shopping Center is already a lost cause. That's a damn shame, but I'll take a shot at saving two out of the three if I can. My concern is that however good we all may feel after a week of Bookstopping, we may feel equally depressed after the bulldozers arrive at West Gray and Shepherd for part one of the Weingarten project. Really, there's no reason people can't shop the Bookstop now and stay away from the B&N later. I just hope everyone keeps their eyes on the prize when the first setback occurs.

Possibly the only Chron story you'll see about the May 12 election

Given the headline "Race to replace Sekula-Gibbs a blip on the radar" and the fact that it was buried inside the Metro section today, I'll be surprised if we see another article on the May 12 City Council election. Barring some kind of "scandal" or publicity stunt by a candidate, of course.

Couple things to add to the piece, which didn't mention any actual candidates by name (there's a companion piece underneath, which I didn't see at first glance online, which contains a teeny bio and a brief statement by each contender):

"I don't think there is anything driving anyone to the May 12 ballot at the moment," said David Beirne, a spokesman for Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, whose office administers elections.

Kaufman's office expects a turnout of 8 percent.

That would put it on par with the May, 2004, city charter amendment election, which made changes to pension benefits for city employees. Frankly, I think Beirne's estimate is too high. There was a lot more noise about that election than there has been about this one. I'd put the over/under line at five percent turnout.

It would be foolish for candidates to spend resources campaigning to the entire city, political consultant Allen Blakemore said. Instead, they should focus on a small group of voters who are likely to show up at the polls, he said.

"A low-turnout election is not the place for TV, radio and billboard advertising. This is the time for direct mail, phone banks and grass-roots, door-to-door (campaigning)," Blakemore said. "None of these campaigns have a lot of money. They are limited in their ability to gin up interest."

Well, of course, one candidate has raised more money than all other candidates combined, and has more cash on hand than any two candidates has raised. In other words, one candidate is a lot less limited in her ability to gin up interest than the others are. Blakemore is a well-known Republican consultant, so it's not exactly surprising that he didn't care to name names here. But don't be fooled by his misleading statement.

"No one knows there is a special election," political consultant Marc Campos said. "This is going to be the hard core of the hard core who shows up."

Campos, who is not working for any of the candidates, said endorsements will mean more than usual in this race. Voters will look for cues from civic groups, police and firefighter unions, corporate organizations and other elected officials.

And Campos has given his endorsement to the one candidate who has garnered the support of the Houston Police Officers' Union PAC, the Houston Police Retired Officers Association PAC, the Houston Professional Firefighters Association Local #341, and a raft of organizations and elected officials.

Because of the crowded field, a runoff in the race to replace Sekula-Gibbs is expected.

"These races are difficult to handicap," Blakemore said. "The more candidates and the lower the turnout, the less predictable it becomes. It's something of a crapshoot."

Yes, races like this are difficult to handicap. But that doesn't mean there isn't a frontrunner.

Chron endorses Melissa Noriega

Outstanding.

The Chronicle endorses Melissa Noriega, a candidate with a diverse range of useful experience and a demonstrated commitment to learning, and solving, Houstonians' needs.

Noriega, who grew up in Austin and Houston, has a master's degree from the University of Houston College of Education. She worked for 27 years in HISD, in roles including administration, research and initiatives to increase community involvement.

Two years ago, Noriega shot into the Texas spotlight. Her husband, state Rep. Rick Noriega, is a lieutenant colonel in the Texas Army National Guard and in June 2004 was deployed to Afghanistan. Melissa Noriega stepped down from her job to take his place in the Legislature. She served with aplomb, sitting on the Defense Affairs and State and Federal Relations Committee, as well as the Corrections Committee. Her colleagues awarded her the Joe E. Moreno Public Service Award.

Noriega has developed a detailed agenda for Houston, including swift replacement of retiring police officers, flood abatement and better equipment for Houston's first-responders. She would fight to preserve dwindling green space as a way to improve the city's competitiveness. And she supports drug courts, affordable housing and better schools as cost-efficient ways to prevent crime.

Noriega is especially attuned to the needs of Houston's poor and fragile. While Rep. Noriega was out of the city, she monitored developments in his district, at one point visiting a complex where a house fire had killed three children.

She found a physically and emotionally devastated community that had gone without electricity for two weeks. Noriega spearheaded the effort to restore power and other services.

This mix of competence and compassion makes Melissa Noriega the Chronicle's recommendation for council member at-large, Position 3.

I can't say this was unexpected, but it's still good to see. Early voting begins tomorrow, and runs through May 8. Election Day itself is May 12, which is also the date of the Art Car Parade, so don't dawdle.

Tiffany and I hosted a house party for Melissa yesterday. Click on to see a couple of pictures from the event:

Melissa speaks to our neighbor Leslie.

Everyone takes a minute to ooh and aah over Audrey.

Rep. Rick Noriega demonstrates his baby-holding skills.

The clock is ticking for the West 11th Street Park

This does not sound good.

Those who are raising funds to purchase 5 acres of the West 11th Street Park have until August.

That's the time that has been estimated the Houston Parks Board should post the land for sale before a loan secured to purchase those acres becomes due in February 2008.

"Nine months is the time it would take (to complete a sale) and that's probably fairly aggressive to look for the right buyer and find the right buyer so they could get their money in place," Parks Board Executive Director Roksan Okan-Vick said.

"Come the middle of May, we're going to have to start thinking hard about how much time we have left."

Man, that sucks. And this isn't any better:

The $3.5 million, 12-month loan comes due in February 2008, but if the money cannot be raised by August, the Parks Board would need to consider selling the park.

Since taking out the loan, the Parks Board and grass-roots groups have raised about $235,720, according to Kelly Ahrens, who is helping the group Save This Park! with fundraising efforts.

Okan-Vick said the loan is accruing $700 in interest each day, which at some point becomes too big a burden, and selling the land is not necessarily an easy task.

Yeesh. Any sugar mommies or daddies out there want to have a park named for you? It's only three million and change.

If the Parks Board has to sell the 5 acres, Okan-Vick said, "we really want to work with someone who is going to be very responsible with what they construct next to this fabulous park."

Okan-Vick said the Parks Board would only consider selling the 5 acres for residential use.

A small mercy, but not much of one. For better or worse, it'll be high-end townhomes.

[Said Lorraine Cherry, president of Friends of the West 11th Street Park], "It's frustrating, but I understand there are a whole lot of people who need money to do a whole lot of worthwhile things.

"I really do believe we will get the money raised by August."

I hope you're right. If you want to help, here's what you need to know:

www.west11thstreetpark.org

www.savethispark.org

www.houstonparksboard.org

Why don't you come back here and say that?

So this Texan goes to visit Australia, and while he's there he takes a tour of an Australian ranch. The Aussie rancher tells him how big the ranch is, and the Texan says "Big deal. Where I come from, we've got ranches big enough to be their own country." They go to see some of the cattle, and the rancher explains how big the steers are, and the Texan says "Big deal. Where I come from, we'd consider anything this size to be a runt." It goes on like that for awhile, when suddenly a kangaroo goes bounding past them. In surprise, the Texan says "What the hell what that?", to which the Aussie replies "Oh, just one of our pesky little grasshoppers."

For some reason, I was reminded of that joke when I read this story about Governor Perry's visit to Pittsburgh.

With the Texas House poised to consider a border security bill and state budget writers deciding how much to spend on the effort, Gov. Rick Perry told a Pittsburgh newspaper that some border-crossers with al-Qaida ties have been apprehended.

"The information that we have is that there have been individuals who have crossed, and some that have been apprehended, that have ties back to the al-Qaida network," Perry told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on a trip to the city to speak at a Boy Scouts dinner.

"I don't get confused that with the lack of manpower and the lack of resources that the federal government has made available that you can cross the border, and you can cross the border with enough frequency and with enough items to create a lot of havoc," he said.

Perry spokesman Ted Royer said Friday the statement was a continuation of comments the GOP governor has made for years. The comments have been based on federal intelligence sources having "confirmed that al-Qaida and other terrorist networks view the Southern border as a prime point of entry," Royer said, with people from countries where al-Qaida has a known presence having been apprehended not just in Texas but all along the border.

In other words, Royer "confirmed" what his boss said by saying "well, we know that al Qaeda thinks that they could sneak people across the Texas-Mexico border, if they ever get tired of coming into the US on student visas and stuff like that, and we've caught people who came over that way who originated from countries where al Qaeda operates, which could include the US if you stop and think about it." Damn those pesky grasshoppers!

I'm not sure what has me chuckling more about this story, Perry's pathetic braggadocio, or the fact that he couldn't be bothered to tell members of the Senate about this little nugget of intel:

"We have absolutely no information" about such apprehensions, said Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, International Relations and Trade Committee chairman. "I would urge the governor to call us in, and give us a briefing, so that we can better serve our communities along the border.

"It's alarming, if that is so," he said. "I would very much ... be interested in knowing when this happened, and how it happened, and what law enforcement agencies were involved in the apprehension, and where those individuals might be today.

Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said of the governor's comments, "I've never heard that. I've heard accounts where people have said that, but I've never seen an independent, verifiable report that makes that allegation.

"To use al-Qaida as a ruse to try and get a border security bill before the people is not helpful," Shapleigh said. " I hope when he comes back he'll discuss it with those of us who live and work on the border."

If he didn't discuss it before, I don't know why he'd bother now. Note that Democratic Senators aren't the only ones in the dark.

GOP Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said only that he had heard of illegal entries by people from the Middle East, but the individuals aren't labeled as terrorists.

Obviously, this was on a need-to-know-basis only, which is why Perry waited till he was safely out of state before sharing it with a public audience.

I can only presume that Perry's remarks were intended to put pressure on the Lege regarding HB13. Given the pushback it's gotten from border police chiefs and other legislators, he must think it needs the help. I just don't know if that's the kind of help that it needed. Express-News link via Dig Deeper Texas.

A new toll road concern

Long as we're talking about toll road issues...In a completely under-the-radar move, the H-GAC Transportation Policy Council has approved a proposal by TxDOT and the HCTRA under which HCTRA would send some of its toll revenues to TxDOT to fund local projects. What does that mean in real life? Christof explains:

The problem is that the procedures which allow affected neighborhoods and the general public to scrutinize and influence transportation projects -- public hearing, environmental review -- are required because of federal funding. If a project doesn't require federal funding, no public involvement is required. It is literally possible for a neighborhood not to hear about a project until the eminent domain notices show up in the mail.

Thus, giving TxDOT toll funds would allow it to push through projects that have significant public opposition or major impacts. For example, most of the I-45 widening project is relatively uncontroversial. But the section inside 610 is facing significant opposition from the residential neighborhoods bordering it. With toll funds, TxDOT might split the project, seeking federal funding -- and undergoing public review -- only for the section outside 610, and building the section inside 610 with local toll funds and no federal environmental review requirements. I haven't heard anyone suggest this, and I don't have any reason to think TxDOT plans to do this. But we've learned often that tools that are open to abuse get abused.

The second problem with the resolution is that is includes a list of projects (pdf). Some of these are projects that are undergoing at least some public review process -- 290 -- and some are projects we've known are going forward -- the Hardy Toll Road Downtown Extension. But there are projects on the list that we had thought were dead due to neighborhood opposition -- the Fort Bend Toll Road extension to 610 -- and others we've never heard of. The most notable among the latter: the the extension of the Westpark Toll Road along Westpark as far as Kirby: 4 lanes, presumably elevated, directly next to residential neighborhoods.

Once a project is on a list that gets approved by the TPC, it's a lot closer to happening. Months or years from now, a neighborhood might object. And they'll be shown the list and told, "it's in the plan. It got approved. There's nothing you can do." Pieces of paper can have a lot of power.

And this piece of paper came out of nowhere. There was no public announcement, let alone hearings. It was a last minute addition to the agenda. David Crossley of the Gulf Coast institute spotted it only because he was looking through the TPC web site.

Christof lists some of the members of the TPC, which includes City Council members Pam Holm and Sue Lovell. Might be a good idea to ask some of these folks a few questions about this.

And the toll road confrontation is on

HB1892, the much-ballyhooed two year toll road moratorium, has passed the Senate and is headed back to the House for final passage before going to Governor Perry and a potential veto.

The state Senate voted 27-4 on a transportation bill that includes a two-year moratorium, opposed by Perry, on private company toll roads and other highway-building restrictions, which could trigger his veto.

If so, lawmakers are ready to try to override his veto in a power battle not seen since 1990, when the Legislature failed to override a Gov. Bill Clements veto of a school finance bill.

"Unfortunately, there is a fundamental disagreement between the Legislature and the governor about the future transportation policy of our state," Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, said. "This bill is the last chance we have to address that."

Once the House passes the Senate's bill, which is expected early next week, Perry said he would look at it but added that he opposes any effort that "shuts down road construction, kills jobs, harms air quality, prevents access to federal highway dollars and creates an environment within local government that is ripe for political corruption."

[...]

Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, author of the House version, said he would accept changes to his bill. Smith wants to send the bill to Perry next week, giving lawmakers time to try to override a veto before the Legislature adjourns May 28.

Both Smith and Williams expressed hope Perry would not veto the bill.

"Obviously, it's a very popular piece of legislation from the Legislature that will be going over there," Smith said.

[...]

[M]ost legislators have soured on the state's transportation department and Perry's Trans-Texas Corridor plan that relies heavily on private company toll roads and long-term contracts involving hundreds of billions of dollars in profit for those companies.

"Texans must decide if roads should be built for the benefit of taxpayers or private shareholders," said Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, a former state transportation commissioner and the main architect for the moratorium.

"This is a major victory in our efforts to protect Texans from private toll road deals that would hamstring our transportation system for the next half-century," Nichols said. "A two-year moratorium will give an appropriate cooling-down time to evaluate the terms of these contracts before they cost Texans billions in penalties."

I need to put in a call to Sen. Nichols' office and ask him a few questions about this. I realize that the TTC was more Ric Williamson's baby than anything else, but his transformation into the leasing critic of this project (yes, more so than Sen. Carona at this point) is really amazing and (to me, anyway) unexpected. You just never know, I guess.

Anyway, we'll see what Perry does, and if he warms up with an HPV veto first or lets that one slide by. Vince has Perry's statement, Eye on Williamson notes a federal connection, and the Observer comments on Sen. Patrick's statements regarding TxDOT. Stay tuned.

Early voting starts Monday for the City Council special election

Are you ready to vote in the May 12 election? Here are the times and places for early voting:

Harris County

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through May 4
7 a.m to 7 p.m. May 5
1 to 6 p.m. May 6
7 a.m. to 7 p.m. May 7-8

Locations

Inside Loop 610

1. County Administration Building, 1001 Preston, first floor
2. Moody Park Recreation Center, 3725 Fulton
3. Kashmere area: Julia C. Hester Houston, 2020 Solo
4. Ripley House, 4410 Navigation
5. HCCS Southeast College, 6815 Rustic, Angela Morales Building
6. Palm Center: Justice of the peace-constable entry, 5300 Griggs
7. Fiesta Mart, 8130 Kirby
8. Metropolitan Multi-Service Center, 1475 W. Gray

Outside Loop 610

9. BeBe Tabernacle Methodist Church, 7210 Langley
10. Galena Park Branch Library, 1500 Keene, Galena Park
11. Cleveland Ripley Neighborhood Center, 720 Fairmont, Pasadena.
12. Sunnyside Multi-Service Center, 4605 Wilmington
13. The Power Center, 12401 South Post Oak
14. Bayland Park Community Center, 6400 Bissonnet
15. Tracy Gee Community Center, 3599 Westcenter
16. Harris County Courthouse Annex No. 35, 1721 Pech
17. Acres Homes: Multi-Service Center, 6719 W. Montgomery
18. Hardy Senior Center, 11901 W. Hardy

Outside Beltway 8

19. Octavia Fields Branch Library, 1503 S. Houston, Humble
20. Fire Station 102, 4102 Lake Houston Parkway, Kingwood
21. North Channel Library, 15741 Wallisville Road
22. Remington Park Assisted Living, 901 W. Baker, Baytown
23. Harris County Courthouse Annex No. 25, 7330 Spencer Highway, Pasadena
24. Freeman Branch Library, 16616 Diana Lane, Clear Lake
25. Alief Regional Library, 7979 South Kirkwood
26. Lac Hong Square, 6628 Wilcrest
27. Courtyard by Marriott, 12401 Katy Freeway at Dairy Ashford
28. Franz Road Storefront, 19818 Franz
29. Bear Creek Park Community Center, Bear Creek at Patterson
30. Jersey Village City Hall, 16327 Lakeview Drive
31. Tomball Public Works Building, 501 B James, Tomball
32. Barbara Bush Library, 6817 Cypresswood, Spring
33. Ponderosa Fire Station No. 1, 17061 Rolling Creek

More information

Harris County
713-755-6965
www.harrisvotes.com

And of course, here's the candidate to vote for. I'll have some Melissa Noriega house party pictures up tomorrow. May 12 is two weeks away. Are you ready?

Michael Berry, radio mogul

Matt Stiles notes that Michael Berry, City Council member and talk radio host, is now the boss of Clear Channel's AM stations here in Houston. Congratulations on the new gig, Council Member Berry. To answer Stiles' question, I've no particular problem with local politicians having media gigs, as long as everything is up front and subject to full disclosure. For what it's worth, I don't think being a media figure makes you a better politician, or vice-versa. There's some overlap in the skill sets, but being one is not a guarantee of the other.

The real question in my mind is whether this means we've seen the last of Michael Berry the candidate/office holder. I've always figured he'd run for Mayor in 2009. Is this his departure from that stage, or is he just trying on a bigger microphone? I guess we'll find out.

Voter ID again on Monday

As you know, only one of the two pernicious voter ID bills that were brought to the floor of the House made it through. The other got sent back to committee on a point of order. That bill, HB626, is expected to be back on the floor this coming Monday. The True Courage Action Network has a call to action:

If they pass HB 626:

* You'll be required to produce a certified copy of your birth certificate or passport or naturalization papers to register to vote.
* You'll be required to produce your birth certificate or one of those other hard-to-find and expensive documents to re-register (20% of Texans move between election cycles).
* Voter registration drives will be a thing of the past because we don't carry around our birth certificate (if we even have one) when we shop.
* The voter turnout rate in Texas, already the lowest in the nation at 26%, will drop even lower.

We expect a floor vote on Monday. This time, in addition to calling your own rep (contact info here), we're asking you to call the following House members who are believed to be undecided, and ask them to stand up with courage and vote NO on HB 626:

Kirk England (512) 463-0694
Mike Krusee (512) 463-0670
Pat Haggerty (512) 463-0728
Mike Hamilton (512) 463-0412
Harvey Hilderbran (512) 463-0536
Delwin Jones (512) 463-0542
Tommy Merritt (512) 463-0750
Todd Smith (512) 463-0522

A lot of American citizens in this state don't have birth certificates - basically, anyone born at home, which is a common thing in rural areas, may not have one. They'll be pretty much out of luck if they need to register or re-register. You'll need a certified copy of your birth certificate if you ever move to another county, which will require a re-registration. And you'd better hope it doesn't get lost in the mail, if you like your identity as it is.

This bill is (I presume, anyway) covered by Sen. Ellis' letter of intent to block on the Senate floor. And I see that Dems in the Senate are on their guard about any back-door maneuvers.

On Tuesday the Senate considered Senate Bill 1464, a proposal by Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, that says if someone is excused from jury duty because of a lack of citizenship or because they do not live in the right county, they cannot vote in that county.

Before a vote on Janek's bill, Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, had a few questions for Sen. John Carona, who was presiding over the Senate in place of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Actually, the questions were really for Senate Parliamentarian Karina Casari Davis, who was advising Carona just as she does whoever is the presiding officer.

Watson asked whether the voter ID bill would be a proper amendment to attach to Janek's bill. Carona, based on the parliamentarian's counsel, said no, that such an amendment would be subject to a point of order. Watson asked if the House attached the voter ID language to Janek's bill, would it be subject to a point of order and have to return to the House. Carona said yes. Essentially, Watson's questioning established that the voter ID language is not germane to Janek's bill.

Don't be surprised to see similar questions about other Senate legislation related to voting.

Bring it on, I say. Frankly, a point of order to kill the whole calendar wouldn't be the worst thing in the world right about now.

Friday random ten: The group participation edition

Have I mentioned lately how much I've enjoyed this little Friday diversion? Well, I have. As noted on Monday, I'm looking for some collaboration on this one. If you've got a list, send me the link or leave it in the comments. And so, without further ado...

1. I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow (instrumental) - John Hartford. I forget if there's three versions of this song on the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack or four, but it doesn't matter. They're all worth listening to.

2. Justify My Love - Madonna. "Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will." One of my favorite movie quotes of all time. If you ask me nicely, I can say it with a pretty passable imitation of Joan Cusack's Staten Island accent. Given that all of my sister's friends in high school sounded like that, this should be no surprise.

3. Take The "A" Train - Duke Ellington. One of my favorite versions of this song was done by the Ray Brown Trio, on the awesome album "Soular Energy", where it was rendered as a slow, funky waltz. I've gotta track down a copy of that CD some day - all I had was a taped version of the CD my summer-of-1987 housemate Pete owned, and Lord only knows where that is now.

4. Don't Give Up - Peter Gabriel. Do you think anyone's ever told Kate Bush that she could cut back on the breathy-voice thing by about fifty percent without losing the overall effect? Just curious.

5. Pick Up The Pieces - Average White Band. I could swear I played a jazz band arrangement of this sucker back in high school. You'd be amazed what they arrange for jazz band.

6. For The Longest Time - Billy Joel. In my senior year at Trinity, the concert choir sold singing telegrams as a Valentine's Day fundraiser. I got to co-sing the lead on this one, which was all kinds of fun. We also offered "You Can't Hurry Love", "My Funny Valentine", "You Are My Sunshine", "You've Lost That Loving Feeling", and - easily our bestseller - "Sit On My Face (And Tell Me That You Love Me)". Hey, it was college, you know?

7. Rock Around The Clock - Bill Haley and the Comets. Like (I suspect) most children of the 70s, I can't hear this song without thinking of the TV show Happy Days. Sit on it, Pottsie.

8. Deal - Doctor John. From an excellent collection of Grateful Dead covers called "Deadicated". I don't think I have the original version in my collection, but I do have a lot of original/cover combos for other songs. I may have to base a Random Ten on that some day.

9. Bitter Tears - INXS. Is there a band with a more distinctive sound than INXS? As in, you can tell within a few beats that you're hearing an INXS song, whether it's one you've ever heard before or not? I can't think of any offhand.

10. Home, Sweet Home - Aerosmith. True story: In 1997, my dad and I were driving through the back roads of Oregon, on our way to some small town for a minor league baseball game (it might have been in Bend, I don't remember exactly) where we'd meet up with my uncles and some cousins. Somehow, we'd managed to find a decent radio station along the way. Just as we were approaching a road sign announcing that we had entered the city of Sweet Home, Oregon, this particular song came on the radio. Clearly, we were in the right place at the right time.

That's my ten for the week. What's yours? Send me a link or leave 'em in the comments.

UPDATE: Here's Greg's list.

UPDATE: Coyote Mercury and H-Town Grooves join in.

Lactation consultation

There are many things that "they" don't tell you about before you become a parent. You know, things like how often you have to trim tiny baby fingernails, the fact that you'll be lucky to squeeze your one-month-old into 0-3 month clothing, and that babies aren't born knowing how to be breastfed. It may look natural, but they have to learn how to do it right, and until they do it can be a frustrating and (take Tiffany's word for it) painful experience.

That's where lactation consultants come in. We were fortunate that our doula was also qualified to assist in this matter, but a reliable resource isn't always available. In fact, the term "lactation consultant" is an unofficial one that doesn't require a person calling herself that to have any specific training or background.

There's a bill in the Lege, HB703 by Reps. Mike Villarreal and Jessica Farrar, that would define the term and put some restrictions on its use. Here's a blurb from the Central Texas Healthy Mother Healthy Baby Coalition in support of HB703:

The Lactation Consultant Licensure bill, HB 703, is a title protection act, which means it restricts the use of the term "lactation consultant" (LC) to individuals specifically trained in lactation management. It does not restrict unlicensed individuals from helping mothers with breastfeeding.

Currently, LCs are certified by the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners. To obtain IBLCE certification, the individual must complete education specific to lactation science, complete a specific number of hours helping breastfeeding mothers and babies, and pass an exam to test their knowledge. They are also required to complete 75 hours of continuing education within 5 years, and to re-certify by examination at 10 year intervals to demonstrate continued competence. HB 703 describes this process. The intent of HB 703 is to augment LC certification with state licensure so that consumers will be able to 1) identify trained lactation consultants, and 2) have a place to lodge complaints locally in the event of bad or unethical care.

The Texas Medical Association and the Texas Pediatric Society have decided to oppose HB 703. Currently, the policy of the TMA and other medical professional organizations is to block the establishment of any new health care professions. The rationale for this is several-fold, but appears also to include concern over shrinking shares of medical dollars. While this position benefits physicians, it does not benefit consumers.

TMA also argues against the bill on the basis that physicians should be able to provide lactation care without being licensed as LCs. HB 703 does not require physicians to become licensed as LCs in order to do so. The bill also specifies that nurses do not have to be licensed LCs to provide lactation care. The bill would provide title protection but not practice protection. That is, anyone who holds themselves out as a Lactation Consultant would have to be licensed as an LC, but LC licensure would not be required to simply help a mother with breastfeeding.

A somewhat wordier version of that is here. Unfortunately, HB703 is currently pending in the Public Health committee, where it may die without ever being heard on the floor if nothing happens soon. If you think this is a good idea, and especially if your State Rep is on the Public Health committee, please contact them and let them know that you'd like to see the House take action on this. Thanks very much.

Scarbrough's petition

I finally have a copy of Daphne Scarbrough's Section 202 petition to require Metro to undergo discovery for her possible lawsuit. It's here (PDF) for your perusal. It's not very long, so take a look. Any input from the lawyers in the audience as to where it falls on the Valid Inquiry/Fishing Expedition continuum would be appreciated. Metro should theoretically file its response by today. I'll see if I can find a copy of that when they do.

Uptown corridor planning workshop

I've mentioned that there's a series of urban planning workshops for various corridors going on. The last of the bunch, the one for Uptown (i.e., Galleria/Post Oak area) is next week, Wednesday & Thursday, May 2 & 3, from 6:00 to 9:00 pm at The Pavilion at Post Oak, 1800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, TX 77056. You can see a flyer for it here (PDF). An unofficial version of the flyer, aimed primarily at the folks who have freeway noise concerns, is here (PDF). Nothing like a little rabblerousing to spice up a planning meeting, right? Check it out.

Help Eagle Pass

The following is from State Rep. Pete Gallego.

Yesterday, Eagle Pass and parts of southwest Texas were hit hard by terrible storms and a destructive tornado. Today we honored those in the community who have lost their homes and loved ones in the recent storm.

I have a fondness for Eagle Pass. Years ago, the community helped me establish my political career. I was privileged to serve Maverick County for 12 years before redistricting and it is the home of Pete P. Gallego Elementary.

Donate to help Eagle Pass today!

It is always difficult to understand and handle the loss of life especially when it is caused by the sudden andp destructive hand of Mother Nature. With the strong leadership of county and city officials and the helping hand of local and state-wide neighbors, I have no doubt that the community of Eagle Pass will get through this difficult time.

In the wake of this tragedy we are working with the local community, state agencies, elected officials, and the federal government to assist any way we can. Can you help too?

Donate to help Eagle Pass today!

We are grateful for the immediate response of the rescue workers operating well into the night. As hospitals fill up and shelters continue to take in families, other problems and needs may arise. I have offered my full support to Rep. Tracy King and his office who currently represent the area.

Make a donation today and help Eagle Pass and the surrounding area.

Please feel free to contact Senator Carlos Uresti, Representative Tracy King or if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at my office. Thank you for your support in helping Eagle Pass.

The donation links go to a page on Gallego's website that has local banks' contact and account information for the American Red Cross Maverick County Tornado Disaster Relief Fund, plus information on making non-monetary donations. You can always also give directly to the American Red Cross.

HPV showdown looming

The HPV conference commitee did its work in short order, and now HB1098 is on its way to Governor Perry's desk.

There was no word on what Perry would do about House Bill 1098. He has 10 days from the date the bill reaches his desk, excluding Sundays, to decide whether to sign it into law, let it become law without his signature or veto it.

"The constitution provides the governor 10 days from receipt to make a decision. And he'll take those days and announce his decision when he believes it is appropriate," spokeswoman Krista Moody said.

Perry was traveling to Eagle Pass to assess the aftermath of deadly tornadoes there when the House agreed to changes in the bill made by the Senate, including one that would require lawmakers to reconsider in January 2011 whether the vaccine should be required for school enrollment.

[...]

Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, the bill's author, has said he hopes Perry won't veto the bill.

Both the House and Senate passed the bill with the necessary two-thirds majorities to override a veto.

The Senate sponsor, Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, said lawmakers should reconsider the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in four years. Merck's Gardasil was approved for sale in June.

When Janet Elliott blogged this story, she thought Perry would let the bill become law without his signature. I think the odds slightly favor a veto, as one last defiant show of power by Perry. The votes are there to override, and I daresay it'd happen easily enough, but I think he may make them do it. I could be wrong - Elliott's scenario makes a lot of sense. I just think he'll be stubborn about it. We'll see.

System benefit fund advances

He had to overcome a Talton point of order, but Sylvester Turner is one step closer to getting the System Benefit Fund restored.

Public interest groups hailed the tentative passage of House Bill 551, sponsored by Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston. The bill would restore the System Benefit Fund, ensuring that a monthly fee paid by Texas electric customers is used for the purpose for which the fund was established -- helping low-income residents with their electric bills.

"We've been fighting for this for two years," said Toni McElroy, president of Texas ACORN, an advocacy group. "We're thrilled."

Since 1999, Texans have been paying an average 65-cent monthly fee on their electric bills that initially was collected to lower electric bills for some 710,000 low-income Texans; to weatherize homes and pay for an education and marketing program to alert Texas customers to the state's utility-deregulation laws.

But in 2005, lawmakers decided to raid the fund, using the collected fees to help balance the budget. The fees continue to be assessed; today, $408 million in fees sits in the state's treasury.

Turner's bill would require that the electric fees collected be used for the purposes established by the Legislature eight years ago.

His bill would double the discount allowed under the old program, enabling eligible customers to receive as much as 20 percent off their bills.

That's a good start, but as the Observer blog reminds us, the funding still needs to actually be allocated. At least Turner is a conferee, so he has a chance of affecting the outcome. Given how penurious the Senate has been, though, it's far from a sure thing. Stay tuned.

Editorial roundup on HB218

Eye on Williamson surveys the editorial landscape for reactions to the voter ID bill that passed out of the House on Tuesday. The verdict, not surprisingly, is uniformly negative. I particularly like the Caller's classification of HB218 as "the most creative solution to an essentially non-existent problem".

Meanwhile I've pondered how one might go about actually stealing an election over at Kuff's World. Check it out.

Freeway noise at Memorial Park

What's that you say? Speak up, I can't hear you. There's a plan to reduce noise at Memorial Park? Well, why didn't you say so?

Under a plan that would be financed by the Texas Department of Transportation, the city's parks department is weighing whether to allow a large sound-barrier wall in a 2,000-foot swath along the freeway between Washington and the West Loop.

The 16-foot-high wall, which could cost as much as $480,000, could substantially reduce the traffic noise in a popular area near the small, asphalt track and nearby tennis center, parks officials say.

"It would make quite a bit of a difference," said Joe Turner, the city's Parks and Recreation Department director. "This is the piece where we're right on top of the freeway, with a huge concentration of runners and tennis players every day."

The barrier still is in the conceptual stages, as officials work to get input from City Council members and key stakeholders, such as the Memorial Park Conservancy.

Sally Tyler, the conservancy's executive director, said her organization is working with the city but isn't yet sold on the idea. The park's executive committee recently wrote Turner, saying it wants to see designs before passing judgment.

"In lieu of a concrete wall, trees might serve as a natural sound barrier," she said, adding that sound could travel over and around a wall.

I guess a wall is okay. I don't spend that much time at Memorial Park, so I really hadn't given the matter any thought. I kind of like the tree idea, truth be told, but I daresay it'd take awhile to show some real results. Color me ambivalent.

Ambivalent to method, that is, not to the benefit. Reducing noise in general, especially near I-10 and 610, is a Good Thing. You may recall there was a lawsuit filed against TxDOT last January over the design of the interchanges at those freeways; the suit alleges that TxDOT did not follow federal regulations for noise abatement. More on that is here. I've also received
this letter (PDF) regarding the noise levels for I-10 near Memorial Park. It's pretty technical - I know I've got a few transportation geeks in my audience; this should be right up your alley. I'm hearing there's going to be a lot more, well, noise, regarding this issue, so stay tuned and we'll see what happens.

Alabama-Coushatta settle with Abramoff

With Jack Abramoff back in the news, here's one more item to file away.

The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Livingston has settled a lawsuit with the former employer of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff for an undisclosed amount of money.

The lawsuit was settled with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, whom Abramoff worked for while representing Indian tribes on casino issues before Congress. The settlement ends the case against Abramoff and two other Greenberg Traurig employees.

The tribe dropped its complaint against media consultant Michael Scanlon, who had been the press secretary for former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, before going to work with Abramoff. It also dropped a complaint against Ralph Reed.

"We are satisfied with the settlement, and we are pleased to have the Abramoff matter resolved," said tribal Chairwoman Jo Ann Battise. "We are now focused on restoring our right to game so that we may create employment and business opportunities for us and our neighbors."

The lawsuit in question was filed last July, which strikes me as a fairly short interval from there to resolution. Whatever the case, I'm glad the Alabama-Coushatta were able to collect something for their troubles.

Berman's campaign finance bill advances

Rep. Leo Berman's HB2491, the only campaign finance reform bill to make it out of committee so far, is now one step closer to passing out of the House. For what it's worth.

Craig McDonald, executive director of the Austin-based campaign finance reform group, Texans for Public Justice, said the bill "should have taken the opportunity to define (issue advertisements) and should have made it clear that corporations can only support their own political action committees."

McDonald said corporate money in the past has been used to fund issue ads that were political in nature, even though the ads did not specifically say "vote for" or "vote against" a particular person.

[...]

Berman's bill clarifies a list of administrative expenses that corporations and unions can fund under Texas law through their political action committees. They include office space, telephones and utilities.

The bill also spells out expenditures that corporations and unions cannot fund, including political consulting to support or oppose a candidate, telephone banks to communicate with voters to support or oppose a candidate, electioneering brochures and direct mail.

Berman said he tried to win over critics by defining electioneering, a nonpermissible expenditure, which he said includes political campaigning or direct mail. He said he couldn't fathom anyone opposing his bill now. "It specifies what you can and cannot do," he said.

Well, I don't oppose it, but as I indicated in my previous post, it's not clear to me that this is a better approach than the common sense one we had before. In nearly 100 years of the current law's existence, it wasn't until someone as brazen and amoral as Tom DeLay and his crew came along that anyone really tried to flout it. I recognize that Berman's bill would have slammed the door on the approach DeLay took in 2002, but the problem with specifying what's forbidden is that it invites the seeking of loopholes. Maybe he's covered the bases better, I don't know. It just doesn't feel like it's really doing anything, I guess.

Spinal Tap!

I gotta see this somehow.

Spinal Tap is back, and this time the band wants to help save the world from global warming.

The mock heavy metal group immortalized in the 1984 mockumentary, "This is Spinal Tap," will reunite for a performance at Wembley Stadium in London as part of the Live Earth concerts scheduled worldwide for July 7.

The original members of Spinal Tap will be there: guitarist Nigel Tufnel (played by Christopher Guest), singer David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean) and bassist Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer). Rob Reiner, who both directed "This is Spinal Tap" and played the fake documentarian Marty DeBergi in the film, will also be in attendance.

Just one question: Given the band's notorious history, who'd want to play drums for them?

A new 15-minute film directed by Reiner on the band's reunion will also play at the opening night of the Tribeca Film Festival in New York on Wednesday. The slate for the opening gala, to be hosted by Al Gore, was previously announced, excepting the Reiner short.

The festival is to open with a showing of several global warming-themed short films produced by the SOS (Save Our Selves) campaign. SOS is also putting on the Live Earth concerts, to be held across seven continents.

Reiner spoke to The Associated Press on Tuesday to explain the reunion of Spinal Tap -- a band always known more as a parody of rock `n roll excess than environmental awareness.

"They're not that environmentally conscious, but they've heard of global warming," said Reiner, whose other films include "When Harry Met Sally" and "Stand By Me." "Nigel thought it was just because he was wearing too much clothing -- that if he just took his jacket off it would be cooler."

[...]

The director said the new short film explains what the band has been doing with their lives lately. Nigel has been raising miniature horses to race, but can't find jockeys small enough to ride them; David is now a hip-hop producer who also runs a colonic clinic; and Derek is in rehab for addiction to the Internet.

Sounds about right.

Here comes Mario

While I was critical of Clay Robison for his characterization of the then-upcoming voter ID fight, he did identify an important issue:

If the Democrats stick together, they will prevent Republicans from mustering the necessary two-thirds vote to advance the proposal. But Houston Sen. Mario Gallegos' health will be key. Gallegos, a Democrat, has returned to the Capitol only twice since liver transplant surgery earlier this year.

The two-thirds vote is calculated on the number of senators present. Democrats can block the motion when all 31 senators are there, but the 20 Republicans, voting together on a strictly partisan vote, can run over Democratic opposition if one Democrat is absent.

Today, Sen. Gallegos informed Lt. Gov. Dewhurst that he wants to be notified in time to make it to Austin for this vote.

Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, who continues to recuperate from a liver transplant and is only attending legislative sessions part-time, said today that he has asked Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to give him 24 hours notice before attempting to pass the controversial voter ID legislation.

[...]

In January, Dewhurst agreed in writing to give Gallegos 24 hours' notice "one time for a vote on a single piece of legislation."

But Dewhurst also told Gallegos, "I did not promise, and obviously, I cannot in good conscience promise to hold all votes during your absence."

The good news is that according to Patricia Kilday Hart, Dewhurst intends to maintain the two-thirds rule for this debate, something which was not a guarantee from the beginning. Of course, since this bill might wind up as an amendment to something else, Gallegos' presence may not ultimately affect its status. But it still matters, and I knew he'd step up. Thanks, Sen. Gallegos.

When good things happen to bad bills

As the title on the Observer blog post says, "Oops!"

Due to a technical blunder, two anti-abortion bills died despite overwhelming support in the House State Affairs Committee. House Bill 175, a trigger ban on abortion in Texas should Roe v. Wade be overturned, and House Bill 1750, an abortion and judicial bypass reporting bill, had the support of seven of the 9-member committee and were expected to pass. They only received a vote of 4-to-2, just one short of the five needed to pass them out of committee.

The committee's chairman Rep. David Swinford (R-Dumas) called the vote in an April 18th meeting on the House floor upon adjournment. Though he saw seven members present, only six had in fact been recorded as present in the roll call, Swinford says.

"It was my fault," Swinford says. "It was unintentional." The bills can only be reconsidered at the request of one of the opposing votes, who have decided not to do so, he says.

Good for them. The reps in question are (I presume, anyway, given the makeup of the State Affairs committee) Mark Veasey and my own rep, Jessica Farrar. These victories may not stick, since there's still the Senate version of the bills to consider, but I'll take what I can get.

Targeting 2008: Pete Sessions

This is the first in what will surely be an irregular series of analyses of Texas Congressional districts. My main interest will be the seats that I think are at least potentially competitive for 2008, but I'll likely go beyond that as well. Time permitting, of course.

This Texas Observer article about some of Rep. Pete Sessions' more ethically interesting friends (also spotted by Digby is the impetus for today's piece. Sessions, as you know, won an incredibly expensive and nasty battle with Martin Frost after the 2003 DeLay re-redistricting, coming home with 54.3% of the vote. Last year, running against a lesser known but not completely unfunded challenger in Will Pryor, he captured 56.4%, in each case with a Libertarian running as well. Given Dallas' strong blue shift in 2006, and given that Sessions is currently the biggest target standing at which Dallas Dems can aim, it seems fair to assume that he'll face a stiffer fight in 2008. Let's dive into the numbers and see what we can learn from last year's race.

All data comes from the Secretary of State numbers. Everything is done on a straight R vs D basis, so percentages may look skewed. I have the 2006 numbers in this spreadsheet, and the 2004 numbers in this one.

As I've said in previous posts that analyzed Harris County races, I'm going to go by countywide race data wherever I can, as it provides a bigger data set as well as one with less variation. Generally speaking countywide Democratic candidates fared better, so in the comparison to an individual race like CD32 I think it gives a clearer picture of the relative parties' strengths. Where I can't easily use that data, I'll sub in the top and bottom statewide races to give a range; that's Hutchison/Radnofsky and Willett/Moody.

With all that out of the way, let's get started. There were 26 contested county races in the SOS sample. I'd have died of carpal tunnel syndrome trying to break them all out for individual comparison, so instead I aggregated them. Here's a summary of that picture:

Candidate     Votes    Pct

==========================

Hutchison    79,000   63.4

Sessions     71,461   57.8

County GOP   67,807   57.4

Willett      63,704   54.5


Moody        53,250   45.5

Pryor        52,269   42.2

County Dem   50,374   42.6

Radnofsky    45,679   36.6

Basically, Sessions was about an average countywide Republican in CD32. As every statewide Republican other than Don Willett did better than that percentagewise, I find that encouraging for the Dems. It says to me that Sessions isn't particularly beloved, or at least that his money didn't buy him extra love at the ballot box. For comparison purposes, CD32 was a smidge under 60% GOP in 2004, with Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez winning slightly over 42% there.

Things get very interesting at the State Rep level:

Candidate    Dist   Votes   Pct

===============================

Goolsby       102   8,423  58.4

Sessions      102   9,061  62.8

Willett       102   8,050  59.4


Miller        102   5,990  41.6

Pryor         102   5,361  37.1

Moody         102   5,502  40.6



Harper-Brown  105   6,267  58.0

Sessions      105   6,479  58.9

Willett       105   5,835  55.7

Romano        105   4,530  42.0

Pryor         105   4,520  41.1

Moody         105   4,638  44.3



England       106   3,199  50.5

Sessions      106   3,722  58.3

Willett       106   3,215  52.9

Hubener       106   3,137  49.5

Pryor         106   2,658  41.7

Moody         106   2,867  47.1



Keffer        107   2,537  50.6

Sessions      107   2,982  57.4

Willett       107   2,541  52.8

Vaught        107   2,477  49.4

Pryor         107   2,209  42.6

Moody         107   2,270  47.2



Branch        108  13,108  71.3

Sessions      108  12,676  67.4

Willett       108  11,387  64.7

Borden        108   5,229  28.7

Pryor         108   6,127  32.6

Moody         108   6,214  35.3



Hartnett      114  13,475  56.6

Sessions      114  14,368  58.8

Willett       114  13,040  56.6

Shinoda       114  10,313  43.4

Pryor         114  10,079  41.2

Moody         114  10,009  43.4

In the districts where the Dems ran a strong candidate for the State House - in particular, Hubener in HD106 and Vaught in HD107, with Miller in HD106 not far behind - Sessions outpaced his local counterpart. In districts where the challenge was lighter, such as HDs 105 and 108, Sessions ran closer to even or behind. What this suggests to me is that there are persuadable voters out there who were reached by some campaigns but clearly not by Will Pryor. Targeting those areas - and the good news is that Goolsby (51.93%), Harper-Brown (55.08%), England (49.16%), Branch (55.99%), and Hartnett (55.58%) are all clearly appealing targets - has the potential to gain a lot of votes. Plus, John Carona, whose SD04 is one of maybe three genuinely purple State Senate seats, will also be on the ballot with a lot of overlap. There's a lot more to going after Pete Sessions than just his Congressional seat.

The bottom line is that Dallas Democrats will have the wind at their back in 2008 in a way they didn't have it last year - they'll be like the Harris County GOP in 1996, in a position to pick up everything that wasn't available to them in the prior cycle. They should have no trouble fundraising, no trouble finding strong candidates up and down the ballot, and no trouble generating excitement to get out the vote. CD32 is within their grasp if they want to take it. We'll see what they do about it.

Saints preserve us!

Or, failing that, HAHC preserve us, with the "us" being the River Oaks Shopping Center, the River Oaks theater and Alabama Theater/Bookstop.

Betty Chapman, who chairs the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission, said Tuesday the commission will vote on whether to designate the properties as historic landmarks. It would be the first time the commission has launched the designation of a building as a historic landmark and without the approval of the buildings' owners, Weingarten Realty Investors.

Weingarten Realty could not be reached for comment.

"We are going to initiate that, and then there is a process we have to go through," Chapman said. "We feel the buildings are so important that they need the designation of being historic landmarks."

Sounds good, though of course in and of itself it means little - as Houstonist points out, that just means there's a 90-day delay before the bulldozers can do their job. Still, this is an important statement for the Commission to make, whatever its practical effect may be. We'll see how Weingarten reacts.

Meanwhile, Miya Shay teases us with the possibility that there may be a plan to actually save the River Oaks Theater. One can only hope. Click over and check it out.

Is that all there is?

When you see a headline that says DeLay associate tied to Abramoff probe, you kind of expect the story to be all about an associate of Tom DeLay's and his alleged ties to Jack Abramoff. That's not quite what we get, however.

[P]rosecutors could decide within weeks whether to bring charges against former DeLay staff chief Edwin Buckham, according to sources close to the investigation who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. The decision should give a clear signal on whether DeLay remains in legal jeopardy, the sources said.

In recent days federal prosecutors have served notice that their sprawling Abramoff case has remained very much alive.

[...]

Investigators have looked closely at the $115,000 that Buckham's lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group, paid Christine DeLay at a rate of $3,200 a month beginning in 1998, soon after Buckham left his job as DeLay's chief of staff. A nonprofit company set up by Buckham, the U.S. Family Network, received a major part of its funding from companies with ties to Abramoff. Then, the nonprofit paid Buckham and his lobbying firm hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.

Buckham's attorney did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment.

The payments to Christine DeLay resembled, at least superficially, those Abramoff's former lobbying firm gave to Julie Doolittle's company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions Inc., between September 2002 and February 2004.

[DeLay attorney Richard] Cullen has said the money for Christine DeLay was a legitimate payment from the lobbying firm for work she did to compile a list of charities in House members' districts.

Most of the rest of the article is a rehash of stuff that has happened, like the guilty pleas of former DeLay staffers Mike Scanlon and Tony Rudy, plus a recap of recent activity by the FBI. I don't want to be dismissive of the idea that prosecutors "could decide within weeks" whether or not to charge Ed Buckham - if such a thing is being said to a reporter, it almost surely means there will be charges brought, and that is big news - and I'm always happy to see a reminder of DeLay's sleaze in the papers, but still. That headline was more tease than delivery.

TPM Muckraker has more on all this, but the guy who's really been on top of it all around here is Greg in TX22. Give him a good look if you want to catch up. And have some popcorn supplies laid in for when the prosecutors make their decision on Buckham.

"Jessica's Law" passes out of Senate

And speaking of "Jessica's Law", it's out of the Senate and into a joint committee.

The Texas Senate passed its long-awaited "Jessica's Law" Tuesday to protect children from sexual predators, but it reserved the death penalty for those twice convicted of the most heinous child rapes.

The bill also creates a new offense for "continual sexual abuse" of a child, increases penalties for certain child sex offenses and removes the statute of limitations for victims of child sex crimes.

"I am confident that this legislation will help protect the safety of our children and send a clear message to those who would prey on them. Don't do it," said the bill's author, Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville.

The Senate's bill now returns to the House, where members can concur or call for a conference committee to work out differences.

Unlike the conference committees for the HPV vaccine and toll road moratorium, this one is under little time pressure. Governor Perry can't wait to sign it.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, the only dissenter in the 30-1 vote, said he's concerned about expanding the death penalty in Texas when DNA tests have exonerated several inmates who served time for crimes they didn't commit.

"All of us have to make tough choices, but at some point we have to know where to draw the line between what's politically right but morally wrong," he said.

He also pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the death penalty for the rape of a 16-year-old girl was unconstitutional because death should be reserved for murder.

There's sure to be a Supreme Court ruling on this law as well eventually. Given the nature of the Roberts Court, however, I wouldn't be so confident that it'll be struck down. Nonetheless, kudos to Sen. Ellis for his stance, and for reminding us of how problematic the death penalty has been in Texas. Grits has more.

Letter from border police chiefs regarding HB13

I received the following in email late yesterday:

To Whom It May Concern:

This is an open letter to the media, our state legislators, and the Texas community as a whole that serves the purpose of voicing our collective concern regarding HB 13, which was recently voted out of the House Committee on State Affairs and is set to go to the House floor for a vote in the near future. In our opinion, HB 13 is severely flawed as written and needs to be amended before it can begin to serve the purpose it claims to serve, which is the protection of the citizens of our state.

While we do not make it common practice to get involved in political debates, we feel we cannot in good conscience abstain from voicing our concerns regarding HB 13, as we are responsible for the safety and well-being of the citizens of our communities. We feel it necessary to explain that most of us were unaware of the existence of this piece of legislation regarding Homeland Security and the disbursement of $100 million in funds to law enforcement entities until very recently, as we were never contacted or consulted on the matter. This is despite the fact that we, as municipal police chiefs, are responsible for the security and protection of the majority of people both along the border area and across the state as a whole.

I'm going to put the rest of it beneath the fold, as it's a big lengthy. It's funny - we've got prosecutors and advocates for victims of sexual assault opposing "Jessica's Law", and now we've got police chiefs opposing a Homeland Security bill. Is there anything that the state leadership is pushing that the people on the receiving end actually want?

Click on for more.

Letter continues:

Our fundamental concern is that HB 13 gives a civilian and political office, the Governor's State Office of Homeland Security, the authority to develop, administer, and execute programs that should be under a law enforcement agency. As law enforcement professionals, we feel it would be wise to transfer command and control of all of the border security and other activities of the Office of Homeland Security from the Office of the Governor to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). DPS is best equipped to develop and administer these programs as well as the money it takes to run them, as they are the premier law enforcement agency in our state. DPS already works with local law enforcement and is familiar with our needs. DPS also has experience in conducting audits, administering performance tools, and evaluating success.

Another major concern is that HB13 creates a Border Security Council that will decide where the funding for border security programs will go as well as measure the outcomes of those programs. The council consists of the director of the Sate Office of Homeland Security, the public safety director of DPS, and the executive director of the Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition. Municipal police departments, including those that are local along the border, are not included in this decision-making body. We feel this severely jeopardizes our ability to obtain any of the funding the council will administer.

In addition, the State Office of Homeland Security will, with advice from the Border Security Council, decide how to allocate funds for homeland security related activities in the state as well as monitor the success of those programs. Again, we are not included in this decision-making process and feel this will directly and negatively affect our chances of obtaining funding through these programs.

Our concerns are based on that fact that the programs that have thus far been administered and funded by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security have been solely focused on providing money to border sheriffs. Municipal police departments, including those along the border, have been virtually shut-out by the border security programs so far administered by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security. We fear the current language in HB 13 will permit this practice to continue.

In addition, we are also concerned about the results the Governor's Office of Homeland Security has so far claimed to have obtained through its programs with the border sheriffs. Therefore, we openly question how their statistics and success rates have been calculated.

We believe that these programs have been based on "surge" operations thus far. Using the "surge" tactic may in instances temporarily reduce crime in an area while the operation is undergoing, but it in no way produces a sustained effect. In fact, we recommend the DPS practice of disrupting and dismantling crime rather than the method currently used by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security, which is disrupting and deterring crime and includes these "surge" operations.

Let us be clear in that we do not oppose funding and support to the sheriffs of our state. In fact, we applaud and encourage it, as we feel it is important that all law enforcement personnel receive adequate and fair funding and support from the state. However, without proper organization, administration, and oversight, we feel that the money will not be used in the most efficient and successful way possible, as we feel has been the case thus far. Once again, we believe that DPS as a law enforcement agency would be much better equipped to ensure that programs related to both border security and Homeland Security as a whole are well-scrutinized and produce the results we all want to see.

Finally, we must note that our interpretation of HB 13 leads us to believe that we will be required to enforce federal immigration laws. While we currently cooperate with the federal agencies regarding this matter, we do not feel that we are equipped in terms of training or manpower to enforce federal immigration laws as HB 13 requires.

We call on our legislators to take into consideration our concerns, the concerns of other law enforcement professionals, and the concerns of everyday citizens when making the decision of whether or not to support HB 13 as it is currently written.

We feel that any legislator that is genuinely concerned with equipping the Texas law enforcement community with what it needs to combat all kinds of crime, including drug trafficking and smuggling along the border area, should demand that major changes be made to HB 13 before supporting it.

Because we believe that our state leaders should make an effort to include input from those of us most affected by the outcome of HB 13, we make ourselves available to these legislators to speak directly with them.

We thank you for your time and your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Chief Fred Garza
Uvalde Police Department
964 W. Main
Uvalde, TX 78801
(830) 278-9147

Chief R. L. McVay
Castroville Police Department
411 London St.
Castroville, TX 78009
(830) 931-2222

Chief Waylon Bullard
Del Rio Police Department
110 E. Broadway
Del Rio, TX 78840
(830) 774-8576

Chief Eden N. Garcia
Falfurrias Police Department
203 E. Allen
Falfurrias, TX 78355
(361) 325-5041

Chief John V. Martinez
Hondo Police Department
1101 16th St.
Hondo, TX 78861
(830) 426-5353

Chief Andrew W. Aston
La Coste Police Department
16004 S. Front
La Coste, TX 78039-0112
(830) 985-9494

Chief James W. Bush
Somerset Police Department
7360 E. 6th St.
Somerset, TX 78069
(830) 622-5611

Chief Vance E. Roberts
Three Rivers Police Department
PO Box 398
Three Rivers, TX 78071-0398
(361) 786-2743

Chief Ray Garcia
George West Police Department
404 Nueces St.
George West, TX 78022-2250
(361) 449-3800

Chief Ricardo Torres
Kingsville Police Department
1700 E. King
Kingsville, TX 78363
(361) 592-4211

Chief Jose H. Garcia
Roma Police Department
PO Box 947
Roma, TX 78584-0947
(956) 849-2231

Chief Carlos Pena
Robstown Police Department
PO Box 626
Robstown, TX 78380-0626
(361) 387-3531

Chief Daniel J. Bueno
Alice Police Department
415 E. Main
Alice, TX 78332
(361) 664-0186

A slideshow of racist spokescharacters

Slate magazine has a slideshow of racist spokescharacters for various products. I can't really do this justice in a capsule description - just click and be appalled.

A pocketful of Kryptonite

Where can I get some?

Kryptonite, which robbed Superman of his powers, is no longer the stuff of comic books and films.

A mineral found by geologists in Serbia shares virtually the same chemical composition as the fictional kryptonite from outer space, used by the superhero's nemesis Lex Luther to weaken him in the film "Superman Returns."

"We will have to be careful with it -- we wouldn't want to deprive Earth of its most famous superhero!," said Dr Chris Stanley, a mineralogist at London's Natural History Museum.

Stanley, who revealed the identity of the mysterious new mineral, discovered the match after searching the Internet for its chemical formula - sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide.

"I was amazed to discover that same scientific name written on a case of rock containing kryptonite stolen by Lex Luther from a museum in the film Superman Returns," he said.

I didn't even realize that kryptonite had a chemical formula. I mean, if it's supposed to be an element, there's not much to it. Be that as it may, it had never occurred to me that someone had defined a formula for it. And now it exists. Don't you just love science?

But instead of the large green crystals in Superman comics, the real thing is a white, powdery substance which contains no fluorine and is non-radioactive.

The mineral, to be named Jadarite, will go on show at the London's Natural History Museum at certain times of the day on Wednesday, April 25, and Sunday, May 13.

Oh. Well, that's a bit of a letdown. What fun is it if it isn't green and glowing? Link via Oliver Willis.

TSEU on TIERS and HHSC

The following is an email from the Texas State Employees' Union (TSEU) regarding the Office of the Inspector General's report on TIERS. It was sent to me by an HHSC worker. It's long, so I've put it beneath the fold. Click on for more. And ponder that Albert Hawkins' job appears to be safe.

TIERS/IEES Review by the Office of the Inspector General

Inspector General Flood released a report on TSEU Lobby Day (April 18) that highlights the weaknesses of the TIERS system. The OIG review, requested on March 13 by 30 of the 31 members of the Texas Senate, lays out the problems that have make TIERS minimally functional at best, and that call into question whether the state should continue the fund the TIERS development program.

The OIG review notes that over half a billion dollars in tax funds have gone into the TIERS and IEES/call center programs, and the implication is that much of that money has probably been wasted.

Among its findings the OIG review includes strong evidence that SAVERR is a faster, more efficient, and more accurate system than TIERS.

The report makes six major recommendations:

1. Put in single project manager in control of the entire TIERS/Integrated Eligibility project.
2. Have an independent consultant review the TIERS and SAVERR systems to determine which, if either, will be an adequate system.
3. Limit the number of new cases being put into the TIERS system, and continue the freeze on TIERS roll-out.
4. Have the State Auditor's Office (SAO) audit the TIERS, SAVERR, and IEES programs.
5. Have the state Quality Assurance Team monitor TIERS/IEES implementation.
6. Stabilize the current workforce environment.

*******************************
TIERS/IEE Costs so far

TIERS $425,603,019
IEES $ 96,535,389
TOTAL $522,138,408
*******************************

Dewhurst, Craddick call for TIERS freeze, audit

In the next few days Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick, will sign and send letters to State Auditor John Keel and to HHSC Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins. The letter to the State Auditor will call for an full review of the TIERS system by the auditor's office. The letter to Commissioner Hawkins will call for a freeze in TIERS expansion until the auditor's review is complete.

[...]

Texas State Employees Union Four point plan for high-quality, cost-effective human services eligibility

We can clean up the mess. A decisively implemented, well-designed plan can restore efficiency and effectiveness to Texas' human services eligibility system and pave the way for real improvements.

1. Terminate the Accenture contract.

The changes announced in December 2006 are a good first step, but now we face the prospect of paying nearly $600 million for products and services of minimal, if any, value to the State of Texas. The funds saved by cancelling the Accenture contract could be used to rebuild the eroded capacity of the human services eligibility system. TSEU has identified numerous provisions of the contract that would allow cancellation.

2. Rebuild a functioning human services eligibility system.

Texas had a system that was functional and efficient. The state won enhanced funding bonuses every year because we exceeded federal standards. The system must be re-built and improved. The conversion of 900 temporary eligibility positions to regular positions is a good first step, but the eligibility system has been decimated as thousands of employees have left and have not been replaced.

A. Hire more staff: It would require less than 1000 additional positions to rebuild the staff to the 2004 levels. Add these staff and re-evaluate staffing levels in 2009.
B. Rebuild a qualified staff:
1.) Create a program to bring skilled, tenured staff who have left back into the agency.
2.) Reverse the damage caused by the Job Search and Placement ( JSAP) program by allowing all HHSC employees who accepted transfers under JSAP to return to their original positions.
3.) Rebuild the training program for eligibility staff.
4.) Cancel the Convergys contract and rebuild effective human resources/personnel services to support management and front-line staff.
C. Consider creative ways to enhance services. Ask front-line eligibility staff for ideas.

3. Integrate CHIP eligibility with children's Medicaid Eligibility in the state-operated intake system.

HHSC already operates state-employee-staffed call centers in El Paso, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio, and Dallas that do intake for Children's Medicaid. The CHIP and Children's Medicaid programs are closely related: integrating eligibility would provide a seamless, "one-stop" system in which a single qualified worker would directly enroll the applicant in whichever program they are eligible for. This step would reduce costs and increase accuracy and timeliness in providing these crucial services to Texas children.

4. Deploy a cost-effective, functional data system for human services eligibility.

A. Have a task force that is outside the HHSC structure and answerable to the Legislature re-evaluate both the TIERS system and the SAVERR system to determine the systems' present and potential functionality.
B. Move decisively on the findings of the study to either complete the development of TIERS or cancel the project; to implement an upgrade of SAVERR , or to pursue a new approach.
C. Suspend all input or conversion of cases into TIERS until the future of the system has been decided and, if it is decided to keep TIERS, until the system is fully functional.
D. Seek and accept the input of front-line human services staff as part of all decision-making and developmental steps to deploy a functional system.

Light pollution

As you know, I grew up in New York City. I experienced a number of culture shocks in coming down to Texas as a college student, but one of the more vivid ones was during my sophomore year, when I was keeping score for the baseball team. We'd all travelled to Kerrville, about sixty miles west of San Antonio, for an afternoon doubleheader against Schreiner College (now Schreiner University), and by the time it was all over it was nighttime. I remember being amazed at how utterly, completely dark it was in that little Hill Country town once the sun went down - it seemed like I could reach out and touch the darkness, it was so enveloping - and consequently how jam-packed with stars the sky was. For someone used to urban night skies, it was quite the revelation. I know that couldn't have been the first time I'd seen such a thing, but for whatever the reason it felt like the first time, and some 20 years later I can still recall it clearly.

I tell you that as an intro to this article, which as you can tell has struck a chord in me:

As the show begins, visitors to the Morehead Planetarium see a night sky free of polluting light. Projected onto the dome is a truly dark sky pricked by countless sparkling points. A narrow smudge -- our galaxy, the Milky Way -- is as clear as day.

Then the light grows to a brightness familiar outside the building. The number of stars visible in the virtual sky drops dramatically, to just a handful of tiny bright spots.

"I know, it's terrible," Morehead educator Amy Sayles says sympathetically to a multigenerational crowd of dozens who gathered at the planetarium for Our Vanishing Night, a program that led up to the Earth Day celebrations.

This year, a growing coalition urged the rest of us to turn down the lights. A group of amateur and professional astronomers has made this plea for decades. Now the astronomers are joined by a new ally -- environmentalists. They think cutting light pollution will cut wasted energy and greenhouse gases from power plants.

It's a match made for the heavens, which are fading to human eyes all over the world.

The International Dark Sky Association estimates that 99 percent of the people in the U.S. and Europe live in light-polluted areas, unable to see traces of the Milky Way or many stars when they walk out of their homes and gaze skyward.

[...]

In 2001, Raleigh, N.C., passed a lighting ordinance that limits illumination spillovers across property lines and requires shielding parking lot fixtures so their light travels only down. In May, all residential fixtures are expected to comply, even those installed before the rules passed.

Orange County has an ordinance too, passed in 2003. Government leaders and planners there are considering requiring fixtures installed before then to lose their exemptions -- over time. The aim is not only to limit the growth of light pollution, but also to reduce it, said Craig Benedict, planning and inspections director.

Although Benedict doesn't expect unanimous support in his growing county, he sees more interest, particularly among environmentalists.

"Energy issues are really bringing this to a head," he said. "The need for more electricity creates the need for more energy production and that means more nuclear plants or coal plants. That's the linchpin that pulls groups together."

I'm not always the best at remembering to turn out lights when I leave a room, so I'm going to try to take this as an inspiration to do better. I figure it's the least I can do to help.

Combs rescinds Strayhorn's question about the business tax

Boy, does this ever raise a bunch of red flags.

Former state Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn more than a year ago asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for a legal opinion on whether the state's expanded business tax amounts to an income tax.

Her successor, Susan Combs, has taken Abbott off the hook.

"Last year, my predecessor submitted a request to your opinions committee. In a letter from First Assistant Attorney General Barry McBee, your office answered all questions raised. ... Therefore, I withdraw that opinions request," Combs said in a February letter.

Okay, first question: Why are we only hearing about this now, in April? What'd she do, send it by Pony Express?

Let's review a little history here. Last April, at Governor Perry's request, Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion saying that the new business tax that was about to be adopted during a special legislative session, did not constitute an income tax, which would require it to be ratified by the voters of Texas. Except that the opinion wasn't signed by Abbott but by his First Assistant AG Barry McBee, which prompted then-Comptroller/independent candidate for Governor Carole Keeton Strayhorn to call it inadequate and ask for another opinion by Abbott himself. Which, as you can see at that link, is something Abbott was supposed to do within 180 days, or before Halloween of 2006.

So, we then have to ask: What is the deadline for an Attorney General to issue an opinion when one is requested? What happens if the AG does not do so by then? And why, after ten months had passed, did now-Comptroller Combs ask to drop the matter?

You may argue that McBee's opinion was sufficient - certainly, Strayhorn's request was as much political theater as anything - but if so, then why did Combs bother to rescind the request?

I happen to think that the original opinion was correct, and that Strayhorn was posturing. But you know, it really should have been Greg Abbott's signature on that sucker, and Strayhorn was right to try to hold his feet to the fire. It's appalling that this went into the memory hole, and that Combs, who is a Pomeranian to Strayhorn's Rottweiler, quietly dropped the matter. Say what you want about Strayhorn - and Lord knows, I have - she was still the biggest counterweight to Rick Perry for his prior term in office; the Lege at least has done some pushback this session. Combs has been the rag doll I feared she'd be.

A legal challenge to the business tax could be filed when the state begins collecting it next year.

"It is expected that with any new tax law, you're going to see a number of lawsuits that sort of define the tax around the edges," said chief economist Dale Craymer of the business-based Texas Taxpayers and Research Association.

I'll be shocked if there isn't a lawsuit at that time. At least then we'll finally get Greg Abbott on the record. Stay tuned.

Senate blocks Perry's HPV order

Well, in one area at least, the Lege is standing up to Governor Perry for his attempts at grabbing power.

The Senate Monday passed a bill overturning Gov. Rick Perry's order that middle-school girls be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer, with a requirement that the issue be reviewed in four years.

After a brief debate, the Senate voted 30-1, with Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, casting the lone "no" vote.

The bill would prevent the HPV vaccine from being required for school enrollment until 2011. The version passed by the House has no expiration date.

Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, who is sponsoring House Bill 1098 in the Senate, said the bill would provide a "resting period" for lawmakers to decide whether vaccinating girls against the human papillomavirus should be state policy.

Though I think the goal of the HPV executive order was worthwhile, I think it was proper (if rather hypocritical) of the Lege to push back. I think this is an overreaction, but I suppose I should be glad they didn't ban it forever.

Having said that, the issue is not fully settled yet:

Van de Putte tried unsuccessfully to have the ban against the HPV mandate expire in 2009, the next regular session. "I would ask that you consider the young women in this state, especially those who are exposed to this virus and will eventually die of this illness."

The House sponsor, Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, said it is a good idea to revisit the issue in four years. If the House concurs, the bill would go to Perry, who would have 10 days to sign it, let it become law without his signature or veto it.

As with the toll road moratorium, the issue still needs to be resolved in conference, then re-approved by both chambers. Only if these things can be done soon will there be a chance to override a veto from Perry. In other words, the final chapter of this story hasn't been written yet.

One voter ID measure passes, one gets delayed

I had hope for defeating the voter ID measures, but not that much hope - there's only so much you can do when your the minority and the majority really really wants something. And so one bill passed while the other hit a snag and will be delayed until next week.

[HB218] tentatively passed 76-68 and is expected to go to the Senate after a final vote today.

A similar bill passed the House two years ago only to die in the Senate. If this bill receives final House approval, it likely faces a similar fate with a bloc of senators signing a letter promising to keep the bill from coming up for debate.

To cast a ballot, a voter would have to provide proof of identification with any valid photo ID, including an employment badge. Nonphotographic alternatives would include paychecks, utility bills or other documentation that includes the person's name and address.

Actually, it's more pernicious than that, as Vince notes.

Before discussing the implications of this vote further, I want to direct you to an excellent exchange between the author and House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam (D-Waco):

DUNNAM: So if I show up without a voter ID card, my voter registration card, but with five government photo IDs, I will get a provisional ballot, correct?
B. BROWN: You would have a provisional ballot, because you need to bring your voter registration card with you.
DUNNAM: And my vote won't count.
B. BROWN: It will be a provisional ballot.

So, yeah. Your vote likely won't count. This was something about the bill even I didn't realize, and I've studied it extensively. I actually thought that, even under the bill, if you didn't have your voter registration card and had multiple other forms of ID, your vote would count (ie, no provisional ballot). Not so however. Guess it's another thing the Republicans managed to sneak in in the middle of the night.

Better go find your voter reg card and keep it someplace safe. I can already hear the howls of outrage when people who show up with their driver's license find out that theirs will be a provisional ballot.

RG Ratcliffe does a better job than Clay Robison did in characterizing the arguments over HB218, but Gardner Selby did the best by far. He also provides a little hope that there will be a legal backstop for this madness:

[Bill author Betty Brown] accepted an amendment exempting anyone 80 or over from the voter ID requirement, which is an exception that proves the rule. The 80-and-over amendment sounds awfully unconstitutional in that it attaches a greater significance to some voters than others and therefore violates the equal protection clause with regard to voters under age 80.

She took an amendment that would give victims of natural disasters a chance to vote without having to produce picture ID for a year and another amendment that would exempt disabled veterans.

Finally, while the final bill passed with 76 votes total, some early amendments that might have basically gutted it failed by as little as one vote. Two Democratic House members, Aaron Pena and Kino Flores, were not present yesterday. Neither were two Republicans - Kirk England and Tony Goolsby - who were reportedly leaning towards crossing over to support the Dems. You do the math. BOR and Latinos for Texas discuss the prospects in the Senate, where Sen. Rodney Ellis has the votes to block it from coming to the floor, assuming that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst doesn't change the rules midstream. We'll see. Hal has more.

UPDATE: Ed Sills writes to tell me that the excerpt from Gardner Selby's piece that I quoted was taken from an email he'd sent out on behalf of the Texas AFL-CIO. I've got a copy of that email now, and everything in Selby's piece from "And Ed Sills of the Texas AFL-CIO saw it this way" is from it. I'm still glad Selby aired what Sills wrote, but he needs to learn how to use the blockquote tag. My apologies for any confusion.

Eye on Williamson has more on what transpired yesterday.

UPDATE: More from The Texas Blue.

Farrar on HB13

The following is a press release from Rep. Jessica Farrar (my State Rep) regarding the Homeland Security bill HB13:

On Thursday, April 19, the House Committee on State Affairs voted to send HB 13 by Chairman Swinford (R-Dumas) to the House floor for a vote. Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) voted against the bill and officially stated that she has serious concerns regarding the bill. While she agrees in principal with what the bill aims to do, she does not feel the current language in HB 13 truly works to protect Texas from crime along the border and throughout the state.

Chief among Rep. Farrar's concerns is that HB 13 creates a State Office of Homeland Security that is placed under the Office of the Governor. "This means that the State Office of Homeland Security is neither a law enforcement agency, nor is it overseen by a law enforcement agency. It is overseen by a political office despite the fact that HB 13 tasks the State Office of Homeland Security with activities that have traditionally been developed, administered, and executed by law enforcement agencies," she stated.

One of the most pressing aspects of this overall concern for Rep. Farrar involves the Texas Data Exchange (TDEx). While HB 13 places TDEx under the Texas Rangers, the Governor's Office of Emergency Management is charged with project management of TDEx. "This means that the Governor's State Office of Homeland Security continues to have access to and control over the administration of TDEx," she said. In addition, Rep. Farrar noted that the Texas Rangers are already charged with investigating capitol murder, helping local law enforcement, investigating official wrongdoing, and overseeing the current Texas Youth Commission investigation with the 112 officers they currently have, and this is where their focus should remain.

Since the Texas Rangers have no experience in administering, developing, or implementing any kind of database, she believes adding this to their list of things to do puts an unfair burden on them. "We have to ask if this is this in the best interest of both TDEx and the Texas Rangers, and I believe the answer is no. The Criminal Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is charged with maintaining and administering DPS databases. Therefore, TDEx would most naturally be accommodated there, " said Rep. Farrar.

Language in HB 13 requires that local and state law enforcement officers enforce the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act even though Chairman Swinford has repeatedly stated that he did not intend this legislation to force local and state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. The language on immigration laws in HB 13 contradicts his statements and supposed intent.

Along with the concern regarding the enforcement of federal immigration law, Rep. Farrar points out that the bill creates a Border Security Council that is charged with deciding how to disburse funds for border security activities. It consists of the director of the State Office of Homeland Security, the public safety director of DPS, and the executive director of the Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition, which means that the director of the State Office of Homeland Security and the executive director of the Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition could easily outvote the public safety director of DPS despite the fact that DPS is the state law enforcement arm of the council. In addition, the Border Security Council is charged with implementing performance measures and auditing the programs administered by the State Office of Homeland Security.

The result is that the Governor's State Office of Homeland Security, which is the entity that administers the border security programs, and the border sheriffs, which are the entities that receive and use the funds for border security programs, decide where the money goes as well as what are and are not adequate results. In other words, says Rep. Farrar, "the same entities receiving the funds for border security are responsible for monitoring and auditing themselves. This is an obvious conflict of interest, and it does not compensate for the fact that a political office will have control over where the money goes and how it is used. I know of no other state-funded agency or body that does not have a second or third party checking in to make sure they are operating appropriately."

Rep. Farrar has repeatedly voiced her concerns regarding the border security programs that the Governor's Office of Homeland Security has already been in charge of. She has called into question their methods of measuring the success of their own operations. "I have seen the reports they use, and they leave a great deal to be desired. No one has been able to fully explain to me how they calculate their statistics, and other law enforcement officials have shared with me that they also question the validity of their so-called success rates. That makes me worry that we are spending a great deal of money on programs that are not going to have a significant and sustained effect on border crime" she said.

Along with the creation of the Border Security Council, HB 13 focuses solely on providing assistance to border sheriffs. "Municipal police forces have been virtually shut out of the programs that so far have been administered by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security, even though they are charged with the protection of the majority of residents on the Texas border. Municipal police chiefs have voiced their concern to me that they are not included in either the decision-making process involved with these programs in HB 13, nor have they been included in the border security projects that have so far been executed," stated Rep. Farrar.

She also noted that crimes related to drugs and human trafficking are not limited to the border area. Major metropolitan Texas areas as well as other towns and cities feel they also need funds and support from the state to target the crime their communities are seeing. Current language in HB 13 would give authority to the State Office of Homeland Security, with the advice of the Border Security Council, to decide how to disperse funds for Homeland Security throughout the state as well as how to measure the success of these programs. This is also a concern since there is the possibility the main focus of these programs will also remain with the border sheriffs and not be disbursed according to need throughout the state. "We need to ensure that funding is made available to all law enforcement throughout the state if we really want to have a significant impact on crime," stated Rep. Farrar.

More on the problems of HB13 here, and of course at Grits for Breakfast. The Observer blog has a related point.

The Center's letter of intent with the city

For your perusal, here's the letter of intent from the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation to the city of Houston concerning their proposal to buy the land on which they now sit and which they now lease. Most of what's in it has been discussed here already, but there's some stuff at the end that compares various lease scenarios to the purchase price. Take a look and see what you think.

At this point, I'm not sure what else there is to say about this story. Every indication is that both the city and the Center are happy with this deal - I certainly got that impression from talking to David Baldwin, the chair of the Center's Foundation board. He called it a "win-win", and said that the Center now controls its own destiny. I've since asked Ed Davis, the Center's media contact, if there were any restrictions in the Center's lease that might have made owning the land a more attractive option; he told me that under the lease, the Center basically had to get City Council approval for capital projects, which it now no longer has to do. (Those of us who rented before buying a house should be able to relate to that.) It also no longer has to provide an annual report to Council detailing its services, though of course it has and will continue to provide one for its board and its stakeholders.

So anyway. There's no question that this situation could and should have been handled better from the beginning. But in the end - and as far as I can tell, after Mayor White got personally involved - a fair and amicable solution was reached. Like I said, I'm not sure what else there is to add at this point. The most important thing is that the Center will continue to be able to do the fine work that it does. Everything else is now just details.

Take this dog, please

Interesting story about how the dog shelters try to make sure that once an animal has been adopted it stays adopted.

In an effort to reduce animal returns, municipal and private shelters tinker with their systems. Harris County, for example, used to give a training DVD to families after an adoption was complete. Now, the DVD goes home before the pet. The agency also is developing a post-adoption survey aimed at heading off problems with animals and their new owners.

Shelter staffs also use the information accompanying a returned animal to help with subsequent efforts. In some cases, they are able to give dogs behavior training to address obedience issues. The local Humane Society once sent a deaf dog for training in hand signals after it was returned four times, none of the adoptions lasting longer than a couple of weeks. The dog has now been with a family for nearly three years.

[...]

The Houston SPCA, which had 536 animals returned from March 2006 to March of this year, started a program last summer called Forever Friends to determine behavioral characteristics of older dogs.

The five-part assessment measures the dog's level of interest in play, how it reacts to someone walking into a room, or how hard it will work for a treat.

It also scores a dog on how it behaves when it's alone, with staffers watching the animal on a video monitor. Does it jump on the furniture? Does it chew on toys? Or does it wait patiently at the door?

Dogs are placed in color-coded categories for high (yellow), average (green) or low maintenance (blue). The personality color is matched with a description -- bed bug, comedian, party animal -- that is placed on the dog's cage.

I've been thinking about this sort of thing lately because our dog Harry (seen basking on our back deck here) is getting up there in years - I adopted him in 1997, when he was about two years old - and I know that the day when he'll no longer be with us is approaching. After all this time, I'm a dog person, and when Harry goes to the great kibble bowl in the sky, I want to find another dog to fill out our family. I was very lucky with Harry - he was more or less foisted on me by my then-boss, who was foster caring for him after a friend of hers found him on the street - because he was a good personality match for me. Next time, as I'll not be operating out of complete ignorance, I'll have to do a little research and kick a few figurative tires to try to get it right. I'll also have at least three more personalities to take into consideration. Which may mean our next dog is more Olivia's or Audrey's than mine, though of course it'll still be up to me to walk and feed him. And you know, that'll be fine, too.

More on wiretapping in Texas

I briefly mentioned that there are a couple of bills working their way through the Lege that would allow big-city police forces to do wiretaps, instead of having to go through the Department of Public Safety. Grits explains why this is a wasteful boondoggle:

[A]ccording to wiretapping statistics reported annually to the Department of Justice, four of these six departments did not engage in a single wiretap between 1998 and 2005, the last year for which statistics are available. In no year did Texas judges approve more than five wiretaps, and a couple of years none were authorized in the entire state!

So why should local taxpayers in these six cities pay for training and equipment when wiretapping is so rarely used in Texas? Right now the Department of Public Safety manages all wiretaps statewide, and given the low volume involved - and the fact that most big city PDs aren't using wiretaps - it doesn't make a lot of sense to create redundant capacity at these six agencies.

Indeed. This is about as good an argument as I can think of for centralization. I don't understand the rationale for changing it.

Save chocolate!

Julia forwards the call to arms.

The FDA is entertaining a "citizen's petition" to allow manufacturers to substitute vegetable fats and oils for cocoa butter.

The "citizens" who created this petition represent groups that would benefit most from this degradation of the current standards. They are the Chocolate Manufacturers Assn., the Grocery Manufacturers Assn., the Snack Food Assn. and the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (OK, I'm not sure what's in it for them), along with seven other food producing associations.

This is what they think of us chocolate eaters, according to their petition on file at the FDA:

"Consumer expectations still define the basic nature of a food. There are, however, no generally held consumer expectations today concerning the precise technical elements by which commonly recognized, standardized foods are produced. Consumers, therefore, are not likely to have formed expectations as to production methods, aging time or specific ingredients used for technical improvements, including manufacturing efficiencies."

Let me translate: "Consumers won't know the difference."

[...]

Because it's already perfectly legal to sell choco-products made with cheaper oils and fats, what the groups are asking the FDA for is permission to call these waxy impostors "chocolate." Because we "haven't formed any expectations."

I'd say we've already demonstrated our preference for true chocolate. That's why real chocolate outsells fake chocolate. Nine of the 10 bestselling U.S. chocolate candies are made with the real stuff. M&Ms, Hershey Bars, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups -- all real chocolate. Butterfinger is the outlier.

Granted, a change to the "food standards of identity" won't require makers to remove some or all of the cocoa butter, it would just allow them to. But really, why else would they ask?

Because nothing quite says "chocolate" like vegetable oil. Stop the madness, I say. Click the link to find out how you can help.

Voter ID debate going on

Eye on Williamson is sort-of liveblogging things. Vince is in the Capitol, so maybe he'll have a report for us soon. Inside Texas Politics has some analysis, Postcards from the Lege mentions the Royal Masset column, which was (in what I hope will be a good sign) distributed to members by Republican Rep. Delwin Jones of Lubbock, and Capitol Letters makes a good point about a proposed age exemption:

The unanswerable question is, if they don't need an ID, then how do you know how old they are? How do you tell?

A couple of arguments against lowering the exempt age from 80 to 65 was that 65-year-olds are still plenty young enough to have a driver's license.

The argument for it was that since the AARP has come out opposed to the bill, they should just take seniors out of the equation altogether.

Rep. Jim Jackson, R-Carrollton, asks: How in the world did you come up with 65?
Rep. Jim Dunnam, House Dem Chair, responds: That's when you qualify for social security. How in the world did ya'll come up with 80??

The question of how you tell is not easy. If they have no driver's license, if they've long since lost their birth certificate since they draw social securty and dont need it anymore, and since their voter reg cards didn't start requirng a birth date until 1972, there's no verifying their age.

Hi, I'm 80. Prove me wrong.

Well, I've met Karen Brooks and I think I could make a pretty good case that she is in fact younger than that, but you see her point. TexasKaos, Hal, Latinos for Texas, and McBlogger have more.

It's not just a partisan dispute

As noted yesterday, the evil and pernicious voter ID bills are coming to the House floor today. And this is the treatment it gets from the Chron's Clay Robison.

Expect a big partisan fight on the House floor today if lawmakers debate, as scheduled, bills to require people to produce photo identification before voting and to submit written proof of citizenship before registering to vote.

The House approved similar legislation two years ago, but it died in the Senate. The legislation is a priority of Republicans, who contend it is a safeguard against fraudulent voting, particularly by illegal immigrants.

But Democrats argue it is designed to intimidate minority voters, who overwhelmingly cast ballots for Democratic candidates.

How pathetic is that? I don't know if Robison is being lazy or ignorant in casting this as a mere he-said/she-said partisan dispute when there's reams of factual evidence to back up the Democratic position and a big pile of bupkis to support the GOP stance. I suppose I should take comfort in the fact that these three lonely paragraphs appear at the very end of Robison's column, after the page jump, where nobody will actually see it. Utterly, truly, miserably pathetic.

Here's what these bills are about, courtesy of Royal Masset, writing in the Quorum Report:

I agree with David Dewhurst's comments that we should "ensure that we maximize the number of voters, which is all in our best interests, but that we limit our elections to American citizens. I can't imagine anyone who could be against that concept." I agree with David 100%. And if he is a man of intelligence and integrity he will not support HB 218 since it does the exact opposite of what he says he wants. HB 218 will lower voter turnout. There is no evidence on the record that non-American citizens have voted in past Texas elections in a manner that would have been stopped by HB 218.

Bills should only be passed if they solve problems or otherwise make our lives better. No testimony was given on HB 218 proving a problem exists that can be solved by requiring extra Voter ID. I have no doubt that HB 218 does not solve any problems. It will create new problems.

[...]

When voting in America is only allowed to healthy and wealthy people than the America I know is far sicker than my mother. HB 218 is a direct descendent of poll taxes, and of allowing only white male property owners to vote. In its effect it is racist, barbaric, antidemocratic and contrary to everything that made America great. My mother has sacrificed her life raising my severely handicapped sister and I and making this a better country. She and all mothers like her deserve the right to vote.

Amen. Let's watch the video again, shall we?

I join with BOR in thanking Royal Masset for writing his piece. May it have its intended effect.

UPDATE: More from BOR.

HHSC response to OIG report

I received a copy in the mail of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's official response to the Office of the Inspector General's report about the abject failure of the TIERS software system. It's uploaded here (PDF) for those who want to read it. I also have a response to this response from an actual HHSC employee, who sent me the following to go along with the HHSC statement:

Here's the thing that struck me:

On page 2 the first bullet - where it says SAVERR collects less data and there could be two separate households - that's just not true. TIERS can't prevent that, either. If a wife goes to Austin and applies, and the husband could go to another city with a different address and get certified separately - TIERS can't stop that either. However, if one tries to do two separate cases for THEMSELVES saverr wouldn't process that at all. SSN and DOB is what links up.

2nd bullet says that it takes far less time to complete recertifications which is also a lie. A worker can do a recert on SAVERR in 15 minutes or so. You can't even process a "No-Show" on TIERS in that length of time. I know of workers in this office I'm in that are on TIERS and they HATE IT. DESPISE IT. It takes FAR too long, far too many 'entries' to do a simple case action.

In a word, TIERS does not work. Instead of say, 15 screens in SAVERR, the same case might have 40 or so in TIERS.

TIERS can and does issue benefits wrong. There is no way to "check" the case before it processes in TIERS as you can in SAVERR.

I wish the letters to the editor of the Texas Observer were online, because the current issue contains a letter from Father John Whiteford, who once was an HHSC employee before moving on to another post within the state government when HHSC was purging all of its knowledgeable and experienced employees in order to make room for Accenture. Father John pointed out in response to this article that while HHSC says it's busy trying to bring those old hands back to work to clean up after Accenture, they are currently only posting entry-level positions, which needless to say isn't going to be attractive to anyone with real service time. The risk of outsourcing to Accenture wasn't just the money, and it wasn't just the real harm that was done to the truly needy recipients of state and federal aid who got screwed by Accenture's failures. It was also the loss of all the human capital that HHSC had, when they were forced out as part of the takeover. Even if HHSC could post every job that was cut at a salary equal to or higher than what it was at that time, they'd never be able to get all those people back, as some of them will have moved on to new jobs and new locations that they won't want to relinquish. It will take many years, as Father John noted, for them just to get back to where they were before, and at every step along the way they'll operate less efficiently than they would have had they not taken the failed path of privatization. There's no way that this risk was properly accounted for before the go/no go decision was made, and that just makes the whole debacle that much worse.

UPDATE: Forgot to point to the CPPP Statement on Tiers/IE System Recommendations, which includes a copy of the recommendations from the House subcommittee (PDF) on what to do with TIERS and the call centers. Note that as the Observer reports, there was some unsubtle pressure exerted on the subcommittee by Governor Perry's office to tone down the criticism of HHSC Commissioner Albert Hawkins, whom Perry wants to reappoint. Why anyone would want to give another term to the man responsible for this disaster is frankly beyond me.

Monday random thirty

Seems my recent Friday random music-blogging effort has spawned a few replies. I hereby give you the Random Ten efforts of Greg Wythe, Jeff Balke, and once removed from my post, Houston Grooves. I kinda like the collaborativeness of this. I'll post another one this Friday, so if you want to join in, let me know.

UPDATE: Okay, make it a random forty, as Laurence was in on it as well.

Another bohemian hippie attorney update

Just because I never get tired of this picture:

Nancy Sarnoff has another update on my current favorite real estate project (see here for the previous installment).

The developers of a controversial mixed-use project in Rice Village kicked off an aggressive sales program last week with two swanky cocktail parties for prospective buyers interested in living above boutiques and restaurants in a Mediterranean style building.

The proposed development, called Sonoma, will have 225 high-end condos and 125,000 square feet of retail and office space on both sides of Bolsover Street between Morningside and Kelvin.

[...]

Developer Randall Davis Co. and owner Lamesa Properties say they're putting more parking in the development than what the city requires. And the seven-story, mixed-use project, they explain, will meet a demand from professionals and empty nesters who live in Southampton and West University and want to downsize without leaving the neighborhood.

The units will average 1,700 square feet and prices are estimated to be in the low- to mid-$500,000s. They'll be modeled after upscale homes in the area with arched entries, built-in bookshelves, 10-foot ceilings and complete Viking kitchens with plate racks, pot filler faucets and pine and marble islands.

The roof will have a swimming pool, outdoor kitchen, fire pit and fireplace, two hot tubs and a koi pond surrounded by River Birch trees.

Bolsover will be transformed into a European plaza with a central water feature and Italian cypress palm trees, said Randall Davis.

"It's not something I've done before. I've gone through great lengths to study the Mediterranean feel and bring it to the condominiums," he said.

Once again, I have to applaud these guys for their marketing acumen. Between the sign and the street-closure controversy, they've gotten a ton of free media.

Even though the deal's not entirely sewn up, the developers are pushing ahead.

"A deal is never done until it's done, but the potential buyers will understand we feel very positive about the process we're going through," said Julie Tysor, owner of Lamesa Properties, adding that construction could begin in September.

By which point the Kirby storm sewer project will be its neighbor to the west. Oh, happy days indeed.

Vroom! Vroooommmm!

I drove past Reliant Stadium on Friday coming back to my office from lunch, and with the car windows up, the air conditioning on, and music playing, all I could hear was the noise of the cars coming from the Houston Grand Prix. Later, in my office, which is several blocks away on the other side of Reliant Stadium, I could still hear it through the thick glass in our building. I can't ever recall hearing any other external noises from inside our building, not even when they were constructing Reliant. That's pretty damn loud.

I say all that to say I have a lot of sympathy for the folks who live nearby and who must have gone crazy from the noise. At least it's all over now.

What about the other nonprofit leases?

Now that the situation with the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation has been essentially settled, the question becomes what about other nonprofits with similar leases?

What the nonprofits have in common is their lease agreement with the city of Houston. All pay $1 a year. And their leases, like those of dozens of other nonprofits and commercial businesses paying sub-market rent on city property, are now under scrutiny.

"We are looking at all of them, whether they were $1 a year or $100," said Bob Christy, the city's director of real estate. "Whatever the case may be, we are trying to go back through them and determine whether those are warranted or not."

This strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Recall from the KHOU story that was apparently the genesis of all this that the City didn't have any kind of decent management of its leases. While you clearly want to review all the deals with commercial establishments, you also should look at the ones with nonprofits as well, if for nothing else than to make sure that they're all still going concerns that provide a real service to the general population. Given the state of the city's management of its leases as described by KHOU, it wouldn't be a shock to find out that some of them aren't what they once might have been. You can't know if you don't check.

Mayor Bill White, who participated in the announcement at the West Dallas site, wants a more businesslike approach in dealing with city leases, including those with nonprofits.

White thinks token rent agreements are justified only in rare circumstances in which the service provided in exchange is considered a core function of the city.

"The policy is to try to avoid what's called off-the-books financing arrangements, where there is an annual subsidy but the annual subsidy isn't accounted for anywhere in the budget," White said.

Again, seems plenty reasonable to me. Without any scrutiny, how do we know there's not some kind of sweetheart deal being hidden in this accounting? The fact that the city's handling of the Center's lease was less than optimal doesn't change the fact that this is a worthwhile thing to look at.

The city has long had different types of lease agreements with some nonprofits.

Earlier leases, like those signed by the mental retardation center and center for the deaf, allowed the nonprofits to provide a certain dollar amount of social services in lieu of rent. Although earlier reports said the facilities paid $1 a year, even that token payment was waived for services rendered.

For example, although the lease agreement with the Center for Hearing and Speech set $31,065 in annual rent, the amount has been waived every year because the nonprofit provides at least that much in services for hearing-impaired children. Executive Director Renee Davis said the services there are now valued at more than $1 million annually.

[...]

Although city officials say they are bound to honor the terms of the leases now in force, they already have started replacing some of the $1-a-year leases with agreements that bring in more revenue.

The University of Houston-Downtown had a 30-year contract to lease a nearby partial acre where the city's first sewer lift station was. The city is selling the land to the university for an expected $1.4 million.

Selling the land instead of leasing it makes a lot of sense on both ends in most cases, and provides for City Council to give it a once-over before it happens. Maybe if the city makes enough of these sales, it might be able to shrink or even eventually eliminate the department within Public Works that manages leases. You never know.

Common Cause on Voter ID

The following is an op-ed by Mario Perez of Common Cause Texas. It's scheduled to run in Tuesday's Statesman, but apparently the voter ID bills are going to come to the floor on Monday, which would make this a day late (though hopefully not a buck short). In the interest of making sure it gets seen in time for the debate, I've agreed to run it here.

What would you say to your family doctor if he told you that although he cannot find evidence that you have any dire malady or health problem, he nevertheless insists to prescribe a harmful, costly, and extreme course of treatments? No one would blame you if you thought him a quack and sought a second opinion. Who would accept a solution in search of a problem?

That is exactly the situation facing the Texas Legislature right now. We have a few self-appointed experts who have filed bills that amount to too-strong medicine for Texans to swallow in the name of combating alleged voter fraud.

Rep. Betty Brown (R) - Athens , has filed House Bill 218 to require voters to produce certain government-issued photo identification along with a voter registration card in order to vote. Under this bill, a voter could also provide two other forms of identification including a certified copy of a birth certificate, an original or certified copy of a person's marriage license or divorce decree, court records of a person's adoption, name or sex change, in order to vote.

Under current law, a voter need provide a photo id or other identification if they are a first-time voter. Otherwise they are normally required have either a voter registration card, or be able to produce identification in order to cast a ballot. Why the current law needs to be changed has become one of the great mysteries of this legislative session.

It would be one thing if someone could come up with some examples of voter impersonation or other such shenanigans to justify so severely restricting the exercise of our sacred right to vote. Advocates of this change must be able to point to a crime wave of voter impersonation, right? They haven't. And they can't.

This is because according to our own Attorney General, hardly anyone has been prosecuted in Texas for any such crime. Almost all of the handful of "voter fraud" prosecutions in Texas have been connected to an unrelated area, voting by mail. This legislation has nothing to do with voting by mail. And yet we have very serious attempts to place onerous new requirements on the right to vote. Of course, this will prove a hardship to senior citizens and disabled Texans who do not have driver's licenses, and will it will disproportionately impact minority communities and the poor. That is why organizations such as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause Texas, the AARP, and MALDEF oppose this measure.

Paul Burka of Texas Monthly Magazine, a non-partisan critic of this legislation, has pointed to the conclusions of The U.S. Election Assistance Commission which interviewed a broad group of respected experts who concluded "...that the impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an insufficient means of influencing an election."
There are many observers, including Burka, who contend that the real aim of this type of legislation is blatantly partisan: namely tamping down voter participation in communities that usually vote Democratic.

Rep. Phil King (R) - Weatherford has offered the equally objectionable HB 626 which would require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Doesn't sound too bad? It is actually a very bad idea. This legislation would effectively put an end to voter registration drives in Texas.

His bill mandates that anyone trying to register to vote must include in the mail or in person a certified copy of an official document to prove citizenship status. This includes a birth certificate or other documents confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law, United States citizenship papers issued to the applicant, or an unexpired United States passport issued to the applicant. Is this a necessary provision to stamp out the practice of undocumented residents unlawfully registering to vote? No, there is no evidence of a real problem of this nature.

Amazingly, Rep. King candidly admits in his bill analysis that "...there is no evidence of extensive fraud in Texas elections or of multiple voting ...."

These bills have been rushed out of the House Elections Committee on straight party-line votes. The Calendars Committee even met at 11:30 pm to hastily schedule them for consideration before the House, in unusual fashion. This represents a rushed attempt to ram them through before sufficient public debate and consideration. It is clearly at odds with Speaker Craddick's professed support of a new, more friendly and bipartisan House of Representatives. We can only hope that cooler heads prevail against this hurried and clumsy attempt to force down the throat of the people of Texas a strong, foul-smelling remedy that they don't need.

Perhaps legislators should have a version of the medical profession's Hippocratic Oath. Someone should tell them that when they come up with solutions to our 'problems' they need to "First, do no harm."

Mario X. Perez is a Fort Worth Attorney and State Chair of Common Cause Texas .

Bear in mind that if you move to another county within Texas, you have to reregister to vote. Thus, under Rep. King's HB626, you'd have to first acquire a certified copy of your birth certificate or passport, which takes time, involves bureaucracy, and costs money, and then either mail it or haul in in person to your County Clerk or Tax Assessor's office. In addition to being a monumental pain in the butt (which is precisely why it will drive registration rates down), it seems to me that this will become an irresistable target for identity thieves. Wouldn't that make for a nice little future scandal? You'd think just on civil libertarian grounds there'd be plenty of prominent Republicans who'd oppose this sort of thing, but it's one of the top priorities for the state and national GOP, and resistance has come mostly (but not entirely) from Democrats. And so it goes.

Cigarette run!

This article about how convenience stores just on the other side of the Texas border - especially those in Louisiana - are doing a landmark business since the state cigarette tax went up by a dollar isn't surprising. This is one of those times when Texas' sheer size is a saving grace - for most people, it isn't even close to practical to search elsewhere for smokes. But let's look at the numbers that were reported, to see if we can learn anything:

There have been massive changes in Texas' tax rolls, though. The number of per-pack tax stamps sold in 2007 has declined by 27 percent compared to the first three months of last year, but revenues have doubled.

Texas is on pace to pull in nearly $1.1 billion in revenue for calendar 2007, compared with $509 million for 2006. Comptroller Susan Combs' revenue projection for fiscal 2008 -- starting this Sept. 1 -- is for slightly more than $1.1 billion, with $677 million going toward property tax relief; the 2009 projection is for more than $1.2 billion, with $731 million set aside.

OK. The tax was once forty-one cents, now it's a buck forty-one. It took 1.241 billion packs of ciggies to generate $509 million in taxes for 2006, while it'll take 780 million packs to bring in $1.1 billion. That's more than a 27-percent decline - it's a 37 percent decline. I'm guessing that sales were slower in the first quarter last year than they were in subsequent quarters, as people likely stocked up just before the tax increase took effect. That would in turn have a slight dampening effect on this year's sales - at least, those in the first quarter - so I can see where a slight increase over the next two years is feasible. It's safe to say that this is not a revenue source that will keep up with population increases, however, which frankly has been Texas' problem all along with its tax system.

Like I said, no surprises, but let's keep these numbers in mind when we get the real revenue results later on. It's not clear to me yet what pressure bootlegging, over-the-border sales, and people quitting or cutting back will have.

One more thing, for pure comic relief:

Texas law prohibits returning with more than one carton's worth of cigarettes without paying tax on the overage. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, assigned by law to collect the tax, runs checkpoints at the Mexican border and in international airport terminals, but not along domestic state lines where the rule is impossible to enforce. Officials are unaware of anyone ever voluntarily paying tax on excess cigarettes.

One wonders if they even bother to have a form to fill out for someone who might inquire about making such a voluntary payment. Some things just aren't worth the investment.

It's official: Ray Jones will not be on the May 12 ballot

Never got to this on Friday, but Matt Stiles reported that Ray Jones' petition to the State Supreme Court to be placed on the May 12 ballot for City Council was denied. The info is here, though it's nothing more than a "Denied" stamp. Stiles reports that Jones is raising money for a November run, and if so I wish him well.

Let's recap the main points of this story:

1. It would be nice if there were a grace period of 24 hours or so after the filing deadline, so that candidates who got the paperwork wrong in a way that's not material to their eligibility to run could fix it. I for one would support such a change to the law.

2. Whether or not such a change ever happens, turning in a ballot application at the last minute carries a risk for disqualification that should be considered unacceptably high. All candidates would be advised to get them in at least a day in advance, just in case.

3. And for goodness' sake, use a notary who's done this before. Leave no blank unfilled, people!

More details on the Center's deal with the city

I'm still waiting to receive a copy of the city's letter of intent with the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation, but in the meantime, today's Chron story provides a few more details.

The agreement, which must be approved by the City Council, gives the center three years to raise the money in a capital campaign, take out a loan or agree to a financing arrangement with the city at a 5 percent annual interest rate.

So the financing arrangement with the city is in effect a last resort. If the Center can raise the cash ($6 million in three years seems doable, given the amount of positive publicity the place has received lately) or get a better deal elsewhere, it can do that instead.

[David Baldwin, chairman of the center's foundation board,] said the agreement will secure the future of the center, which now offers a wide array of services to about 600 mentally retarded people, including 200 who live in a six-story dormitory.

Baldwin said the center will now be in a much better position to improve and modernize its aging facilities and expand its scope of social services.

I wonder if that means there were restrictions, or at least obstacles, in the lease concerning capital projects. I'll try to find out.

And as noted in my previous post, everyone appears to be happy with the deal:

"This is truly an agreement where everyone wins," [Baldwin] said.

[...]

Councilman Michael Berry said the settlement was a victory for the taxpayer as well as the community.

"Compassion can exist and coexist alongside capitalism, and the almighty dollar is not the only thing that we strive for," Berry said.

The center's residents gathered around the mayor and other officials outside their dormitory and cheered the announcement. When [Mayor Bill] White asked them if the center was a nice place to live, their resounding reply was "yes."

"No one questions the importance of the mission," White said. "No one ever has."

Annette Hill, who has lived at the center for more than five years and has a job downtown, said she was relieved to hear that she and everyone else would be staying.

"It's a load off," she said. "I love it here."

Well done all around.

Metro response to "lawsuit" coming soon

We learn three things from this Examiner story about the anti-rail "lawsuit" filed last week. One, what court the petition was filed in:

A possible prelude to a lawsuit challenging Metro's plans to build the University light rail line along portions of Richmond Avenue was filed April 11 in Harris County's 215th District Court by a business owner.

Good to know. I still can't tell where to find the motion that was filed, but at least now we have a starting point for where to look.

Two, we learn that at least one news organization knows how to accurately characterize the action taken:

The Section 202 motion asked that, among other things, Metro officials testify concerning financing for the line and the ballot language, which opponents claim required the line to be built along Westpark Drive.

It also asks that all relevant documents be turned over for inspection.

As a reminder, this is a Section 202 motion. What's not clear from that is what if any deadline there is for the party on the receiving end of that action to respond.

The third thing we learn is when Metro plans to respond anyway:

Metro, which plans to file a formal response to the motion next week, is expected to approve $1 billion in rail-related contracts at its board meeting April 26.

As always, stay tuned.

The Sixth Ward and the Planning Commission

This article is about the Mayor's belief that the recent proposal to make permanent the ban on demolitions in the Old Sixth Ward would have widespread support, but what really interests me is the quote from the opposition:

The Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association has led the effort to strengthen protections for the estimated 300 houses built between 1854 and 1935.

Another group, the Sixth Ward Property Owners Association, opposes the ban.

Janice Jamail-Garvis, a Realtor who leads the property owners' group, said the mayor's proposals amount to "an invasion of private property rights" that would lead to blight in the Old Sixth Ward by leaving dilapidated structures in place.

Most potential investors in the Old Sixth Ward want new homes, Jamail-Garvis said, and the neighborhood's main appeal lies in its location near downtown rather than its stock of Victorian-era houses.

Really? You're saying that if we bulldozed the whole place and replaced it all with Perry townhomes, it would enhance property values there? I realize the world is full of philistines, but I find that hard to believe.

I mean, if proximity to downtown is more attractive to potential buyers than the architecture, then why isn't there more of a boom along Houston Avenue and points east? That's plenty close to downtown, too, and there's not all those annoying preservationists to deal with. Or, speaking of points east, there's the area just east of downtown, on the other side of 59. A lot of that area comes pre-bulldozed, too. And it's more easily walkable to downtown than the Old Sixth is.

Call me crazy, but I think that the neighborhood's history and charm might just be a driver of its desirability. I'm sure you could still make a living as a realtor there if it were nothing but cookie-cutter houses, but there's more to what makes a neighborhood special than location.

In other news, the This Week section has a long story about the proposed width and setback requirements that I blogged about earlier. It's a pretty good overview of the options that the Planning Commission subcommittee is considering. Check it out.

The Center's deal with the city

Here's what we know so far:

The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation will pay the city $6 million for prime inner city property it now uses in exchange for the services it provides, city officials said today.

Mayor Bill White and officials of the facility are announcing details of the transaction, which involved 6.2 acres at Shepherd and West Dallas, during a news conference this afternoon.

Details of the deal were not immediately available, but it involves a favorable interest rate and a discounted price based on the city's declaration that the land is intended for public service rather than commercial use, according to a news release from the city.

I spoke to David Baldwin, the president of the Center's Foundation, and he gave me a few details. More will be forthcoming when I get a copy of the city's letter of intent, which I am told has everything you could want to know.

- Finalization is about 90 days away. Both the Center's boards and City Council have to approve.

- No problems on their end, everybody at the Center is very supportive of the deal. Other stakeholders, including Council members, are supportive as well.

- The sale also resolves all legal matters relating to the Center, the land, the leases, etc.

- The city is financing deal. Baldwin said that the availability of good financing was part of the negotiations, and part of what made this deal possible.

- Baldwin had complimentary things to say about Mayor White. "He was looking to protect the rights of the city and other nonprofits", but was reasonably sympathetic to the center as well.

- More from Baldwin on Mayor White: "I couldn't do what he does. I think he did a good job negotiating for the city, he was very hands-on once he got involved, and worked with us to get this done."

That's all I got. I'll post the letter of intent when I receive it.

UPDATE: No letter of intent yet, but I do have the Mayor's press release:

Mayor Bill White and the Center Serving Persons With Mental Retardation and The Foundation for the Retarded have agreed to terms to secure the future of the Center's residents and allow the City to dedicate the use of the property used by the Center and realize its residual value.

According to the President of the Foundation, David Baldwin, "These terms are fair and allow us to continue and expand the important mission of the Center in serving our citizens with special needs."

The City and the Center have agreed to work towards a final agreement to sell the City's residual interests in the property for $6 million, to be paid over time with interest. The agreement covers 6.72 acres of property, most of which is covered by existing leases. The agreement would have to be approved by City Council, under guidelines established by state law, and the Boards of the Center and its Foundation.

"I deeply sympathize with family members and loved ones who have been concerned about the future of the residents of the Center, and expect this agreement to allow the Center to expand its services because there are so many citizens with special needs in our community," said Mayor White. "The principles of this agreement can be applied on a non-discriminatory basis to other social service providers who have made capital improvements and provided services on City lands over decades."

Both the Center and Mayor White used experts to assist in determining the value of the land and also existing leases covering the property, and accounted for the intention of the City to dedicate the property to public services, as opposed to commercial development.

"Communication was good and constructive, and we respect the City's obligation to be good stewards of its limited resources when there are so many competing, worthy uses," noted Mr. Baldwin.

Mayor White said the agreement will allow the value of the City's property to be openly reflected in the City's financial statements. "I and the people of Houston have never doubted the important work of the Center. Ultimately the City will be able to provide more essential services for more people if we manage all resources with full public awareness of the cost of our commitments," stated Mayor White.

The Mayor urged citizens who care about the work of the Center to donate to the Center to support its expansion. Mr. Baldwin said that ownership of the property, under the terms agreed to, is financially viable for the Center and could enhance the Center's ability to improve and expand the service it provides. "Ownership of the Center permanently secures our future, and we thank Mayor White for considering this alternative," added Baldwin.

Still more to come later, I'm sure.

Announcement of agreement with the Center

Hot off the presses out of my inbox, here's an announcement that the City of Houston and the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation have reached an agreement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2007


Mayor Bill White, Officials of the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation Make an Announcement about the Future of The Center

WHO: Mayor Bill White, David Baldwin, Chairman of The Center's Foundation

WHAT: Agreement Reached Securing the Future of The Center

WHEN: Friday, April 20, 2007, 3:30 p.m.

WHERE: The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation
3550 West Dallas @ S. Shepherd
Outside Cullen Residence Hall, West Side

More to follow, obviously. In the meantime, may I just say "Hallelujah" and "About time".

Senate says "No smoking till 19"

Thus says the Senate: Don't smoke 'em if you're under 19.

You're old enough to vote and serve your country at 18, but you'd have to wait a year to buy cigarettes under a bill approved Thursday by the Texas Senate.

"The further you can put this (legal age) off, there's a much better chance that people will not start to smoke," said Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio.

His Senate Bill 448, approved 26-4, moves to an uncertain future in the House, where it doesn't yet have a sponsor. Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat on the House Public Health Committee, said he doesn't have a position on the bill but would like to see it aired.

"I'm in favor of restricting who can buy cigarettes," Coleman said, "but I think there are a lot of people who are going to say, 'Enough is enough. You've taxed me to death, now you're saying that someone (age 18) can't buy cigarettes.' "

Coleman was referring to last year's special session, when lawmakers more than tripled the cigarette tax to help pay for local school property tax reform.

Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Green-ville, was among the "no" votes in the Senate, although he's a physician.

"I hate cigarettes," Deuell said. "I just think (if) you're 18, you're an adult, you can serve in the military, and I think that you're out of high school by then. I don't see any convincing evidence that that's the age when people start smoking."

Put me down as being with Sen. Deuell on this one. I hate smoking as much as the next person, but to my mind, either you're a minor or you're an adult. I do not believe there should be a limbo period where you're part adult - someone who can join the military, sign binding contracts, work as a stripper, or adopt a child - and part not adult. And yes, I feel the same way about the drinking age, too.

Toll road moratorium bill passes from Senate

Such as it is, anyway.

The Texas Senate voted unanimously Thursday for a two-year moratorium on private company toll roads -- although stopping those projects won't solve the state's bulging highway needs, a leading lawmaker warned.

The House already approved a similar measure in a nearly unanimous vote, reflecting considerable public angst over the possibility of transferring public assets to private companies.

A moratorium on private toll roads passing in both chambers means it's "more likely to stick," said Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, author of the Senate's moratorium and a former member of the Texas Transportation Commission.

"You have House clarity. You have Senate clarity," Nichols said. "There's an obvious will by this body to take the time to study private equity contracts before we lock up many (road) contracts of our transportation system that cannot be corrected until our children and grandchildren are past retirement."

Gov. Rick Perry, however, opposes the moratorium. Nichols conceded that if the chambers take too long to negotiate the differences between the measures, Perry could veto it without giving lawmakers a chance to override.

For that reason, Eye on Williamson is unimpressed. I'd guess that a veto is likely, an override not likely at all. I could be wrong, but I think it's too late in the game for this to make it through the process and get to Governor Perry's desk with enough time left to try an override. SA Toll Party has more.

It should be noted that one aspect of this particular piece of sausagemaking was giving HCTRA more free rein to push its projects. See this CTC forum thread for more.

Finally, in the "Timing Is Everything" department, a documentary called Truth Be Tolled, about the Trans Texas Corridor, will be screened on Saturday Sunday at 5 PM at the Worldfest Houston film festival. More details are here.

UPDATE: Fixed the date of the movie screening. Thanks, Greg!

Senate passes TYC reform bill

This looks pretty good.

The Texas Senate unanimously approved fundamental changes in the Texas Youth Commission on Thursday, supporting efforts to reduce the population at its facilities, improve staff-to-offender ratios and require enhanced training for guards.

Senate Bill 103, by Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen, passed 30-0, and is part of the promised overhaul of an agency reeling from accusations that incarcerated youths have been sexually and physically abused by staff at many of the state's 15 correctional facilities.

The Senate is trying "to rebuild, restructure TYC from the bottom up," he said, adding that his bill would create "checks and balances, a wide open system that is transparent. It'll change the whole culture in the way we treat our young people."

[...]

The scandal left even those normally critical of state criminal justice laws applauding the proposed changes. "I've never witnessed such profound and progressive reforms," said Will Harrell, executive director of the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Lawmakers are vowing to significantly reduce TYC's offender population by diverting to other facilities youths over 18 and those convicted of misdemeanors. An incarcerated offender who reaches 19 would either be released without conditions, released on parole or sent to the adult prison system.

Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson, who is pushing a similar bill through the House Corrections Committee, which he chairs, noted that most states keep misdemeanor offenders out of state juvenile jails.

Madden's bill would require that guards receive rotating assignments in an attempt to standardize duties. His bill also requires that the proximity of a youth's family be considered when placements are assigned.

Like I said, that all sounds good. If Will Harrell is on board, I'm on board.

The only bad news is that the TYC is going to go too far in dealing with its employees who have felony records of their own.

[TYC Conservator Jay] Kimbrough was surprised to learn that the Youth Commission had hired workers with criminal records, apparently because the commission was having trouble finding staff.

Among its more than 4,600 employees, the Youth Commission had 66 workers with felony records and an estimated 400 or more with misdemeanor arrests or charges.

Of the 66 felons, 45 of them are juvenile correction officers.

"We are re-creating this agency," commission spokesman Jim Hurley said. "This agency needs to be as pristine as possible."

Kimbrough had temporarily suspended the terminations last week as he waited for guidance from lawmakers. Some had questioned whether the terminations should be limited to only the most severe charges or whether Kimbrough should exempt workers who had been convicted years ago.

Ultimately, the lawmakers let Kimbrough fire all of them. The employees will continue to get pay and benefits for 30 days and have a right to appeal the terminations to the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

Kimbrough has made no decision on what to do with workers with misdemeanor charges, but no known felons will be hired in the future.

The announcement came on State Employee Lobby Day, a Capitol meeting of the Texas State Employees Union.

Speaking at a noon rally, Schronda Hawkins, a Texas Youth Commission employee for 10 years, said, "We don't need a witch hunt of our staff."

Hawkins said some of the agency staffers suspected of abusing youths had criminal records and some didn't.

She blamed the agency's old management for covering up problems.

"If you were part of a good-old-boy system," she said, "you got the promotions, and they covered up your problems."

I'm with Grits on this one. More here and here.

Finally, on another note, former Pyote officials Ray Brookins and John Paul Hernandez pleaded not guilty to charges of sexual assault in Ward County.

Deal or no deal on Jessica's Law?

Lots of Lege activity in the last day or two - we've got what, a bit more than five weeks to go? I'm gonna hit a few of the highlights, for lack of a better term.

Stand Down Texas notes that a compromise on HB8, also known as "Jessica's Law", may have been reached.

[T]he new wording hashed out over the past month is less drastic than a proposal [Lt. Gov. David] Dewhurst highlighted during his January inaugural address.

"There's tough. And then there's Texas tough," Dewhurst had said of the bill as conceived.

Or, more accurately, there's dumb, and then there's tuff-on-crime dumb.

It would have created a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for a wide variety of sex crimes against children. A second offense for any of those could result in the death penalty.

Though the newly worded bill is tougher than current law, requiring many predators to serve 75 percent of their sentences, its penalties are generally less than Dewhurst and Deuell proposed.

"The only thing we impose the death penalty for is two (penetration) aggravated sexual assaults of a child," Deuell told the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday before distributing the compromise language to other senators.

"There's a trigger in there that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the death penalty for nonmurder is unconstitutional, then everything will revert back to life without parole."

Just as a reminder among all the chest-thumping, the district attorneys of Texas do not like Jessica's Law. Neither do people like the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault (TAASA). This law will not do a damn thing to help them put offenders behind bars - if anything, it will hurt their efforts. But it looks good on paper, and David Dewhurst thinks it will appeal to GOP primary voters in 2010, and that's what matters. BurkaBlog has more.

TDEx bill approved in committee

HB13, the homeland security bill that Governor Perry really really wants, has passed out of committee, and while it has addressed one concern of its detractors, it still sounds highly problematic to me.

House State Affairs Committee Chairman David Swinford, R-Dumas, said his homeland security bill, approved by the panel Thursday, should allay concerns surrounding who runs the far-reaching intelligence tool called Texas Data Exchange.

"There's been a lot of scuttlebutt about the database, TDEx," he said earlier in the day. "Well, there's two people I trust, God and the Texas Rangers. And, God was busy. So the Texas Rangers are now getting that control of security of the data system."

The bill states that the Texas Rangers, a division of the Texas Department of Public Safety, would assume "command and control" over TDEx, a system intended to beef up the state's homeland security efforts and centralize information for police agencies.

Yet it also states that the Governor's Division of Emergency Management would provide to the Texas Rangers "necessary project management resources, including operational support and personnel" for TDEx.

The Observer addresses some of the problems with this arrangement:

The bill cries for an actual debate by lawmakers -- and the public -- about what role the governor's office should play in beefing up homeland security in Texas. Should the state's top elected official just coordinate the process, and devise a grand vision for it? Or, as Perry wants, should the governor have direct authority over law enforcement, intelligence gathering and budget decisions to support those activities? Putting that kind of power into the governor's office seems to contradict more than a century of Texas tradition, dating back to the constitution of 1876.

The bill also puts TDEx under the Texas Rangers, which, while an improvement over having it directly in the governor's office, is kind of odd since the folks who know about running databases at DPS are in the Criminal Law Enforcement Division.

Finally, the bill creates another layer of bureaucracy, a Border Security Council to oversee this disaster in the making and disperse homeland security funds. The council will be composed of the governor's director of homeland security, the director of DPS, and the executive director of the Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition. There is no representation from the police departments of the border cities, where most of the crime and drug activities on the border take place. Most of the money is destined for the border sheriffs who will then presumably audit themselves. Since these folks are elected and the inclusion of the governor's office adds another political element, the only actual law enforcement agency on the council somewhat insulated from politics will be DPS. Any guesses on what the normal 2 to 1 vote on the council will be?

Back to the Chron:

Names of more than 1 million Texans are housed in the database, drawn from records of state, local and, soon, federal law enforcement agencies.

And back to the Observer:

According to Texas Homeland Security's "TDEx Fielding Objective", by Nov. 2007, 72 percent of the Texas population will be in the database. And by Nov. 2008, it will be 96 percent.

So while you may not be in TDEx now, you will be soon. How's that make you feel?

One more thing, concerning that new bureaucracy of a three-member Border Security Council:

[S]ome of its directives for providing better border control and safety raised concerns for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Specifically, it says local governments will lose homeland security funds if they pass ordinances stating they won't enforce federal immigration law.

"It's putting cities in the position of either violating federal law or losing their homeland security funding," said Luis Figuero, a MALDEF attorney.

I say just say No. This is yet another power grab by Governor Perry, and like the previous ones, it should be shot down. I hope there are enough votes to kill this thing when it comes to the floor, and I hope Rep. Richard Raymond's HB4108 passes as a separate bill regardless. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: In related news, two bills that would greatly expand the scope of wiretapping in Texas have advanced in the Senate. The latter would allow big city police departments, including HPD, to operate their own pen register devices, which "capture real time outgoing telephone numbers dialed from a target telephone", something that only DPS can do now. Are we feeling more secure yet? Grits has the gory details.

Friday random ten: The other side of the CD shelf

I've got a floor-to-ceiling shelf for our CDs. The left half is mostly filled with the non-mainstream, bought-at-the-Mucky-Duck CDs, while the right half is mostly filled with the music you might hear on the radio, much of which was bought by Tiffany and I before we met each other. I've been ripping CDs approximately one playlist at a time, and with the current playlist, I've basically finished off the left side of the shelf and have moved on to the right side. That will explain the difference in obscurity and eclecticism among the artists.

Without further ado, here are ten of the first songs I heard from that new playlist:

1. Don't Let It Get You Down - Fine Young Cannibals A Tiffany CD. Is it embarrassing for me to admit that I've kinda liked all the songs I've heard from this disc so far? Help me out here, the dividing line between 80s Music That's Cheesy In A Good Way and 80s Music That's Cheesy In A Bad Way isn't always clear to me.

2. Susie Q - Creedence Clearwater Revival Two songs in a row by artists whose names are also TLAs. That's got to mean something.

3. Car Wash - Rose Royce Don't blame me for this one. It's from a CD of 70s music that my sister-in-law put together to help celebrate my dad's 70th birthday.

4. And So It Goes - Billy Joel This one you can blame me for. I like Billy Joel. Sue me.

5. The Partisan - Leonard Cohen From a 1975 "Best of Leonard Cohen" CD that doesn't include any Leonard Cohen songs I'd ever heard of before. I think he has more "best of" collections than regular albums.

6. Layla - Eric Clapton The song and the CD that started the whole "unplugged" craze of the 1990s. Which, on balance, was a good thing.

7. Sister Fatima - Don McLean Admit it. You know one, maybe two Don McLean songs. Me, too.

8. Reva's House - Los Lobos I mentioned before that then-headbanger San Antonio station KXZL (now classic rocker KZEP) had a playlist that was broad enough to include Robert Cray, which helped make me a fan of his music. They did the same for me with Los Lobos, by spinning a few cuts from "How Will The Wolf Survive?" back in my formative days. In retrospect, I'd put KXZL's playlist up with KACC's today, and that of the late, lamented 101 WNEW's from its glory days of the 70s and 80s. My CD collection says I owe them a lot.

9. For You - Tracy Chapman Admit it. You know one, maybe two Tracy Chapman songs, too. In each case, I'm learning that the rest of the CD is pretty good as well.

10. Land of Canaan - The Indigo Girls I mentioned before that my old Rice crowd circa 1990 was into Michelle Shocked. They were also into the Indigo Girls. Make of that what you will.

I figure I have maybe two more playlists worth of unripped CDs, after which I'll make some new playlists that combine stuff from the existing ones. I never did a Random Ten list from my first playlist, which was most of the stuff that I wanted to be the debut stuff on my iPod. So, like it or not, there'll be more of this silliness on future Fridays.

What if Harry Potter was a black kid?

Interesting.

That's the question that author Troy CLE initially tried to answer when he created his character, Louis Proof.

But it would be simplistic to paint Louis as simply a black version of the beloved Harry. Louis is a very different character. The brainchild of Troy, Louis loves listening to hip-hop, racing radio-controlled cars, and hanging out with his best friend, Brandon. If he sounds a little normal, maybe it's because he is meant to be.

The story of the book - initially self-published, now a much-hyped Simon and Schuster release for May 22 - and the author is fascinating. More, including a brief plot outline, is here. I think I'll keep my eyes open for this one. Thanks to Oliver Willis for the link.

"She maketh me to drive down concrete pastures"

The 23rd Psalm, as written for Allen Parkway. That's all you need to know. Check it out.

It's only a compromise if both sides give up something

I'm as big a fan of Rep. Nick Lampson as you'll find. Which just makes it that much harder for me to read stories like this in the paper.

Concerned by the troop withdrawal timelines in a huge war funding bill, U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson is among a cluster of House Democrats urging Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back away from a showdown with President Bush.

Look, it's very simple. George Bush is not going to do anything different in Iraq. His plan is to keep the troops there until he's out of office. The one thing he will never do on his own is begin a withdrawal of any kind. The only way to make that happen is to pass a law mandating troops withdrawals. There is no compromise here because he isn't going to budge. The only option to a "showdown" is to acquiesce to what he wants. I can't think of any good reason to do that, and as every national poll indicates, neither can a solid majority of Americans.

It would be nice if there were some middle-ground position, one that gave everyone something that they wanted, which could be reached after negotiation and compromise. But there isn't - not today, not tomorrow, and not any time before January 21, 2009. George Bush has very clearly set the terms of this debate. This is one of the very few times that I would counsel taking him at his word. Once you do that, the proper course of action is obvious. I sympathize with Rep. Lampson and the position he feels he's in. But this is how it is.

Not the campaign finance reform bill I was expecting

Yesterday, there was a rally in front of the Capitol in support of three bills to limit campaign spending in Texas. Far as I can tell, nothing much happened to them. But one bill did make it out of committee, and it has to do with a familiar subject.

A bill by House Elections Committee Chairman Leo Berman, R-Tyler, defines how such money can be employed to pay the administrative expenses of a political committee.

The bill bans its use for electioneering. But, because it does not define "electioneering," campaign-finance reform advocates fear it will be used to justify issue advertising involving candidates for office.

"I would presume it would be their intent to keep the current definition of electioneering, which would be applying the magic words test, which I find problematic," said Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless.

Berman insists his bill would ban all corporate and labor-union money from political campaigns.

[...]

The [Texas Association of Business] has argued that its spending of $1.7 million in corporate money for issue advertising in more than 20 House races [in 2002] did not violate the law because none of the pieces advocated the election or defeat of a candidate. All the pieces attacked the business-issue track records of Democrats running for office.

Lawyers for TAB, DeLay and his Texans for a Republican Majority have argued the indictments sought by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle were improper because state law allows political committees to raise corporate money for administrative expenses.

Berman's bill continues to allow that while prohibiting such money to go toward political consulting in support of or opposing a candidate; telephone banks; political fundraising; partisan voter-registration drives; voter-identification lists and "electioneering brochures and electioneering direct mail."

I can't say I trust Leo Berman, but the bill passed out of committee unanimously, which means that Lon Burnam, Rafael Anchia, and Joe Farias also voted for it. That's reassuring. I'm not sure that specifying what's forbidden works better than common sense, and I fear that making a list will make it easier for someone to game it later on, but perhaps I'm overthinking it. We'll see what happens.

The day without BlackBerry

Thankfully, yesterday's unpleasantness turned out to be not so bad. One of our servers hadn't reconnected after RIM's switchover at their network operations center, so we had to reboot it. As noted in my comment at Dwight's place, we had to help some people reregister with their wireless networks - I had to do that for my own device as well. Oddly, somewhere along the line it lost its ability to sync deleted emails with Outlook. I fixed that today (for the techies who might care, I re-sent the service books to my handheld; it's good to be the administrator sometimes). A few calls, a few emails, some communication with the help desk and second-line support - all in all, it could've been much worse. If these things are going to happen, best that they do so at night, when our usage level is lower.

It's amusing that Dwight heard about the outage via someone else's Twitter page. I had my first inkling of the scope of the problem from an email I got on a mailing list that has nothing whatsoever to do with technology. Like it or not, BlackBerry has really permeated our society. Which can be annoying sometimes, but like cellphones and other sometimes-obnoxious technology, it ain't going away.

Fund CHIP fully or lose money

I've spilled plenty of electronic ink arguing for a full restoration of CHIP funding in Texas. Among the many reasons for this is the fact that not doing so has cost Texas millions of dollars in federal matching funds. If the Lege fails again, that failure will be magnified. The CPPP explains why:

Between 2000-2006, Texas gave up over $900 million in federal CHIP dollars. Congress had designated these dollars for Texas, but because we did not spend them, they went to other states. Congress is now reauthorizing the SCHIP Block Grant, and will write new rules governing how much federal matching money Texas can receive for CHIP in the next decade. The good news for Texas is that Congress is proposing substantial new CHIP funding, designed to allow states enroll uninsured children who meet CHIP qualifications but are currently not enrolled. The bad news for Texas is that Congress is proposing to determine a state's CHIP allocation based on how much a state is spending on CHIP in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2009. The Texas legislature must move quickly to remove barriers to CHIP enrollment growth by providing for 12-month coverage. Otherwise, our federal allocation will be permanently reduced.

The whole story is here (PDF). That article, which is short and easy to read, also swats down some of the lame arguments for a six-month enrollment period - as with every other aspect of cutting CHIP, that policy costs Texas money in the long run. Supporting CHIP isn't just the compassionate thing to do, it's the fiscally prudent thing to do. Will the joint committee see it that way? It's up to Sylvester Turner now. Stay tuned.

Finding #755

I love this story.

It was one of the more forgettable home runs of Hank Aaron's remarkable, record-setting career. But it was nonetheless historic, and the Brewers are going to great lengths this summer to commemorate it.

The club has employed a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee engineering professor and three of his students to identify the precise landing spot of Aaron's 755th and final Major League home run. They still have some tweaking to do, but on Tuesday, Dr. Alan J. Horowitz and his team revealed what they believe is the spot: Coordinates N 43 degrees 1.821 minutes/W 87 degrees 58.347 minutes.

[...]

In order to identify the spot, Horowitz and his team of UWM seniors Colin Casey, Alex Cowan and Michael DeBoer -- all Wisconsin natives -- reviewed video of the home run, detailed seating charts from County Stadium and blueprints of the Miller Park worksite.

"We're still a little bit unsure when we do something like that, that Miller Park was built according to the plans," Horowitz said. "So we will be doing additional measurements to identify this particular location. We are very confident of where we have it, but in order to verify and do some double-checking we will be bringing in some very high-precision GPS equipment."

The only thing better than baseball is baseball geekery. If I'm ever in Milwaukee, I'll have to make sure I visit that spot and see the plaque they've erected there. Many thanks to my friend Katy for pointing this out to me.

TIERS for Albert Hawkins

As you know, the state of Texas recently cancelled its contract with Accenture to run call centers to determine eligibility for benefits like Medicaid. But the call-center deal was only part of what Accenture was doing for the Health and Human Services Commission - the other part was the new software TIERS (Texas Integrated Eligibility Redesign System), which was supposed to be the backbone of the call centers. Unfortunately, as software it sucks. And what's worse is that it's still out there being used. In fact, according to this Texas Observer story, its usage is being expanded, despite its long and well-documented history of problems. Read the whole thing - most of the new information is towards the end - and wonder just why it is that HHSC Commissioner Albert Hawkins still has a job. BurkaBlog and the Observer blog have more.

600 Sq Mi

Do you live in or around Houston and like taking pictures? If you do, Houstonist would like you to know about 600 Sq Mi, its first-ever photography show:

It's a juried exhibition of photographs from Houston, from Main Street to the coastal prairie and everything in between. We're looking for photos that show what makes Houston what it is: the buildings, the landscape, the people, the art, the taco stands, the shotgun houses, the freeways. Whether you've been photographing the city for years or just picked up a camera for the first time, we want to see what you see when you think of Houston.

A group of jurors will sort through all the photos submitted and will select enough to fill the walls of MSquared Gallery in the Heights. The 600 sq mi exhibition will run at MSquared from Sept. 5 to Oct. 7, 2007, with an opening reception Saturday, Sept. 8.

Check out the overview of the entry process below, then send us your best shots. We can't wait to see them.

I may have to go through my Flickr archives and see if there's anything I'm particularly proud of. You never know. Entry deadline is June 1, so get cracking if this interests you. Christine has more.

The good, the bad, and the annoying

We've seen the 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time, and we've seen the 50 Best Tech Products of All Time. What else is there? Well, there's the 20 Most Annoying Tech Products:

Unlike PC World's 25 Worst Products of All Time, irksome products aren't necessarily bad, buggy, or dangerous. But they all have one or two traits that make you want to wrap them in 200 pounds of steel cable and toss them off the side of a boat. From stupid features and rude behavior to brain-dead design and poor corporate policies, these 20 products have truly annoyed us over the years, and some continue to do so.

I feel your pain. This list, unlike the previous ones, was taken from a reader poll, with some amusing comments from them added in. Link via Dwight.

The Center for Hearing and Speech

Meet the neighbor of the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation:

Renee Davis, executive director of the center that teaches deaf children to speak without using sign language, said she has not been contacted by the city, but she worries that her facility could face the same scrutiny as the neighboring center for the mentally retarded.

Representatives of the center for the mentally retarded are in ongoing talks with the mayor's office. The city had threatened to sell the 6 acres that the center leased because the directors would not agree to pay closer to market-value rent for the land near River Oaks.

Mayor Bill White said he hopes the meetings will produce a fair policy that the city also can apply to other nonprofits such as the Center for Hearing and Speech.

White said he wants to develop a uniform policy to reduce the risk of lawsuits against the city claiming the leases are not valid, which could disrupt the nonprofits' operations.

Wanting to develop a uniform policy is a reasonable thing. I'm not sure where the fear of lawsuits is coming from - has this been mentioned before and I've missed it? Is there someone besides the city challenging the validity of 99-year leases? - but a uniform policy is still a reasonable thing. I think the city has proven its resolve on this matter.

Davis said her lease with the city sets $31,065 annual rent, which is waived if the nonprofit provides at least that much in services to the community.

Davis said her center provides more than $1 million a year in services to at least 1,000 hearing-impaired children. The center is staffed with teachers, audiologists and speech pathologists who help deaf children learn to communicate verbally.

"We believed that this was a partnership with the city," Davis said. "They would lease the land to us and we would provide very difficult kinds of services that need professional expertise for deaf children, and the taxpayers did not have to bear the burden of providing those very specialized services."

[...]

Bob Christy, the city's real estate director, said the center for the retarded and the center for the deaf are the only two with 99-year leases although he said several other nonprofits have shorter-term, $1-a-year leases.

Have I mentioned that it's time this mess got settled? Yes, I believe I have.

And so it goes

That didn't take long. The ink was hardly dry on today's SCOTUS decision before the legislative outsourcing of abortion to Mexico - for women who can afford it, of course - got underway. Coming soon to a Lege near you: A ban on travel to Mexico for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. I sure do hope I'm being paranoid about that, but would you put it past this crowd?

Voter ID video

If I had a couple million dollars to spare, I'd blanket the state airways with this video:

I don't know who made it, but it's brilliant. Share and enjoy.

UPDATE: Just so there's no confusion, I didn't create this. And the two speakers are Reps. Dwayne Bohac and Debbie Riddle, as noted before.

UPDATE: BOR has more.

CLOUT can sue after all

Back in June, the Edd Hendee group CLOUT filed a lawsuit that claimed that the constitutional spending cap was illegally exceeded by the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) during the 2006 special session on school finance. That suit was thrown out in August on the grounds that CLOUT did not have standing to sue Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, House Speaker Craddick, the LBB, et al over this issue. Today the Third Court of Appeals has overturned that ruling, which will allow the suit to proceed.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes should be allowed to develop evidence to support its claims that legislative leaders exceeded a constitutional spending cap.

[...]

CLOUT wants to have future expenditures under the school finance bill declared unconstitutional.

A visiting state district judge last August dismissed the lawsuit. But the appeals court said the judge erred in dismissing claims based on the limited record before him.

The opinion of the Court is here. Here's the conclusion:

[W]e affirm the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim alleging unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers for want of jurisdiction. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs' remaining two claims seek declarations that future expenditures under H.B.1's appropriation are unconstitutional or illegal, the district court erred or abused its discretion in dismissing those claims based on the record before it, and we reverse those portions of the district court's judgment. Additionally, we hold that, while Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead the associational standing of C.L.O.U.T., Plaintiffs are entitled to leave to amend to address that defect.

The part of the dismissal that was upheld was a claim by CLOUT that the Legislature did not have the right to delegate the task of estimating state revenue to the LBB. The rest of the ruling means simply that CLOUT has the standing to sue - it did not address their factual claims, as the District Court had not addressed them, which they can now pursue in the district court.

I had a brief conversation with David Rogers of the Texas Legal Foundation, who is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, and whose press release I've included beneath the fold. He says that CLOUT will indeed pursue this suit, and that it had some discovery actions pending at the time of the dismissal, which he says they now consider to be live and for which they expect a response within the statutory 30 day time limit. One more thing to spice up the 80th Lege session, as if it needed it. We'll see what happens from here.

UPDATE: Dallas Blog has more.

The Third Court of Appeals Tuesday released an opinion vindicating the rights of taxpayers to sue the government over spending in violation of the Texas Constitution.

The ruling, written by Justice Robert Pemberton, in Hendee v. Dewhurst, was released this morning. Edd Hendee, executive director of Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (CLOUT), filed the suit in June of 2006. Hendee is also a talk-radio host on the KSEV radio station that hosts Senator Dan Patrick of Houston.

"We agree with the Plaintiffs that the Texas Supreme Court's jurisprudence under Article VII, Section 1 compels us to hold that Article VIII, Section 22 is self-executing to the extent of prohibiting legislative action inconsistent with its provisions, and that Plaintiffs claims of violations do not present non-justiciable political questions" Justice Pemberton wrote. Pemberton additionally upheld a century of Texas precedent despite the arguments of the Attorney General, writing "a taxpayer has standing to sue in equity to enjoin the illegal expenditure of public funds, even without showing a distinct injury." He added: "We reject the State Defendants' narrow view of the taxpayer standing exception."

The plaintiffs are represented by former Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Polland and by David Rogers, assistant general counsel of The Texas Legal Foundation ("TLF"). The defendants are the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, the Comptroller, the State and the Legislative Budget Board.

David Rogers, TLF's assistant general counsel, said: "The purpose of the lawsuit is to enforce the accountability to taxpayers that is enshrined in the Texas Constitution."

Rogers said: "This lawsuit is exactly what the Texas Legal Foundation was chartered to do. A large majority of Texans voted to limit the growth of state government to the rate of growth of the overall economy, but those desires have been ignored by state officials."

In the suit, Edd Hendee and CLOUT, the plaintiffs, makes the following legal allegations: (1) The legislature in the last budget cycle spent more money than the Texas Constitution allows; (2) Legislators must obey the provision of the Texas Constitution limiting how much they can increase spending in every budget cycle; and (3) Texas law allows taxpayers to enforce the Constitutional spending limits.

The plaintiff has not requested injunctive relief at this time, but may amend the filing because of the State's successful effort to delay trial on the merits through an argument against taxpayer standing and in favor of complete state immunity that the Third Court has rejected.

The Texas Legal Foundation is a nonprofit corporation chartered to advocate "conservative public policy positions that are held by a majority of Texas citizens but that have not been implemented by the government."

The Third Court opinion is available online here: http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=15783

The Concurrence of Justice Patterson is available online here:
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=15782

Not the sort of headline I like to wake up to

RIM says it has Blackberry outage

Research In Motion Ltd. (TSX:RIM) said on Wednesday its Blackberry mobile e-mail network had an interruption, and gave no time frame for restoring service.

"We are currently experiencing a service interruption that is causing delays in sending or receiving messages," the company said on an automated customer service help line.

According to media reports, the infrastructure failed on Tuesday night, and e-mails were not being delivered to the handheld devices. Last night, Web site WNBC.com cited company officials as saying that they were trying to reset the system.

Today is going to be a fun day.

Reminder: Fundraiser for Mark Strawn

Just a reminder about the fundraiser for my neighbor Mark Strawn, who is recovering from a nasty auto accident that almost killed him. The cost is $40 per person in advance, $45 at the door. If you think you might want to attend, let me know and I'll pass along the contact info to reserve your tickets. Thanks very much.

Suffering Sappho!

As someone who grew up reading my uncle's old superhero comics of the 1950s and 60s at my grandmother's house, I have to say that this is simultaneously the most awesome and the most horrifying thing I've ever seen. Be warned, it's a serious time-waster, but it's worth it. Link via the comments at Crooked Timber.

Freeway blogging, Houston-style

I have three things to say about this story regarding Houston's freeway bloggers.

1. How you can write such a story while never mentioning the original Freeway Blogger is beside me. (His blog site is now here.) I mean, FreewayBlogger.com was the first freaking result in a Google search for "freeway blogging". Saying that it's "a term that emerged out of California, where protesters hung signs on overpasses and then took pictures to be posted on the Web" doesn't really explain what it has to do with blogging.

2. Hanging a sign may be illegal in Houston, but that sure didn't stop Orlando Sanchez last year. I swear, every freeway overpass I drove under had a Sanchez sign hanging on it.

3. The bridges over 59 between Montrose and Shepherd really are cool.

That is all.

On second chances

Lisa Falkenberg is one half of a duo filling in for Rick Casey while he's off doing whatever it is that he's doing right now. Her first column in his stead is a beaut. It's a comparison of how Dallas County DA Craig Watkins and Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal deal with claims of innocence. The ending sums it up nicely:

How can it be ethical to acknowledge the possible incarceration of innocent people and then do little to find and free them?

I admire Rosenthal's compassion for victims; he says he decided long ago that if alleged rape victims braved stigma to come forward, he would stand by them until evidence proved otherwise.

Why not the same compassion for victims of incompetent counsel and mistaken eyewitnesses?

Rosenthal should follow Watkins' example in Dallas: Throw open his doors to the innocence attorneys and allow them to test whatever evidence exists in disputed cases. He has nothing to lose, except his pride, but much to gain. For every innocent person in prison, there is a murderer or rapist who escaped justice.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Watkins has the benefit of a save everything policy that has aided the efforts of those who seek to overturn past convictions, but there's no reason Rosenthal can't institute a similar policy, if such a thing were to interest him. Needless to say, I wouldn't count on that happening.

Campaign finance reform bills up today

The three campaign finance reform bills that I mentioned before are on the calendar today for the House Elections Committee. There will be a press event put on by Texans for Public Justice in support of them today in Austin. Here's the scoop:

Under the banner of Texans Against Big Money, campaign reform advocates and the sponsors of three bills to limit campaign money will hold a brief press conference to discuss the legislation's impact on Texas elections. House Elections Committee Chairman Leo Berman has scheduled the bills for public hearings on Wednesday afternoon.

When: Wednesday, April 18, 1:30 PM
Where: State Capitol, South Steps

Who: Speakers will include:
Rep. Mark Strama sponsor of HB 110
Rep. Mike Villarreal, sponsor of HB 111
Rep. Todd Smith, sponsor of HB 1085
Mary Finch, League of Women Voters of Texas
John Courage, True Courage Action Network
Craig McDonald, Texans for Public Justice
Mario Perez, Common Cause

You may recall that a similar effort met with an inglorious end in 2005. We'll see what happens this time around.

Clarification of the Center's lease with the city

The following was sent to me by Ed Davis, who is a media contact for the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation:

Clarification of $1 rental agreement with The City of Houston:

Since the original lease was amended effective June 24, 1964, the lease has required rent payments by the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation to the City far in excess of the originally-stated $1 per year, an obligation that the Center has more than fulfilled each year.

While the original lease, dated Nov. 15, 1963, required a nominal rent payment of $1 per year plus any actual costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the lease, in March of 1964 the then-new mayor, Louie Welch, questioned the validity of this lease because an appraisal had not been perf ormed on the property to show that the rent payment reflected a "fair value." (Houston Post, March 12, 1964, p.6). According to this report, the Mayor believed that after an appraisal was conducted, a contractual arrangement could be worked out in which the City would be paid based on the appraised value.

In response, the Center comissioned two appraisals and reported the results to the City. The lease was amended on June 25, 1964 and was later approved by vote of the City Council. The rental rate established in the 1964 amendment was $6,750 per year. When the lease was amended again in 1972 to add the one-acre tract, the rent payment was increased to $17,200.

The agreements have always given the Center the right to fulfill the rent requirement through the provision of services in lieu of a monetary payment. The Center was given a dollar credit for certain types of services through a schedule contained in the lease. In each year since 1964, the Center has fulfilled its rent payment obligations through the provision of services. As required by the terms of the lease, the Center submitted a report to the City summarizing the services provided and quantifying the dollar value of the credit. Moreover, these reports were received by the City without question, and in most cases we have documentation that shows the reports were approved by the City Council by motion and vote.

The sum total of these credits for the years 1964-2004 is $32,892,190 in services provided pursuant to the lease agreement.

As for our situation in general, we are encouraged that the mayor has agreed to negotiate with us about keeping The Center and its residents in their current location. We truly feel that Mayor White and the City of Houston will do what's right in our case, and we are so thankful that our supporters' efforts have made such a difference to our future. It's a testament to what people can do.

I appreciate the clarification. While I believe a lot of the information about the lease agreement was out there, I don't think it had been presented in a concise way. At the least, much of what's here is new to me.

It's time to get this settled. Mayor White, please get the job done.

Time for the real sausagemaking to begin

Of all the things the Lege does, none is quite as awe-inspiring and stomach-churning as the joint committee to reconcile the House and Senate budgets. Basically, everything that's happened so far - in particular, all of the victories by the Democrats on things like teacher pay, vouchers, and CHIP eligibility, can and may well be tossed into the trash can by the committee. It's much easier to persuade someone to cross over and vote against, say, a voucher amendment than it is to get them to vote against their party's budget.

Democrats tried to insert instructions to the committee to retain the aforementioned victories in the negotiations with the Senate, but they failed. Not that there's anything unusual about that, as Burka notes. The Dems recognize the position they're in:

"It was way too easy," [Rep. Garnet] Coleman said of his own amendments that passed with little debate - calling for shoring up the hobbled Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program with more funding and fewer roadblocks. "The leadership did a good job of appearing moderate to get through a bad budget," he said, "because they've been defeated by looking too far to the right and being draconian and evil." The budget process now moves to the Senate and then on to conference committee for final negotiations. The amendments "will be stripped off in conference," Coleman predicted. "Then they'll bring the conference report back and dare people to vote against the budget."

Back to Burka, this may put a few Republicans in an especially ticklish spot:

I don't have the vote for the vouchers instruction yet--it's not up online--but it will be interesting to see how the Parent PAC Republicans voted on it. Unlike merit pay, which is not a Parent PAC issue, vouchers is probably the biggest single issue on the Parent PAC agenda. Readers know, of course, that members of the majority are supposed to stick with the chair on procedural issues, but voters might not be so understanding.

For those keeping score at home, the Observer summarizes the differences on some key points between the two budget versions, taken from the CPPP's research (PDF). As always, stay tuned.

TDEX followup

Previously, I mentioned that Rep. David Swinford had promised to amend his HB13 to include DPS oversight of the TDEx database. Here's a statement from Rep. Richard Raymond, who had introduced HB4108 for that purpose after news of TDEx became public:

"Chairman Swinford informed me yesterday that he was going to accept my bill, HB 4108, as an amendment to his bill HB 13, which addresses Homeland Security issues. I feel this is a step in the right direction and I'm glad the Chairman recognized our concerns," said Rep. Raymond. "The bottom line is we want to build a data base for law enforcement purposes that protects the homeland, but also protects the privacy rights of Texans who should not be on a Terrorist Watch List."

Rep. Raymond noted that during the past 16 months there were apparently some security breaches and there was also loss of data. "We are waiting to hear back from the Governor's Office of Homeland Security, in order to find out exactly how often there were security breaches, what happened to the data that was lost, who were the non-enforcement individuals that have had access to the data base, how many people are on the Governor's Terrorist Watch List and what is the criteria for being put on that list," said Rep. Raymond.

"We need to find out how many non-law enforcement government employees in Gov. Perry's Office and non-law enforcement, non-government employees had access to this information, who they were and what type of information they accessed," said Rep. Raymond.

Rep. Raymond and other legislators have requested this information from Steve McCraw, Director of Texas Homeland Security. They are still awaiting for a response to these requests, which were made last Friday, during a hearing of the House Committee on State Affairs.

"I want to know the purpose of the Governor's Terrorist Watch list. We need some further explanation why this watch list is in the millions and I would like to know all the types of information they are gathering on the people who are being put on the list," said Rep. Raymond.

Although Chairman Swinford may adopt Rep. Raymond's bill as an amendment, Rep. Raymond will still push for passage of his bill, HB 4108, in case the language does not survive in Swinford's bill.

So there you go. Meanwhile, if you'd like to know if you are among the records in the TDEx database, the Observer tells you how to find out. If anyone tries that, please let me know what response you get. If I get a spare minute, I'll try it myself.

Five and ten

If you want to know why every other year some of us turn into obsessive Lege-watchers, the answer is in stories like this.

A bill designed to give homeowners some relief from rising property appraisals was tentatively approved by the House on Monday on a vote of 87-53.

Supporters said House Bill 216 would give local appraisers more "wiggle room" when it comes to review by the state comptroller, who checks to make sure that local officials are appraising property at actual market value.

The law now says that values should not vary by more than 5 percent under or over market value. The bill by Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton, would change the standard to 10 percent.

If the comptroller determines that an appraisal district has undervalued property for two consecutive years, local school districts can lose a portion of their state funding.

The bill is expected to cost nearly $2 billion between now and 2012 as the state must make up for cutting back local school taxes, according to a fiscal note.

So the point of the original law is to provide a check on local property appraisers, to ensure they aren't giving sweetheart evaluations to their cronies, or overly harsh ones to their rivals. What this bill does is allow for appraisers to be less accurate (accidentally or deliberately) without there being any consequences from the state. This will not only have an effect on school taxes, it will also put more strain on the state budget, which as you know will be needing a bigger and bigger chunk of general revenue to pay for the massive property tax cuts that were passed last year. And lest you think that you and your humble swankienda might benefit from this largesse, remember that it's high end commercial and commercial properties that will really make out like bandits. Sweet, huh?

Now, to fully answer the point I raised at the beginning of this post: How many of you had any idea this was coming? How many of you, given enough notice of this bill and the vote on it, might have contacted your State Rep and informed him or her that you think this is a boneheaded idea? Just so you know, I - Mister Super Obsessive Lege-Watching Blogger - first heard of it at all late Monday night. We watch because there's so much that needs watching, and not enough eyes to do it with.

One amusing thing about this bill: On second reading (the bill passed out of the House today), the Nay vote united such unlikely comrades as Lon Burnam and Leo Berman, and Garnet Colmen and Warren Chisum. (See here (PDF) and scroll to page 19.) How many contested bills per session do you think can say that?

A rail threefer

Catching up from yesterday, three related items of interest: First, the Chron speaks out about the anti-rail "lawsuit" from last week:

In what is shaping up as a repeat of an unsuccessful but expensive legal battle to stop the Main Street rail line, opponents of light rail on Richmond have gone to court. Perhaps preliminary to a full-blown lawsuit, a single business owner has asked a state district judge to compel Metro officials to answer questions about plans for the westward extension of the system.

The request raises a familiar issue often cited by rail opponents. In a 2003 referendum, Houston voters narrowly approved a plan authorizing Metro to expand the rail system with seven additional lines, including a route, labeled Westpark, running from Wheeler Station at Main to the Hillcroft Transit Center. Opponents of rail anywhere on Richmond argue that any route except one along Westpark requires fresh approval from the voters.

It's been suggested to me that Metro should go ahead and put up another referendum to clarify the intent of the 2003 vote, with sufficiently direct language about how they will determine the final route for each rail line so as to forever undercut any bogus "they said Westpark!!!" argument. I can understand that, but I can't condone it. We had the vote. The language was clear. If this motion gets tossed by a judge, what exactly do the anti-Richmond forces have left to lean on, other than Congressional meddling? And if the motion gets granted, then the antis have gotten their wish anyway. Let 'em pursue it, and may the best lawyers win. Given that their side has Andy Taylor, I know which way I'd bet.

Speaking of Andy, he's got his conspiracy theory hat on again.

Last week, Andy Taylor, a lawyer representing an opponent of light rail on Richmond Avenue who is suing the transit agency, blamed Metro for the possibility that the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation may have to move from city-owned property near River Oaks.

I'm not going to bother summarizing his argument, because it's too stupid to be repeated. Suffice it to say this is par for the course with ol' Andy.

Finally, interim County Judge Ed Emmett weighs in on the topic of Richmond rail:

Q: Everybody has an opinion about light rail on Richmond. What's yours?

A: If the entire Westpark corridor had been preserved as it was originally, maybe they should have put the rail there, but I think there are issues now that the Southwest Freeway has been rebuilt.

When I hear politicians say they are opposed to a transportation improvement because the people most directly affected don't want it, I have a problem. The reason has to be more transportation-related than that.

Sounds about right to me.

TDEx fallout

Big Governor may be watching, but it looks like DPS may be about to get into his way. According to the Observer, Rep. David Swinford has agreed to amend HB13, the Homeland Security/border security bill that Governor Perry is pushing, to move the TDEx database under the control of the Department of Public Safety, where it belongs. I'm still not that comfortable with the idea that this thing exists, but if it must, then at least it's now a law enforcement tool, which should allow for some oversight. The Observer has more here and here.

Ban on demolition in Old Sixth Ward could be permanent

The moratorium on demolitions in the Old Sixth Ward may be made permanent.

City officials have proposed a permanent ban on demolitions of historical buildings in part of the Old Sixth Ward -- a proposal that would be the most restrictive historic preservation rule in Houston's history.

In a memo notifying affected property owners of an April 26 meeting, the city's Planning and Development Department provided new details of a plan Mayor Bill White announced earlier this year to protect Victorian-era homes in the neighborhood west of downtown.

The document says that if support among neighborhood property owners is sufficient, demolition or inappropriate alteration of historical buildings within a "protected historic district" would be prohibited unless an economic hardship could be demonstrated.

On March 7, the City Council approved a six-month ban on demolitions in the neighborhood to give the city time to develop a permanent preservation plan. The Planning Department memo is the first indication that the city wants to make this provision permanent.

A map attached to the memo shows the boundaries of the proposed protected district, which would be slightly smaller than the existing Old Sixth Ward Historic District. When he announced in January his plans to protect the neighborhood, White said he wanted to focus on the area that had the heaviest concentration of historical structures.

[...]

The town hall meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the United Way office, 50 Waugh. City officials also have asked property owners within the proposed district to return a card indicating whether they support the district by May 4.

The memo is here (PDF). The devil will be in the details on this one - what's a "protected historic district"? what's a "historical building" (we may have a definition for commercial properties, but what about houses)? what's an "inappropriate alteration"? and on and on. First, we need to establish that the Old Sixth really does want this, and then we'll see what happens.

UPDATE: See comments from Larissa Lindsay for answers to my questions. Thanks, Larissa!

More on the DMN's death penalty change of heart

More good stuff from the Dallas Morning News, whose conversion on the death penalty has if not the zeal then certainly the earnestness one expects from a convert.

In theory, the ultimate punishment is imposed for the most heinous of crimes. But in practice, the death penalty has not been applied flawlessly or fairly. About 2 percent of known murderers are sentenced to death, but the fate of the accused often hinges on disparate details unrelated to the crime committed.

Wealth, race and random luck play a role in determining whether a case ends in death. Politics and geography can mean the difference between life in prison or lethal injection.

State-sanctioned death, it seems, is arbitrary.

Whether you agree with their conclusion, they've clearly put a lot of thought into arriving at it. Now it's just a question of what effect their thinking may have on others.

We need a consistent standard.

But as long as capital punishment remains an option, it will be viewed as the ultimate goal, and prosecutors will face pressure to meet that goal.

Justice demands a punishment that is fair yet revocable, one that provides a sense of finality while allowing for the fallibility of the system.

Life without parole meets that bar.

It's harsh. It's just. And it's final without being irreversible.

Call it a living death.

I remember reading a short story in middle school that involved a bet between two men over whether death was preferable to life in prison - one of them spent 15 years in a jail cell built by the other, with agreed-upon limitations of his contact with the outside world, as the test of the bet. Can't remember the story's name or author, though - can anyone help jog my memory? I'm pretty sure it was a 19th century story, most likely written by an American.

Death does not provide an added level of justice. A prison sentence that does not allow for the possibility of parole accomplishes the same objectives: protecting society from violent criminals and ensuring that every day of a murderer's life is a miserable existence.

Our standards of punishment have evolved over time, from the gallows to firing squads, from the electric chair to lethal injection. Life without parole, essentially death by prison, should be the new standard.

Hey, I'm sold. When you can get the victim's rights groups on board as well, then we'll really have something. In the meantime, I agree with their call for a moratorium by the Lege along with a real study of how the current system does and does not work. Given current reality, I'll settle for stopping the expansion of the death penalty. But I'm happy to aim higher than that as well.

Voter ID bills coming soon

Sometime in the next few days (it was going to be today, but it got postponed), the odious voter ID bills, HBs 218 and 626 will come to the floor of the House. Never mind that claims of voter fraud are themselves frauds, nationwide and in Texas. Never mind that stringent voter ID requirements would provably disenfranchise American citizens for purposes of partisan advantage. The state GOP leadership deperately wants these measures to pass. Making it hard to register and hard to vote is apparently in harmony with their values.

What's funny, in a sad sort of way, is that in other contexts various GOP stalwarts are deeply concerned about voting rights and creeping Big Brotherism. Here's Rep. Debbie Riddle, speaking against Rep. Fred Hill's HB 2087:

"It is not wise to limit the voice of the elderly and the disabled when it comes to their right to vote."

"Except, of course, if in doing so you also keep poor and minority folks from voting, too. Then it's all right," she did not add.

And there's Rep. Dwayne Bohac speaking against HB 855 on 3rd reading:

"It goes too far. If I am going to err, I am going to err on the side of civil liberties."

(See here for more on HB855.) Which way will you err this time, Dwayne? Both these quotes are on the Capitol daily video feed. I may be able to get clips of them later - I'll update this post if I do.

This fight is a very big deal, and this may be the last time the Republicans get to push bills like these through the House. They know what the future looks like, and they're doing what they can to push it back. Sonia, Vince, and PDiddie have more.

UPDATE: Burka:

This is a bad old bill. It was part of a nationwide effort, spearheaded by Karl Rove, to suppress the turnout of racial minorities (who are less likely to have picture IDs than more affluent voters). It passed the House two years ago only to run afoul of the two-thirds rule in the Senate and may do both again. Republicans have told me that this is the most-polled bill of the session. What warped priorities the leadership has.

[...]

From Greg Abbott on down, Rs should be ashamed of themselves for pursuing this anti-small-d-democratic bill.

Amen, and amen.

Virginia Tech

Oh, my God. I just saw the story about the shootings at Virginia Tech. I'm horrified beyond words. All I can say is that the school and everyone connected with it are in my prayers.

Here's a report from someone who was on the VaTech campus today. May God comfort you all at this terrible, tragic time.

Strip club crackdown coming

Having finally won the lawsuit, the city of Houston is planning to crack down on the SOBs.

Houston police vice officers are working with city attorneys to determine which topless clubs, modeling studios and adult bookstores to target first.

They've got a long list.

As many as 150 businesses -- including multimillion-dollar operations like Treasures and The Men's Club -- could be forced to relocate or close. In the meantime, their employees face arrest.

"Now is the time for them to move," Mayor Bill White said. "We're going to enforce the law."

I'll say it again, I still think the 1500-foot minumum-distance requirement, coupled with a lack of grandfathering, is a bad idea. I thought so in 1997, when I voted for Ray Hill in the City Council special election, and I think so today. I'm not sure what we're going to gain by throwing a bunch of people, mostly women, out of work; there's also the loss of the tax revenue these places generate to consider. I guess we'll just have to see how aggressive this enforcement program will be.

Community meeting for TSU

Last week, Governor Perry ordered TSU be put into conservatorship.

Gov. Rick Perry asked Texas Southern University's regents to resign Friday in favor of a single conservator with extraordinary powers to make changes at the financially troubled school.

The governor did not announce who the conservator would be, but campus leaders have heard the name of Kerney Laday, a TXU Corp. board member and retired Xerox Corp. executive.

Pending Senate confirmation, Laday, 65, would be placed in charge of the university's spending, with the ability to fire any employee, hire new people and change the administrative structure. The conservator would likely be in place for a year, said Krista Moody, a spokeswoman for the governor.

[...]

The initial news release announcing his decision said TSU's situation required "swift and divisive action." Perry's office later corrected the statement to read that the action should be swift and "decisive."

The decision, however, roiled Democratic lawmakers whose districts include the southeast Houston campus, which is the nation's second-largest historically black university with 11,000 students.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee asked Perry to reconsider, saying "conservatorship would be a death knell instead of a solution." And state Rep. Garnet Coleman said the situation requires "something as strong as vinegar, but not battery acid."

Coleman said conservatorship would cause division and strife among those with ties to TSU. "People won't like it, and I think you can achieve the same results without a conservator," he said.

Fifteen lawmakers, led by Coleman and state Sen. Rodney Ellis, sent a letter to Perry before the announcement asking him not to recommend a conservator.

[...]

Perry called for conservatorship even after his TSU advisory committee recently stopped short of recommending it, urging him instead to make changes on the university's governing board because alumni, students and lawmakers had lost confidence in the regents.

The committee also recommended that TSU should be under continuous audits by the state, with the findings sent to the regents, governor and Legislature at least every three months.

There's a meeting tonight to discuss the future of TSU. Here are the details, from the email I received from Rep. Garnet Coleman on the matter:

Who: Citizens for Higher Education & former Texas Southern University President James Douglas

What: Community Meeting to discuss the future of Texas Southern University

When: 7:00pm - Monday, April 16, 2007

Where: Good Hope Baptist Church, 3015 North MacGregor Way, Houston, Texas, 77004

CLICK HERE FOR MAP

Governor Rick Perry has recommended that Texas Southern University be placed under conservatorship.

Citizens for Higher Education wants you to join us so that we may together meet and discuss the future of Texas Southern University.

Contact Mr. James Douglas at (713) 385-7471 if you have any questions or are in need of any assistance.

Statements from Rep. Coleman and Rep. Sylvester Turner about Governor Perry's decision are beneath the fold.

State Representative Garnet F. Coleman (D-Houston) expressed extreme disappointment concerning Governor Perry's decision to place Texas Southern University under conservatorship.

"I'm very disappointed Governor Perry has decided to put TSU into conservatorship, a decision that goes against the recommendation made by the TSU Blue Ribbon Panel he appointed," Rep. Coleman said. "It's especially disappointing considering that the current financial problems are problems caused by regents and other individuals Governor Perry appointed himself."

Rep. Coleman agrees that increased accountability and oversight is needed at TSU, but disagrees on the method the Governor has chosen to take. There are currently five vacancies on the nine-member Board of Regents for Texas Southern University.

"If Governor Perry filled the five vacancies on the Board of Regents for TSU, he would effectively be appointing a new Board that could provide the necessary oversight for the school," Rep. Coleman said. "We should also follow the advice of the Blue Ribbon Panel, who recommended reinstating the accountability rider, 'Rider 5,' for Texas Southern University. I authored the original accountability rider, and it should be put back in place to ensure the financial problems created by Priscilla Slade and Quentin Wiggins are never repeated."

Representative Coleman, Senator Rodney Ellis, and thirteen other State Representatives delivered a signed letter to Governor Perry, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, and Speaker Tom Craddick against the conservatorship of Texas Southern University. The letter, which is attached with the signatures, read as follows:

We, the undersigned members, are against conservatorship of Texas Southern University (TSU). We believe there are financial problems to be addressed and solved at TSU, and we are committed to solving those problems. We believe there must be strong oversight from you, but a conservator for TSU will be divisive and will create community strife.

In order to prevent such division, we believe there are other methods to manage the necessary improvements for TSU that will ensure we maintain the strong, independent nature of Texas Southern University. The Governor has five open appointments of the nine member Board of Regents for Texas Southern University, which is effectively a new Board for TSU.

The current fiscal situation at Texas Southern University is very different from the situation in 1997, which involved financial aid. Since 1997, Texas Southern University had maintained a strong financial history. It was not until questions were raised about the decisions made by the former President and Chief Financial Officer at TSU that any financial issues became evident. One resigned on March 16, 2006, and the other was fired on June 17, 2006. They are currently being dealt with by the criminal justice system.

We are eager to work with you on a solution to correct the problems caused by identifiable individuals. However, we cannot overemphasize the extent to which conservatorship of Texas Southern University will be divisive and will create community strife.

We are available to meet and discuss this matter with you at any time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rep. Garnet Coleman at his office (512-463-0524)[.]

St. Representative Sylvester Turner today criticized Gov. Rick Perry's decision to put Texas Southern University under a conservatorship.

"I strongly disagree with Gov. Perry placing TSU under conservatorship," said Turner. "I am asking the governor to immediately rescind his decision. Based on the information I have received about TSU's situation, it does not merit this action.

"The governor appointed a blue ribbon committee to look into TSU," Turner pointed out. "That committee did not recommend conservatorship. The Higher Education Coordinating Board says this has never happened before. It does not need to happen now.

"This action by the governor is harmful to the institution, it is not in the best interests of the 11,000-plus students there now and students who will attend in the future and it disrespects the members of the state Legislature. To wait and announce this action after legislators are out of town on a Friday afternoon after we have been in session all week raises serious flags. There should be serious pushback on this.

"I agree the Board of Regents needed to be reconstituted but no one should read from this action by the governor that TSU is in such serious financial turmoil that this was the only step the governor should take."

If at first you don't succeed, amend another bill

You may recall the mysterious case of Rep. Hubert Vo's HB478, which would require utilities in Texas to accept a bill as being paid by the postmark date on the envelope, thus preventing them from "processing" payments internally and charging late fees as they saw fit. The bill was left pending in committee for no adequately explained reason over a month ago.

Fortunately, in the Lege there is such a thing as a second chance. Rep. Vo was able to attach his measure as an amendment to SB482, where it was adopted, and then passed along with the now-amended bill on Thursday, by a 142-0 vote. This is a very good thing for all Texas consumers.

I've got Rep. Vo's statement beneath the fold. This still isn't over, as there's going to be a conference committee to unify the House and Senate versions of the bill, and the amendment could be stripped out there. But so far, so good, and well done by Rep. Vo.

In a stunning victory for consumers, State Representative Hubert Vo Thursday evening won approval for his amendment which requires electric utility providers to use the postmark date on payment envelopes as the official date paid. The bill he amended is SB 482. "My amendment will remove the uncertainty and provide the only verifiable way to prove payment dates," Vo said. "Currently consumers and business owners who pay their electric bills by mail before the due date are at the mercy of the utility provider as to whether their payment gets posted in time to avoid a late fee." Unable to get an up or down vote in committee on his House Bill 478, Vo decided to file it as an amendment to the big electric utility bill that was up for vote on the House floor Thursday. Vo's original bill covered all utilities but had to be narrowed to just electric providers to conform with SB 482. Vo pointed out during the debate that his amendment would require the utilities to do the same thing as other entities such as the federal Internal Revenue Service or Texas state agencies or state district courts do now concerning postmark dates. Vo said, "I hope that when this bill goes to the conference committee, my amendment stays in the final version. It's time to close this giant loophole and make sure that consumers are protected."

Former City Attorney explains the deal with the Center

From the Sunday letters to the editor. I'm going to copy it here for future reference.

Former city attorney explains

In the dispute over the city's contract with the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation, it appears that Mayor Bill White would have been spared the painful duty of confronting the center, not to mention the risk of discouraging future gifts to the city, if the legal department had done more thorough research of the facts surrounding documents called leases.

During the 1960s, the City Council wanted to accept the offers of several charities to use vacant city land for various social services. Since then, these charities have donated millions of dollars worth of buildings, furnishings and social services to the public without the city's having to pay a cent.

Many times in the past, the city has accepted donations for public use with conditions requiring the city to use the gift for the purposes intended. For example, land was taken off the tax roll when the city acquired Memorial Park by paying part of its market value and accepting the rest of its value as a gift. The city agreed to severe restrictions and those restrictions are perpetual.

In these cases, the city owned the land and had legal authority to build the buildings and perform all the services at taxpayer expense. Instead, they agreed to let the charities pay all those costs with the agreement that as long as the charity performed properly, it would be permitted to render the public service for a specified time.

One charity has relinquished to the city a perfectly good building before the agreed term expired: the center for senior citizens. The city built a community center nearby and is providing at taxpayer expense what the charity had been paying for so long. The charity was happy to be relieved of the burden.

The fact that the form of a lease was used does not invalidate the agreement to accept a gift with restrictions that the gift be used for the purpose intended. The Texas Supreme Court has held in a line of cases that general warranty deeds were actually mortgages under the facts of those cases.

The agreements here are not commercial leases, but are actually contracts to accept gifts of buildings, furnishings, maintenance and social services to the public for a term of years.

No doubt a gift with unreasonable conditions could be rejected and returned to the donor if the City Council that accepted the gift acted in bad faith or abused its discretion. I was not city attorney when the center's leases were made, but I recommended other such agreements to accept donations using the lease form to set out the conditions of the gifts, and City Council approved them. I do not think City Council abused its discretion in accepting gifts for public use for 99 years.

JOHN WILDENTHAL former city attorney of Houston, Houston

Interesting comparison with gifts. What do you think?

Chron covers the prison guard shortage

From Sunday's Chron:

As leading lawmakers disagree on whether the state needs to build new prisons, Texas can't fully staff the lockups it has now.

Some warn that a chronic shortage of correctional officers poses a danger.

"There's a public safety issue with the shortage," said Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, Senate Criminal Justice Committee chairman and Finance Committee member. "I'm told where you need two (correctional officers), you've got one, and sometimes you have none. It means that the public is at risk of a breakout. It means you endanger corrections officers, and you potentially endanger inmates."

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice says it's committed to keeping its facilities secure despite having to deal with correctional officer vacancies totaling 12 percent, with some prisons having much greater shortages.

Officers work voluntary overtime and "we keep all the critical areas staffed," even when that means suspending some "nonessential" operations such as an offender craft shop, said department spokeswoman Michelle Lyons. "We are dedicated to offering safe prisons and secure prisons."

But fatigue can cause problems because offenders "wait for mistakes and shortfalls and use it against the officers at one point or another," said Floyd Smith, a 21-year veteran and second vice president of the Corrections Association of Texas. "Mistakes get made when you're tired."

Lawmakers haven't aimed the intense criticism at TDCJ that they have at the unfolding problems of the hugely troubled Texas Youth Commission.

But there's concern that the adult prison system had only 88 percent of its correctional officer positions filled at the end of February, with 3,152 vacancies. The prison in Dalhart had the biggest shortage, with 63 percent of its positions filled.

The turnover rate, meanwhile, rose from 20 percent in 2002 to 24 percent in 2006.

The agency "wants new prisons, and they can't run the ones they have now. You cannot sugarcoat it any more. You talk about TYC, you've got a crisis here in TDCJ," said correctional officer Jaye Hightower, a 15-year veteran and vice president of the Corrections Association of Texas.

"The difference between the two is that (in the adult system) you'll either have a massive escape that puts the public at risk, or a riot where many lives are lost and also putting the (corrections officers') lives at risk."

As with the TYC, rural locations, low salaries, and unpleasant working conditions are all contributing factors to the guard shortage, as is competition from the military. Remember also that Harris County has the same staffing problems for its jails, too.

I've blogged about this before, mostly taking a cue from Grits, who is the heavyweight champion of the prison system blues. Be sure to follow his links for more background on this. One item to note from the Chron's sidebar is that while Texas has a 12 percent vacancy rate for prison guards, the comparable stat for New York is less than one percent. What does New York know that Texas doesn't? (Here's a hint, if you're curious.)

Round Rock immigration protest lawsuit settled

In December, parents of four Round Rock High School students who were arrested for violating a curfew law when they were taking part in a pro-immigration rally filed a class action lawsuit against the city, saying that the arrests violated the students' First Amendment rights to free assembly. Last week, the suit was settled.

Bringing an end to a federal lawsuit filed by some students and their families, the City of Round Rock is dropping charges against 70 students who participated in last spring's immigration protests.

The city and the Round Rock school district have agreed to pay $91,750 in legal fees and eliminate the incident from students' records. The students must attend a three-hour seminar on civics education.

The conditions of the agreement were reached after mediation among the parties. The Round Rock City Council approved the settlement Thursday.

[...]

Police issued 209 citations against the students, accusing them of violating the city's youth curfew or disrupting class. The settlement applies only to the 70 students included in the suit against the city and school district. They had claimed their rights to free speech and to assemble had been violated.

"I think it was a good settlement for all sides," said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, the organization that found pro bono attorneys to represent the students in their lawsuit.

More here:

t's a clean slate for Round Rock students who marched against immigration reform last year.

They say they're happy with the recent settlement with the City of Round Rock.

"I think it was on my mind and so I spoke it," student Kim Arteaga said.

After a year-long battle, Arteaga has a special appreciation for the first amendment.

"I knew that they [immigrants] were afraid to go out there because they thought, 'well, I could get sent back to Mexico' and so I wanted to do it for them," Arteaga said.

[...]

So now, they'll have to pay more $50,000 dollars worth of attorneys' fees, and drop any pending violation of curfew and disruption of class charges.

The city of Round Rock will set up a fund to pay $400 for legal fees to students who want their records cleaned, which will be paid by the city's insurance carrier.

Students will have to take a three hour course on civics, but both parties stand by their decisions.

Sounds like a good deal all around to me. It's just unfortunate that some students won't get the full benefit of it, but perhaps that can be taken care as well of before it goes to the appeals court.

DMN: No more death penalty in Texas

Wow. The Dallas Morning News looks at some high profile death penalty cases in Texas and realizes that the system is irrevocably broken.

And that uncomfortable truth has led this editorial board to re-examine its century-old stance on the death penalty. This board has lost confidence that the state of Texas can guarantee that every inmate it executes is truly guilty of murder. We do not believe that any legal system devised by inherently flawed human beings can determine with moral certainty the guilt of every defendant convicted of murder.

That is why we believe the state of Texas should abandon the death penalty - because we cannot reconcile the fact that it is both imperfect and irreversible.

Flaws in the capital criminal justice system have bothered troubled us for some timeyears. We have editorialized in favor of clearer instructions to juries, better counsel for defendants, the overhaul of forensic labs and restrictions on the execution of certain classes of defendant. We have urged lawmakers to at least put in place a moratorium, as other states have, to closely examine the system.

And yet, despite tightening judicial restrictions and growing concern, the exonerations keep coming, and the doubts keep piling up without any reaction from Austin.

Powerful stuff, especially considering the source. As you know, I am not philosophically opposed to the death penalty. I have always believed that for some crimes, and for some criminals, it's the only appropriate response. But it's also been clear for a long time that the system has many cracks in it, and that too many people have fallen through them. From prosecutorial misconduct to bad eyewitness identifications to incompetent defense attorneys to an impenetrable appeals process that is completely indifferent to questions of innocence, we have lost any right to say that the death penalty is applied in a fair and impartial manner, assuming we were ever able to say that. Giving up the death penalty for the few that truly deserve it in favor of life without parole and never executing another innocent or inadequately represented person again is in my mind more than a fair bargain. I hope that the Morning News' change of heart is a catalyst for others.

More from the DMN is here, including a response from someone who thinks things are just hunky-dory as is. There'll be more from the DMN during the week, so I'll check back. Grits also chimes in.

Possibly the last thing I'll say about Danno's outburst

I received the following email from Court Koenning, Sen. Patrick's chief of staff, in response to my earlier post about the Patrick/Whitmire fight on the Senate floor from Thursday:

Good evening. Didn't want to post a response to your update, but I did want to set the record straight to you directly after your "update."

You said in part, "He may not have been on Finance, but he could have made proposals, authored bills, or introduced amendments, to do the things he wanted to." Well that isn't exactly accurate. The Finance Committee process is rather closed to non-Finance Committee members. If you aren't a member of the Committee you get little if any say into the final budget (unless they need your vote on the floor). And you certainly do not dare attempt to amend the budget on the floor. To prove my point you know Sen. Shapleigh is a huge supporter of CHIP. And he spoke at length on Thursday about more funding needed for CHIP (as did other members). However, he did not offer a single amendment to increase such funding. That is because he knows (as do all the other members) that the Senate budget is not amendable once it reaches the floor. Ask anyone who has worked in or around the Senate and they will confirm. The House is totally different.

When the budget came out of committee we had 48 hours to act. We used every bit of that time. I handed the list to Dan after the debate had already started on Thursday. When members were hammering the budget because it didn't spend enough, I pulled Dan off to the side and said you need to talk about the budget spending too much and you need to make reference to some of the items on the list. At that point we had no plan to release the list, but by the time he stood to speak he knew he had to make reference to the list and if he referenced the list we would have to release it. The expedited process required the actions we took. And more specifically, when the day's session concluded I said to Dan off the floor "I guess I need to go prepare a release?" He said "yeah you better." The release and the list were distributed to the press a little more than an hour afterwards.

I know you aren't a Dan supporter, but we did our homework. We did exactly what we told people we would do. Work for change and give them a voice in the Texas Senate. As an anecdote, as Dan left the Capitol on Thursday, a state trooper stopped him and said "thanks for standing up for me today. I'm a homeowner and I'm certainly not rich."

Those are the facts should you or anyone else choose to report them.

I appreciate the response. Mr. Koenning is quite right that I am not a supporter of Sen. Patrick's, but I give him credit for being willing to engage directly in this kind of debate. It's a good thing all around.

I'm going to add three points to this, and then barring something new happening will let it go before I bore anyone who's still reading about this to tears. You can of course add on in the comments.

1. The question of how the Senate Finance Committee operates is not really relevant. The 2007-08 budget may have been made out of Dan Patrick's sight, but the budgets from the previous cycles have been a matter of public record. How many items on Danno's List were things that had been allocated funds in the past, possibly for more than one cycle? The Texas Enterprise Fund, for one, is something the Dems have tried to kill since it was first introduced in 2003. Had Patrick looked at the last couple of budgets to identify his "waste" items, he might have missed a thing or two, and he might not have gotten his "savings" up to $3 billion - at the least, he'd have to qualify his total as being in 2005 dollars. But he'd have been able to get many of these things out there before Sen. Ogden and crew did their work, and that might have enabled some actual political pressure on them to do something about them. Maybe now such pressure will exist when the 2009-10 budget is written. The point I'm making - again - is that had Sen. Patrick chosen a different path, he might have had an actual effect this time around. Working outside the process has a cost.

2. Just because Dan Patrick says something is "waste" doesn't mean that it is. I think money spent on abstinence education is wasteful, too, but a lot of people would disagree with that, and I'd bet they represent the majority, not Dan and me. I'd bet a lot of people in SD07 would disagree with Danno on that point, in fact. Budgets are about priorities, and the way to get your priorities funded - or someone else's not funded, since every item in the budget represents someone's priority - is to convince a majority of your colleagues that your priority is more important.

3. Finally, somewhat tangentially to what we've been discussing here, I'd like to highlight a comment by Dick Lavine, which he made in Patricia Kilday Hart's response to Danno's response to her:

On the question of facts: Sen. Patrick will be pleased to learn that the Center for Public Policy Priorities, using data published by the comptroller in her biennial study of tax incidence, has calculated who wins and who loses when general revenue is used to replace school property taxes, as HB 2 this session will do to the tune of nearly $7 billion for the biennium.

The winners: only the 20% of households with incomes over about $110,000.

The losers: the other 80% of Texas households. Including the average middle-class family earning $50-60,000 a year that Sen. Patrick says he is standing up for.

For details, see http://www.cppp.org/research.php?aid=638, page 3.

That's all I've got.
UPDATE: OK, I lied, there is one more thing: PinkDome has put the video on YouTube. Check it out.

Houston WiFi - Not just for Houston

The Houston WiFi plan may benefit some folks who are not residents of Houston - in particular, the cities of Bellaire, West U, and Southside Place.

In a section called "interlocal agreements" the contract said Houston, as the anchor tenant on the project, may offer wireless broadband Internet access to "other political subdivisions" located within its coverage area.

Earthlink will be set up to provide service to 90 percent of residential and commercial buildings within an area that covers about 640 square miles, under the terms of the agreement. West University Place, Bellaire and Southside Place are already included in one of six zones that fall within that area.

"We sincerely appreciate the city of Houston providing the ability for West University to participate, if it is found to be beneficial to both cities," City Manager Michael Ross said.

[...]

In December 2005, West University Place council talked with Plano-based RedMoon, Inc., a provider of broadband Internet service, about the cost of the company providing access.

Spokesman Brian Thompson said the cost to his company per unit household would be $300 to $400 each, while being able to place a "Wi-Fi umbrella" over the whole city would be between $275,000 and $300,000.

My guess would be that it'd be cheaper for West U and the other cities-within-the-city to piggyback off of Houston's effort, just for economies of scale reasons. We'll see what they choose to do.

Jackie Robinson

It was sixty years ago today that Jackie Robinson officially broke the color line in baseball by making his debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers. There will be much to read and learn about this remarkable man and how he changed not only the game of baseball but arguably America itself, but the most interesting story I've read so far has been this one about the man who played Wally Pipp to Robinson's Lou Gehrig.

Jackie Robinson Day's central event will take place in Los Angeles, where Robinson's widow will be on hand to see each member of the Dodgers wear Robinson's No. 42 as they take the field against the San Diego Padres.

Houston will host a smaller event -- a youth baseball clinic at Memorial Park's Andy Anderson Field, sponsored by Major League Baseball's alumni association.

One of the senior members among the former players on hand will be Ed Stevens, 82, who keeps a copy of the box score from Robinson's first game on the office wall of his southwest Houston home, alongside a picture of himself with Robinson and some of their Brooklyn Dodgers teammates that year.

Stevens spent 29 years as a scout, so he enjoys working with young talent. He has another reason, though, to remember the events of April 15, 1947.

It was the day Jackie Robinson took his job.

Stevens has had 60 years to consider the consequences of the day that Robinson's dreams came true at the expense of his dreams for a long, successful career with the Dodgers. Still, he too will pause to remember Jackie Robinson.

"Jackie Robinson, with all he accomplished, with everything he went through, he deserves this recognition," Stevens said Friday. "I was a little put out with some things that happened at the time. But he was an outstanding ballplayer. I have no qualms about honoring him."

I consider myself pretty well-read on baseball history, especially from that era, but this is a story I hadn't heard before. It's quite interesting, and I'm glad that Mr. Stevens is still with us so he can tell it. His experience adds another layer to the whole thing.

When he thinks of 1947, he recalls the abuse he endured in [his hometown of] Galveston for losing his job to a black man.

"Some of the older people wouldn't talk to me," Stevens said.

"I would even get phone calls from people asking me how it could happen. I finally had to threaten to whip some of them to get them off my back. But I never had any hard feelings or regrets toward Jackie Robinson."

It's hard to believe sometimes, but we really have come a long way.

Big Governor is watching you

Here's the story, as first reported.

Piece by piece, Gov. Rick Perry's homeland security office is gathering massive amounts of information about Texas residents and merging it to create the most exhaustive centralized database in state history. Warehoused far from Texas on servers housed at a private company in Louisville, Kentucky, the Texas Data Exchange--TDEx to those in the loop--is designed to be an all-encompassing intelligence database. It is supposed to help catch criminals, ferret out terrorist cells, and allow disparate law enforcement agencies to share information. More than $3.6 million has been spent on the project so far, and it already has tens of millions of records. At least 7,000 users are presently allowed access to this information, and tens of thousands more are anticipated.

What is most striking, and disturbing, about the database is that it is not being run by the state's highest law enforcement agency--the Texas Department of Public Safety. Instead, control of TDEx, and the power to decide who can use it, resides in the governor's office.

That gives Perry, his staff, future governors, and their staffs potential access to a trove of sensitive data on everything from ongoing criminal investigations to police incident reports and even traffic stops. In their zeal to assemble TDEx, Perry and his homeland security director, Steve McCraw, have plunged ahead with minimal oversight from law enforcement agencies, and even DPS is skittish about the direction the project has taken.

Once again, read the whole thing. Have I mentioned lately what a kickass year the Observer has had so far? It's scary to think what it'd be like around here without them.

The mainstream media caught up today. The question you need to ask yourself is not whether or not such a database might have value as a crimefighting tool - no doubt it does - but whether it should be managed by the Governor's office or by an actual law enforcement agency such as the DPS. Frankly, the fact the the Governor's office is trying to claim that they're not really in charge when they are is pretty troubling in and of itself. From the Morning News:

Lawmakers said Friday that they are concerned about a civilian in a political office having control over so much sensitive information on individuals.

Several said they'll seek to move control of the database from the governor's office, and others want to fold the Division of Homeland Security into the Department of Public Safety.

In response, the governor's office said the program has been based in and operated by the DPS - the state's premier law-enforcement agency. Mr. McCraw gave a December 2005 letter to key lawmakers that states that the DPS was officially designated as the project manager in charge of information and its security.

But in testimony before the House State Affairs Committee on Friday, the director of DPS told legislators that the project is run by Mr. McCraw.

"For a very short time - a week or a month - DPS might have been kinda in charge of that project. It was given back to Mr. McCraw and the governor's office at their request," Col. Tommy Davis said.

And from the Statesman:

At the outset of the hearing, House State Affairs Committee Chairman David Swinford, R-Dumas, sought to allay concerns about oversight, producing a December 2005 letter from the governor's office that designated the Department of Public Safety as the project manager.

But Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, later distributed a March 2007 letter from a state DPS attorney that said the law enforcement agency is "only a participant" in the data sharing network.

"The Texas Office of Homeland Security in the Office of the Governor administers the TDEx network," the letter said.

DPS Director Col. Tom Davis later testified that the agency gave up control of the database at the request of the homeland security office.

"It was their program," Davis said in response to a question from Farrar. "I believe (McCraw) felt he could do the job and let DPS do law enforcement work."

Why is it such a bad idea to have the Governor's office run this? For one thing, because they don't play well with others.

In recent testimony, a DPS Narcotics division commander revealed that Governor Perry's much-ballyhooed Operations Linebacker/Rio Grande/Wrangler did not coordinate or share information with DPS Narcotics, do not participate in anti-drug agreements with Mexican law enforcement, and don't utilize federal "deconfliction" centers to make sure their efforts didn't harm other investigations. Asked about eleven new "joint operational intelligence centers" the Governor says are managing Texas' border surge, DPS Narcotics says they "didn't have anything to do" with them, even though DPS is the state's primary drug enforcement agency.

So far, unfortunately, only Democrats seem to be concerned about this, at least going by public statements. Rep. Richard Raymond received permission to introduce HB4108 on Thursday to make DPS the only agency that can operate a database like TDEx. Republicans used to get fired up about this sort of thing; maybe they will again. It's always a good idea to ask yourself how you'd feel if it was the other guy who was doing this sort of thing. More from Grits, In the Pink, Peggy Fikac, Vince, Somervell County Salon, and Musings.

More on Danno's outburst

For those of you who didn't get a chance to see or hear the fracas on the floor of the Senate yesterday, the video is here - jump ahead to the 5:01 mark for the good stuff - while Greg and RG Ratcliffe have audio clips. If you just want to read more, visit Professors R-Squared, who scored the fight for Sen. Whitmire and who have links to more coverage, or see Danno's response to Patricia Kilday Hart.

I think it's important to remember that Dan Patrick isn't playing by the same rules as the rest of the Senate. His message and his mandate weren't to go there and work with committees to effect change mostly at the margins. It was to go there and to express the very contempt that he so clearly showed yesterday for a system that doesn't operate the way he thinks it should and doesn't hold to the values that he thinks are important. He's a bomb-thrower, not a legislator. His closest comparables are people like Lon Burnam, and his mission is to be an agent of change. He fully expects, and I daresay welcomes, the slings and arrows that he'll suffer in service of his goal, because it fuels his narrative of one man against a corrupt machine that will do whatever it must to keep him down. From his perspective, and by his means of scoring it, he won that fight on Thursday.

The thing is, though, that even some of Patricks' supporters might realize that he actually had the power to enact some of those cuts from his $3 billion list. He was on the finance committee, after all, and probably could have gotten enough support there to shave a few million bucks here and there. Not a whole lot - if any of the things he was proposing were obvious or uncontroversial, it's a sure bet that someone else would have brought it up - but enough perhaps to make a statement. (His list is on his website. For the record, there are things there, like eliminating abstinence education and the Texas Enterprise Fund, that I agree with.) Even by Patrick's rules, his performance didn't carry the same clout it would have had David Dewhurst shunted him off to committees that held no interest to him or had less real power. Patrick had a real opportunity, and he chose instead to do what he has always done, which is basically lob spitballs from the back of the classroom. The explanation he gave to Kilday Hart for his timing is baloney and self-serving. He was there when the budget was being made. If it's not to his liking, then some of the blame for that is his. If this was the best he could do, then maybe next time Dewhurst should put him on the Agriculture committee. At least then his aggrievedness will feel more genuine.

One last point. Something that ideologues of all stripes have a hard time with is the realization that most people - the mainstream, if you will - don't agree with them on most things. The reason Patrick's List would mostly not have passed muster is because most of the things on there have real support for them, and most legislators would not want to give a future opponent the ammunition of having voted to kill them. It's easier to rattle sabers than it is to change minds, and sometimes the reason minds don't change is because they had it right the first time.

UPDATE: As two people, including Patrick's chief of staff, have noted in the comments, Sen. Patrick is not on the finance committee. I'm not sure why I thought he was - partly, I misread the Kilday Hart posts, partly I remember that he did get good committee assignments and extrapolated from there. Either way, it's no excuse for not looking it up, and I apologize for the error. However, Patrick is still a Senator and not just a guy in a radio booth. He may not have been on Finance, but he could have made proposals, authored bills, or introduced amendments, to do the things he wanted to. He could have affected the process, timing issues or no, but chose this path instead. Kilday Hart makes a similar point in her response to him.

Marriage meddling bill gets gutted

Good.

In a dramatic overnight reversal, the Texas House gutted a "healthy marriage" bill Thursday that would have doubled marriage license fees if couples didn't take classes in how to be good spouses.

Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, won a key vote, 76-61, to keep marriage license fees at $30, effectively stripping the bill of its ability to induce Texans to take marriage education classes.

"No matter how you split it, this marriage tax is wrong," she said. "If we want people to get married, why are you just going to double the fee if they don't happen to go through a course? Let them get married."

That argument, combined with queasiness among Republicans and Democrats about government intrusions into private lives, sealed the fate of House Bill 2685.

Even though the bill gained final passage, the fee hike was critical to its carrot-and-stick approach: Don't take the class and pay $60 to $100 for a marriage license. Take the class, and get a free marriage license.

"I think it severely damaged the bill," said its author, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa. "Now I think people will just pay $30 and not go through an eight-hour course. What she's done is destroy the effect of the bill."

Which is exactly the fate it deserved. And the good news continues:

Chisum said he thinks the vote on Thompson's amendment, with 14 Republicans joining 62 Democrats, means some other "healthy marriage" proposals backed by the Texas Conservative Coalition could suffer a similar fate.

If this is typical of the type of "solution" they're offering for these problems, then the same fate is what they deserve as well. It's heartening to see some Republicans get it:

Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, said his constituents would see the marriage license fee hike as a tax increase. If he agreed to it, it could backfire in his next political race.

"I could see it in a (campaign) mailer," he said. "They wouldn't care that we were trying to keep marriages together. They wouldn't care."

He said he's not convinced of the success rate for marriage based on premarital counseling, noting Chisum offered few convincing statistics for backup.

"I do not believe it is good policy for the state to intervene in the sanctity of a marriage," said Rep. Tommy Merritt, R-Longview. "For us to say an eight-hour course is going to make a marriage sustain itself is not the prudent way to encourage a Christian marriage."

Like the others, Rep. Gary Elkins, R-Houston, said he had a gnawing concern about government's proper role in society.

"Marriage is sanctioned by the state, but it's really a Biblical or historically religious ceremony. I don't know how government's going to counsel people or give people advice," he said.

May this be the end of it.

Fort Bend Democrats barbecue

So what are you doing on May 19th? Let Hal make a suggestion:

The Fort Bend Democrats are hosting a picnic in the park with barbecue, guest speakers, an auction, and good company.

Where: Eldridge Park Pavilion 2511 Eldridge Road, Sugar Land Get a map here.

When: Saturday May 19th 6-8 PM

What: Barbecue Dinner and Auction

Cost: Tickets will be $15 advance purchase and $20 at the door.

Call JoAnn at 281-341-5489 to order tickets.
Please make checks payable to: Fort Bend Democrats
Advance ticket orders must be in by 5pm Monday May 14th.

NOTICE: Tickets will be sold on a first come, first serve basis.

Olivia is a big hit out in FBC, so I'm going to have to figure out a way to bring her out to this. And I hope we will see you there as well.

Urban corridor planning events this weekend

From Metro:

The City of Houston Planning & Development Department will be conducting an Urban Corridor Planning initiative. The findings of this study will modify the City's policies and regulations to facilitate the development of attractive, walkable, and transit supportive communities along existing and proposed METRO Solutions transit corridors.

Please note that Urban Corridor Planning is distinct from METRO's decisions about transit alignments or station locations.

Communities along METRO's planned light rail and guided rapid transit corridors will change not only as a result of the transit improvements, but also due to increased population growth. According to the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the Houston region's population is expected to double in 30 years.

The way the city grows is directly related to the rules that govern land development and the standards for infrastructure that support development. Changes to these regulations and standards can positively affect how growth is distributed, the way the city looks and how we get around.

Urban Corridor Planning is working on ways to handle the projected growth by developing new regulations and setting new standards for areas along METRO's light rail and guided rapid transit corridors: Main Street, Uptown, East End, North, Southeast and University.

There's a kickoff meeting tomorrow at the George R. Brown Convention Center at 8:30, then there will be a series of meetings for each individual corridor through the week. The one for the North Corridor, which is of interest to stakeholders of the I-45 expansion, will be Wednesday & Thursday, April 18 & 19, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Reid Memorial United Methodist Church, 5203 Fulton St. Details for all other meetings are at the link above.

More on the anti-rail "lawsuit"

Here's the Chron story about the "lawsuit" filed against Metro yesterday. As was the case in the earlier coverage, the action is mis-identified. It's not a lawsuit but a section 202 motion, which is intended to let someone who is thinking about filing a suit do some discovery beforehand. As I understand it, the state district court judge (and alas, neither story so far has identified the court in which this motion was filed, so I haven't found it to link to yet) rules whether or not there's grounds to conduct such discovery - in other words, whether this is in fact a fishing expedition or not - and if so, then what they find can be used in the suit they eventually file. Point is, the suit ain't been filed yet. If the motion is not granted, it may never be filed.

Anyway, it should be clear that what was filed wasn't a lawsuit:

The lawsuit by Richmond Avenue resident and merchant Daphne Scarborough asks a state district court to order Metropolitan Transit Authority officials to answer questions under oath about Metro's plans and finances.

Lawyer Andy Taylor said the purpose is to find out whether Metro intends to comply with various terms of the referendum in which voters narrowly approved a long-term transit plan the agency calls Metro Solutions.

Should an actual suit be filed, it will be to force Metro to build the line on Westpark, or to enjoin them from building it on Richmond, not to make them answer questions about their intentions. It would be nice if the coverage of this were more clear on that point.

I neither know what will happen, nor when it may happen. Perhaps future coverage, which will hopefully indicate whose court this is in, will give some clue as to the timeline. In the meantime, we'll see how Metro responds. Stay tuned.

"All you need is glove"

I love stories like this:

Eldridge Small was in for a surprise on the first day he coached the Wheatley softball team. The girls were excited to start playing, but several of them had never even put on a glove.

"That first day of practice, we had to have a 'putting on your glove' lesson," Small said. "We were really starting from scratch."

Two years later, the Wheatley Wildcats are on the way to their second straight playoff appearance.

A football coach leading a group of girls, some of whom had never worn a baseball glove, to immediate success on the softball field. What's not to love about that? Check it out.

The fraud of voter fraud

The Chron picks up the story, but you really need to read the whole thing, because the Chron version cuts off before it gets to some of the more appalling parts. I'll let Kevin Drum give what he calls the "nickel summary":

In 2002, DOJ changed their guidelines to make it easier to prosecute voter fraud. They made it a priority to find voter fraud cases. They appointed a clean slate of U.S. Attorneys loyal to the Republican Party. They set up training classes to help prosecutors charge and win voter fraud cases. But after all that, they managed to demonstrate fraud in a grand total of only 86 cases over four years. And even then, many of the cases of confirmed fraud were simply mistakes, while virtually none of them were actually designed to affect the outcome of an election.

So in four years of concerted effort, the Bush Justice Department managed to come up with maybe half a dozen cases of actual voter fraud. In other words, two or three per election cycle. Mostly in rural districts for low-level offices. And because of this, we're supposed to believe that it's a high priority to spend millions of dollars on voter ID laws that plainly do nothing except make it harder for poor people to vote.

Can we now please put this nonsense to rest? Can we please stop writing stories that treat voter ID laws as if they're sincerely designed to stop voter fraud? There's no longer any excuse.

Indeed. And if the people who have flogged this were capable of being shamed by it, they'd be hip deep in sackcloth and ashes now. Sadly, they aren't and they won't be, but they should be. Josh Marshall has more.

Kirby storm sewer update

The following update to the Kirby storm sewer project was left as a comment in this post by reader robt.

Here's the latest on the Kirby storm sewer project as presented to the University Place Association annual meeting on April 10th by representatives of Public Works and Turner Collie and Braden:

Segment 2, which is now in progress and runs north to Swift, is currently 80 days behind schedule and held up at the moment by safety issues with the trenching.

A new contractor takes over for Segment 3 which runs from Swift north to Robinhood. Work on this phase will commence as soon as all Segment 2 sewer boxes are laid, but before repaving, no earlier than June of this year. There will be work going on concurrently on Segments 2 and 3 while Segment 2 is being paved. Segment 3 has a 470 day time line, including a 76 day slowdown during the holidays to facilitate traffic flow. Completion is set for August '08 at the earliest. ( A side note here: Businesses on the west side of Kirby will be without access for periods of at least two weeks while the construction passes by, as the city of West University does not allow access to commercial developments fronting Kirby from the city's east-west side streets). Meanwhile, just east of Kirby, construction of the Sonoma, the 7-story development on Bolsover between Kelvin and Morningside which promises to redefine Village living, will be underway at this time.

Segment 4 includes new sewer lines north from Robinhood to Quenby, then east on Quenby to Greenbrier or thereabouts, and repaving of Kirby as far north as 59. Segment 4 is currently scheduled for a January '09 start with completion in March 2010.

And finally, you may notice that the intersection at Kirby and Holcombe was paved with asphalt rather than concrete (at the behest of the Kirby beautification folks) to facilitate installation of the new paving design and crosswalks when the money becomes available. This of course will necessitate tearing up the intersection yet again.

Start scouting your alternate routes now.

Brace yourself. This is gonna be a long and ugly ride.

Lawsuit filed against Metro, sort of

I've been wondering for a long time if something like this was going to happen.

A lawsuit now threatens to derail Metro's plans for light rail expansion in Houston. If it is successful, the entire process may have to start from scratch.

Getting the light rail cars on the track has been a battle from the start.

The 2003 referendum allows Metro to fund its share of the expanded transit plan known as Metro Solutions passed by a razor thin 51 to 49 percent.

Now it is the ballot measure itself and how Metro has put it to use that is coming under fire.

Daphne Scarbrough says she been asking Metro questions about the rail plans for two and a half years.

"I have no answers. I am tired of asking the questions. And now Andy will get to ask the questions," said Scarbrough.

"Andy" is attorney Andy Taylor who representing Scarbrough.

Ah, Andy Taylor. He's as inevitable as snails on the sidewalk after a heavy rain. Maybe he can call Talmadge Heflin as a character witness.

Ideally, they would like to use a lawsuit to shut the plan down completely. The filing seeks to force Metro officials to testify under oath, look at finances and the technology and routes claimed in the ballot measure.

[...]

For its part, Metro said it has been anticipating legal action; the only real surprise is that it is coming so late in the process.

"It is a fishing expedition. They've said we want to come in and see if you have done anything wrong," said Metro Chairman David Wolfe.

Note the language in the first paragraph above. What was filed wasn't actually a lawsuit - according to RichmondRail.org, it's a "section 202 motion" with the intent to eventually file a lawsuit against METRO regarding the University Line. RR calls it a "fishing expedition", as does Metro in its own press release, which I've placed beneath the fold. I don't know what "section 202 motion" means, but this all sounds a little weird to me. And yes, very late in the process, though I suppose waiting till Metro announces its intended route before firing the big gun is a decent strategy. At this point, the KHOU story is all I can find, so I'm not sure what to make of this. I'll have more as I learn more.

METRO Responds to Legal Petition filed April 11, 2007

Today, METRO learned that legal action was taken against the Agency concerning METRO Solutions and the 2003 Referendum.

What follows is METRO's statement regarding the legal action:

The petition is a fishing expedition filed by one individual opposed to light rail on Richmond.

The fact is, METRO is in complete compliance with the letter of the law and the spirit of the 2003 Referendum.

By including other mobility improvements in the petition in search of "possible" compliance issues, it becomes clear that this is but the latest instance of a vocal few opposing public transit and blocking progress toward improved mobility and quality of life in Houston.

METRO has come to expect legal challenges whenever significant progress is being made on its METRO Solutions program. And, in fact, substantial progress has been made in recent months, including:

* Inclusion of the North and Southeast corridors in the Bush Administration's proposed funding for projects for FY 2008.
* Completion of the federal environmental clearance process on the North and Southeast corridors.
* METRO Board decisions on the alignment, or routes, for the North, Southeast and East End transit corridors.
* Selection of a design-build team to negotiate a contract for the development of the transit corridors.

METRO is confident it will prevail in any judicial proceedings.

METRO will not be distracted from fulfilling the wishes of the voters and building METRO Solutions.

"I've got a list"

As expected, the Senate approved its budget today. What was not expected was the fireworks that accompanied it.

Attacking from the right, Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said he's concerned that state budgets keep growing but Texas keeps trailing in rankings including health care for poor children and services to the elderly. He said he wants money to be spent more efficiently and said he had come up with $3 billion in possible cuts, saying he was concerned for middle-class taxpayers footing the bill for services.

"I'm looking out for the middle class, hard-working Texans," he said. "I am concerned about children not getting health care. I am concerned about our elderly. I am concerned about those in need in our society. How is it that we continue to spend more and more money, but still were 45th, 48th in every category in these services?"

Patrick continued his push for a blue-ribbon task force to examine spending in the interim. [Senate Finance Committee Chair Steve] Ogden said that's what lawmakers do.

"Your Finance Commitee has done a pretty doggone good job," Ogden said. "It's our job to do this."

The vote came only after a flareup triggered when Patrick lashed out after Gallegos suggested school property tax cuts are just for the rich. Patrick said, "The property tax cuts, Sen. Gallegos, are going to hard-working families and they're not all rich."

That prompted Sens. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, and John Whitmire, D-Houston, to speak. There was a particularly harsh exchange between Patrick and Whitmire, who challenged the Republican to detail his budget cuts and suggested Patrick wasn't serious about them. That's because Patrick planned to present copies to the media but had not given them to senators.

Whitmire, referring to Gallegos as his best friend, told Patrick not to lecture his fellow senators.

"I don't have to be lectured by you," Patrick said.

Whitmire retorted, "You can dish it out but you can't take it, is that it?"

More on the meltdown is here, here, here, and here. The best summary comes from Patricia Kilday Hart, who also explains succinctly why Patrick was in the wrong.

How irresponsible is it to claim you have found $3 billion in savings in the state's budget -- and yet not have shared this important information with anyone on the Finance Committee? But there was Patrick, waiving his list of "savings" on the Senate floor while shouting out names and numbers, looking very much like Joe McCarthy waiving a list of known Communists. Did Patrick ever stop to say why a certain program was unworthy of state expenditures? Had he investigated whether it pulled down any federal matching dollars? All of these questions went unanswered because, as John Whitmire pointed out during his tongue-lashing of Patrick, if Patrick had been serious about making the cuts, he would have vetted them through the committee. There, state agencies can be summoned to explain how the dollars are spent. And if they couldn't justify the expenditure, the Finance Committee would have happily transferred the funds to more pressing state needs. Perhaps the funniest part of the Patrick-Whitmire exchange came when Patrick promised to share his list of "savings" with the press. "The press? The press doesn't have a vote!" Whitmire yelled. "This member of the press does!" came Patrick's inane reply. The guy completely missed the point: if he wants to get something done, he should be negotiating with his fellow senators, not grandstanding for the press or practicing for his radio broadcast.

Have you ever been involved in a committee that had one member who contributed nothing, then complained to anyone who'd listen afterwards what a bunch of idiots he'd been forced to work with? That's my impression of Danno and his magic list of budget cuts. It takes a lot of contempt for the process to do what he did. But you have to give him credit for remaining as pure and unsullied by it all as he was the day he announced his candidacy. That ought to make him and his minions happy, while the fact that by taking this path he'll never get anything done makes me happy. I call that a win-win situation.

Senate debates the budget

I'm sure there will be more on this later, but for now, the Senate is debating the budget that it passed out of committee earlier this week. Despite some rumblings of discontent from the right, the motion to suspend the rules and allow the bill to come to the floor passed easily. It looks like the final vote will be similar, based on what has been said so far.

In case you're curious, the CPPP has a side by side comparison of the House and Senate budgets. They'll have an update for after the sausagemaking is finished. Stay tuned.

Welcome back, Sen. Gallegos

It's only for today, as the Senate debates the budget, but it's very nice to see Sen. Mario Gallegos back where he belongs. More here, here, and here.

Dewhurst and CHIP

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst keeps getting shelled for his uncompassionate and non-sensible position on CHIP.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst drew fire Wednesday from several clergy members and leaders of a community action group who said they have lost patience with him on funding the Children's Health Insurance Program.

It is hypocritical for Dewhurst, they said, to dismiss low-income families' concerns about signing CHIP re-enrollment forms every six months when Dewhurst himself has failed to properly fill out basic business forms affecting some of his business interests.

"We don't have patience with the lieutenant governor who doesn't understand the problems that affect working families of Texas. He says he supports our children, but he hasn't lived up to it," said the Rev. Kevin Collins, pastor of Immaculate Conception Church in Houston and a leader with The Metropolitan Organization.

[...]

The Network of Texas Industrial Areas Foundation Organizations, which includes the TMO, wants lawmakers to spend the extra $78 million to return CHIP to 12-month eligibility instead of six months, something the House budget bill already has done. The program's enrollment period shrank four years ago when lawmakers cut the program back as a money-saving measure.

Many families do not re-enroll every six months, which drops children from coverage. Dewhurst has said most Texans don't have much sympathy "for someone that can't fill out a two-page application every six months."

Apparently, the combination of this criticism, plus the Lone Star Project revelations (PDF) about Dewhurst's own paperwork issues caused Dewhurst to lose his cool at that press conference yesterday. The bad news is that there's no video of his outburst. The good news is that all the pressure seems to be having an effect:

"Let's get off this debate of 6 months or 12 months," he said. "That's not the issue. ... That's something made up by some zealots and magnified by the press."

His answer? "I've been intrigued," he said, by the idea of having the state check families' eligibility with great frequency, so that children would stay on CHIP indefinitely, until the state learned they were ineligible. He didn't explain the concept, which he called "continuous enrollment." But he said he wants to study some other states' moves in that direction.

I'll gladly accept the "zealot" label if it means my side has won the argument. I'm not sure yet what the details will be of what Dewhurst is proposing, but he's stopped making that stupid and insulting "What's so hard about filling out one number on an application every six months?" statement, and that's a big step in the right direction. Patricia Kilday Hart has more.

First they came for gay marriage

I'm going to defer to Rep. Garnet Coleman, as quoted in this story from yesterday, for saying what should be said about Rep. Warren Chisum's desire to meddle with marriage.

While Republicans long have decried the "nanny state" of liberal social safety nets, some House Democrats now complain about the GOP meddling into highly personal decisions they say are best left to individuals.

Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said that when he married a woman who's Catholic, he readily agreed to participate in the church's "engaged encounter" class and parenting classes tied to his children's baptisms.

"I just don't think that's something the government ought to coerce," Coleman said. "It's truly getting into someone's marriage bed. It's the state going beyond what I think its role is and intervening or coercing or penalizing someone who's seeking to get married."

Before we got married, Tiffany and I had to undergo some premarital counseling at our church. It wasn't a class, but a couple of meetings with one of the deacons, and it involved each of us filling out this long questionnaire that dealt with each other's attitudes about things like money, faith, children, sexuality, housework, and so on. Both it and the talks with the deacon were designed to ensure that the two of us knew what we were getting into, and who we were getting into it with, as well as to ensure that we had a framework for communication regarding the places where we disagreed. Though he could easily tell it wasn't an issue in our case, the deacon made it clear that our church reserved the right to deny us a marriage bann if they felt we didn't meet their criteria.

And that's as it should be. The Catholic Church has a vested interest in seeing the marriages it sanctions succeed. Marriage isn't just a celebration to the Church, it's a sacrament, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. If you want to get married in the Catholic Church, or in any other faith, you have to agree to and abide by their rules.

Whether you agree to those rules or not, there is a second aspect to one's marriage, and that's the civil aspect. At its heart, that's a legal arrangement between two people in which certain default benefits are conferred; for example, Tiffany is now defined as my next of kin, in any situation where that question might arise and in which we haven't explicitly set it by other means. That little piece of paper we got from the Harris County Clerk's office brought with it rights and responsibilities for each of us. But it had no bearing on the church part of the equation.

I'm sure if I did a thorough search on everything that was said and done as Texas debated and then passed the Double Secret Illegal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment of 2005, I'd find plenty of examples of politicians like Warren Chisum waxing poetically on the sanctity of marriage (this one is amusing if not on point). When they did, it was always apparent that they were conflating the ecumenical rite of marriage, for which any church has always had the right to choose who it does and does not bless, regardless of what the laws of the State of Texas may be, and the civil arrangement, which is just a contract between two consenting adults. I guess the lesson we take away from yesterday's House vote is that some people still haven't figured out the distinction. In doing so, it's heartening to see that they have aroused the ire of some actual conservatives, who, like me, don't understand why the state needs to duplicate the role of the church. I didn't understand it back in 2005 either, and would have appreciated a little more support from folks like them back then (there were some honorable exceptions), but I'll take what I can get. I should also note that arguments made yesterday about no-fault divorce and "protecting" children were also made by the proponents of the Double Secret Illegal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment. In other words, we were warned.

One hopes that the Senate will have better things to do than play along with this nonsense (though with David Dewhurst's gubernatorial pandering, you never know). One also wonders what will be next for Chisum and his band of merry marriage meddlers. I do not look forward to finding out.

Council approves WiFi plan

And the City of Houston WiFi plan moves forward.

Downtown likely will have the first access to the planned wireless Internet network system approved today by the City Council, and the rest of Houston will be added in 100-square-mile sections over two years, officials said.

The council unanimously approved the contract with Atlanta-based EarthLink to build and maintain the system at its own expense, charging Houstonians for access to a network that would be the largest of its kind in North America.

The network's first large customer will be the city itself. The council approved spending $2.5 million over five years for access. Officials say the deal could save the city money over time, because the network could replace other communications providers for municipal services.

Again with the "coulds". I think the city will likely save some money on existing services as it does things like replace wireless cards with cheaper WiFi cards and allows mobile workers to do more from the field. But let's not lose the forest for the trees. The question is whether the gets more value out of this deal than it would have by not doing it. If there's a net increase in expenditures, but a larger net increase in services provided, that's still a win.

Under the contract, the company is working on a tight, 24-month deadline to get the project finished. The company is still negotiating with CenterPoint Energy to place network components on electricity poles.

Some residents and businesses will have access before others, as the system moves toward completion by spring 2009.

"We're not going to wait for all the zones to be completed before we turn it on," said Janis Jefferson, the city's chief technology officer for infrastructure.

Although she and other officials said details of the build-out schedule are still under discussion, downtown has a head start because a smaller wireless system already is in place for new, remote-control parking meters.

I presume we'll see a schedule at some point for delivery dates in different parts of the city. Twenty-four months for the whole thing is pretty darned aggressive. I'll be more than a little surprised if that doesn't slip somewhere along the line.

Meanwhile, Dwight points to this report of municipal WiFi experiences elsewhere, which aren't very good so far. Hard to say how that bodes for Houston, since this is still an emerging thing, but we do know that Earthlink has about 50 million reasons to make a go of this. I still like Dwight's suggestion to bundle WiFi access with existing services, and hope such an offering is forthcoming. We'll see.

Next time, run a red light

Ken Hoffman has a problem.

I received a notice in the mail last week from the Texas Department of Transportation. It said a video camera caught me running three toll gates in Denton while driving my Ford Taurus in March.

The fee was 60 cents each time, plus a $1 penalty, so I owe $2.80. Send payment to Texas Tollways, 12719 Burnet Road, Austin, TX 78727.

I guess I was lost, because first I ran the toll at Old Denton Tap Road heading north, then the same toll heading south, then the same toll heading north again -- all within eight minutes.

There's just one problem -- actually a whole bunch of problems. I don't own a Ford Taurus. I have never owned a Ford Taurus. I have never owned any car with the license plate listed on the TxDOT notice.

I have three words for you, Ken: Call Michael Kubosh. He won't be of much help, but maybe he'll file another lawsuit to forbid the use of cameras for toll enforcement.

(For what it's worth, the procedure for dealing with an erroneous red light camera violation is much simpler.)

Fortunately for Hoffman, the problem is now resolved.

Stars Over Kirby update

Houstonist provides an update to the Kirby Drive beautification project that's in the works: For $1500, you can be a part of it directly.

To enable families and small businesses to contribute to the Kirby Drive All Stars program, which aims to beautify Kirby Drive from Holcombe north to Westheimer with intersection and sidewalk enhancements, the Kirby Coalition and the Upper Kirby District Foundation are selling 18-inch-by-18-inch sidewalk pavers on which people can inscribe their names.

Kathie Easterly, co-chairwoman of the Kirby Coalition and manager of the University Place Association, said the blocks would enable residents to leave their mark on Kirby.

"I'm down for a paver for my family and I do think the neighbors will be excited about it," Easterly said. "It's a wonderful way to commemorate your loved ones or business."

They do this sort of thing for buildings - the Planned Parenthood clinic on Fannin has a ton of inscribed bricks from its renovation in the 90s - so it's not an unusual idea. I'll be interested to see what kind of response they get. More information is here if you want in.

Corporations only have the option of making larger contributions ranging from $10,000 to $250,000, for which their pavers would be placed at an intersection.

The Kirby Coalition is now also working on foundation grant requests from both local and national organizations.

[...]

Phase one of the fundraising effort for the All Stars project needs to come up with $250,000 per intersection for upgrade elements, including a star motif inlayed into the middle of the street, brick crosswalks, landscaping, public art and construction costs. The intersections include Holcombe, University, Sunset, Bissonnet, Richmond, West Alabama and Westheimer.

Additional money raised in phase one will go toward a permanent maintenance fund and the second phase of the project, which would include additional streetscape upgrades along Kirby such as lighting, benches, garbage cans and light post banners.

That's pretty ambitious. They'll need some corporate sponsors, which may lead to some interesting outcomes - imagine "This intersection is brought to you by a generous grant from the Three Initial Corporation". Hey, if we can have Minute Maid Park, we can have the Bank of America Crosswalk. No point getting all coy now.

The project kicked off in January and [[Travis Younkin, director of captial projects for the Upper Kirby Management District,] said the district plans to do an evaluation in June to determine how much money has been raised.

"I know if we continue on the pace we are on we hope to have enough funds raised to implement the Rice Village intersections with the City of Houston Storm Sewer Relief Project," Younkin said.

Coordinating efforts with the Kirby Drive Storm Sewer Relief Project will save money on construction and costs associated with having to block off parts of the street from traffic. It is too late to coordinate for the Holcombe intersection, but Younkin said the coalition hopes to be able to follow the city north down Kirby for each of the other intersections.

"We're trying to do everything at one time so things are only disrupted once," he said.

Ah, the storm sewer project. I have to say, they're making great progress - everything south of Holcomb should be open soon, and some parts of Kirby north of Holcomb have already been repaved. That's the good news - the bad news, of course, is that they'll be tearing things up north of University, where the real traffic is, any day now. I get ill just thinking about it.

Come to the compound!

Presented without comment, because I'm speechless: Tourist attraction planned on site of Davidian standoff.

After announcing in February that they hope to renovate the New Mount Carmel property, once home to David Koresh's Branch Davidian sect, the current occupants say they are hoping Waco and Central Texas residents will pony up the funds for the renovation.

"Our plans are big," said Charles Pace, leader of The Branch, The Lord of Righteousness sect of the Branch Davidians, who maintain and worship on the property at 1781 Double EE Ranch Road in Elk. "But we have to get support. We'd like to get support from local people because it's not going to be something we can do on our own. We'd like to get the worship going like it was here before."

The "before" that Pace refers to is not the time of Koresh and his followers, however.

"We do not want to restore what we had before Vernon Howell (Koresh's given name) came and perverted everything," Pace said. "We want to set the record straight and we want to make this place a healing place like it was before, when the Indians were here."

[...]

Pace said that there are no plans for a new compound with communal living and that if people became familiar with his teachings they would see that they have nothing to fear from a renovated site.

In fact, Pace said it would be a waste for area residents not to take advantage of what he sees as a possible draw for tourists. Between 25 and 200 people visit the site on a weekly basis, he said.

"We're wanting our neighbors to realize what they have here," Pace said. "They're afraid of what is here because they don't understand it. If they understood it, they would want to support it and make it a historic site. When you say Waco, people don't think of Baylor (University). When you say Waco, people think about what happened here. Waco should capitalize on that."

Liz Taylor, executive director of the Waco Convention and Visitors Bureau, said she had not heard about plans for a renovated Branch Davidian site but the tourist information center provides maps to the location.

"If they are a valid tourist attraction, then it becomes something we evaluate," Taylor said. "But until we see that, it's hard to make a determination (about the value of the site as an attraction). I've not heard anything about this but, wow, I'd sure be interested in seeing what they have in mind."

Okay, one comment. I remember hearing after the tragedy at Mount Carmel in 1993 that visitorship at the Dr Pepper Museum spiked. I guess once you'd seen the compound, you got to wondering what else there might be to do in Waco. I have zero proof of this - it may be an urban legend - but for what it's worth, it's what I heard at the time. And just so you know, the Dr Pepper Museum has a blog.

There's more to this story - I haven't even touched on one of the weirder aspects, involving a dispute with PETA over a petting zoo - so suffice it to say that you should read the whole thing. Thanks to Kent for the link.

Lawsuit filed against New Braunfels tubing ordinances

There may have been a slight easing of the recent rules about what you can and can't do on the rivers in New Braunfels, but it wasn't enough for some disgruntled business owners.

A group of New Braunfels business owners is suing the city to block rules intended to control alcohol consumption on the Guadalupe and Comal rivers.

More than 10 river outfitters, beer distributors and other individuals make up the group calling itself "Stop The Ordinances Please," said Scott Tschirhart, the group's lawyer.

The lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in 207th District Court, seeks a temporary restraining order and permanent injunctions against four ordinances approved by the City Council in the past year to clamp down on rowdy tubers.

The group is challenging rules that limit the size of coolers allowed on the rivers, prohibit alcohol consumption in some riverside parks, and ban Jell-O shots and beer bongs on the rivers.

As you know, I have serious issues with the cooler-size restrictions. The beer bong and Jell-O shot bans are much easier to defend on the merits.

The lawsuit claims the city's ordinances violate the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, which says only the state can govern the transportation or possession of alcoholic beverages.

"This is not a lawsuit to promote drinking on the Guadalupe and Comal rivers," Tschirhart said. "What this lawsuit is about is the City of New Braunfels overstepping their legislative authority."

Paul Isham, interim city attorney for New Braunfels, said the ordinances don't prevent anyone from "possessing, using or consuming alcohol" on the rivers.

"The city feels that the ordinances it has adopted are legal, and we plan to vigorously defend those ordinances," Isham said.

Should make for an interesting argument. Any lawyers want to weigh in here?

More from the Express News. We'll see what happens at the hearing on the 26th.

Are you registered for the special election yet?

The deadline to register to vote in the May 12 special election is Thursday, April 12. That's tomorrow, if you're keeping score at home.

When:

Harris County residents must deliver applications to a county tax office by 4:45 p.m. or mail them in time to be postmarked before midnight Thursday. Residents elsewhere should check with their county tax assessor-collector for office hours.

Who:

Applicants must be U.S. citizens and residents of the county where they register; at least 17 years and 10 months of age to register and 18 to vote; not declared mentally incompetent; not serving a felony sentence, parole or probation

What:

Ballots in various jurisdictions will include bond issues and referendums, city council and school board elections and a special election for a vacancy on the Houston City Council.

Information:

Harris County tax office:
713-368-VOTE (8683)
www.hcvoter.net
Secretary of state:
www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/

Register now so you can have a voice in this important but sure to be low-turnout election. Early voting begins April 30. And remember who to vote for. There are several good candidates in this race, but Melissa Noriega is the best of them. Please help her win.

More on the Senate budget

Here's more detail about the Senate budget that came out of committee yesterday.

The $152.2 billion, two-year state budget approved 15-0 by the Senate Finance Committee represents a 6.8 percent increase in state and federal spending compared with current levels.

It includes a big boost for Medicaid services to children to settle a court case, a move it would partly fund with an across-the-board state spending cut on other services of more than half of 1 percent.

[...]

Like the House, Senate budget writers would keep $4.3 billion untouched in the state rainy day fund and leave billions more on the table to be sure they can subsidize local school property tax relief in future years. In addition, budget totals don't include another $14.2 billion to be spent over the next two years to cut local school property tax rates.

"We tried very hard to pay for what we're supposed to do and what we promised we would do," said Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, Senate Finance Committee chairman. "It's an honest budget and ... there's between $2 (billion) and $3 billion left for property tax relief in the future."

Vince isn't buying it.

Evidently, we're living on Mars or something, because this is totally out of this world. Out of a $152 billion state budget, the Senate Finance Committee cuts every agency's budget to come up with $700 million to pay for the FREW lawsuit settlement.

One key difference between the Senate budget and the House budget is that the Senate kept the teacher merit pay that the House killed, while shuffling the across-the-board pay increase off to the "wish list" ghetto. Vince addressed that point specifically:

The cost for the merit pay program is as follows: $263,056,920 for the first year of the biennium and $319,114,000 for the second year. I take these numbers from Amendment 63 to CSHB 1. Unless my calculator is doing some Republican fuzzy math, that's a total of $582,170,920.

The FREW settlement will cost the state about $700 million over the biennium. That's about $118 million difference between the amount for the merit pay scheme (which nobody wants) and what's needed for FREW.

So, since no one wants the merit pay scheme, and we've got to pay for FREW, it would stand to reason that, before budget writers do anything else, they would take that $582.1 million from the merit pay program and plug it into the FREW settlement, and make up the remaining $118 million from somewhere else.

You'd think that would have been an appealing as well as straightforward approach, but apparently the Senate Republicans would rather re-fight the merit pay battle. Look for merit pay to get added back in conference committee (remember, Tom Craddick gets to pick the committee members from the House), which will put those breakaway Republicans in the position of having to vote against the whole budget to register their desire for a real pay raise. Ain't gonna happen.

On the other hand, the budget as it now stands may not make it to the floor of the Senate. Wouldn't that be a train wreck?

On a side note, you know that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has been making a stink about reverting CHIP to annual enrollments, which is how it was done before the 2003 budget massacre. What you may not know is that Dewhurst, who has been busy saying things like "What's so hard about filling out one number on an application every six months?" has his own difficulties in filling out forms. The Lone Star Project has the gory details (PDF). As Burka says:

Of all the programs in state government to be against, why would Dewhurst single out CHIP? It's not a welfare program; participating families have to pay premiums. It's not an entitlement; when the funds run out, no more families can be served. The federal government picks up much of the tab, and the state's share is a drop in the bucket compared to Medicaid. The only reason to favor six months' eligibility is that you want to cover fewer children--we know from experience that the shorter eligibility period will result in around 100,000 fewer children receiving coverage--but why would you want to? You can make a personal-responsibility argument, but to what end? Is it really worth adding 100,000 kids to the already shameful number of uninsured people in this state? It was one thing to raise the eligibility bar in 2003, when the state faced a $10 billion shortfall, but it's quite another thing to raise it now, when the treasury is full. I don't get it.

The reason, of course, is that Dewhurst wants to appeal to Republican primary voters for the 2010 governor's race. The real question is why keeping 100,000 kids uninsured is so damn appealing to these voters. Or, to be more charitable, why Dewhurst thinks it's so appealing to those voters. Those questions I can't answer.

The Center at City Council

Here are the latest developments in the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation saga:

Baker Botts lawyer Irv Terrell confirmed Tuesday that his firm volunteered to represent the center after reading that city officials had declared the facility's 99-year lease invalid and were considering selling the land.

"We think the center should stay exactly where it is and continue to provide the services it is providing, and we hope the city agrees with that," Terrell said.

I kind of doubt that the Center will need much representation at this point, but just having Baker Botts on their side is impressive. File that under "more reasons why the city should settle this quickly".

John Wildenthal, who was city attorney for former Mayor Louie Welch from 1964-66, said he wasn't involved in the 1963 agreement with the center but negotiated others that allowed nonprofits to lease land for $1 a year in exchange for providing much-needed social services.

Wildenthal said the city agreed to long-term contracts to allow the charitable organizations time to invest in facilities.

"My opinion is that these services were much more valuable to the citizens than the rent would produce on a landlord-tenant basis or a one-shot sale where you spend the money and it's gone," Wildenthal said.

That at least finally gives an answer to the question of how the Center came to have that 99-year lease. It's certainly a valid point, and as I've said before, the value that the Center provides should be reflected in its lease agreement with the city.

[Mayor Bill] White said he is meeting with representatives of the center and is working hard to bring the matter to a resolution.

But he said it's not fair for the city to give special treatment to one group while denying similar privileges to others.

That's the city's argument in a nutshell, and I think it's a fair point, too. It's unfortunate that the city's approach to this, in the form of its October eviction warning letter, has made it so difficult for them to address that point. The city is not dealing from a position of strength, and it seems that the Council, at least, recognizes this:

Councilman Adrian Garcia said he's confident that city leaders will find an acceptable solution.

But if the center and the mayor fail to reach an agreement, he said, he cannot vote to sell the property and force the nearly 200 residents to move.

Councilman Peter Brown assured the packed room that the center has the council's support.

"We're not going to let the center down," he said.

It'd be an interesting exercise to see what other nonprofits have leases with the city, and to see what they think about all this. Just a thought.

As expected, the TV news was there at the Council meeting: KHOU, KPRC, KTRK, and Fox. The City Hall blog has a picture from the Council meeting as well.

Toll road moratorium passes House

It took a little gamesmanship, but the two-year toll road moratorium has passed out of the House.

Reacting to public hostility, the Texas House tentatively slapped a two-year moratorium on private company toll road projects Tuesday with a loud 134-5 vote.

"This moratorium gives us a chance to take a deep breath," Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Bren-ham, said of her effort to temporarily stop private company toll roads.

The proposed moratorium faces a final House vote today and an uncertain future in the Senate. Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Chairman John Carona, R-Dallas, opposes a moratorium while he tries to negotiate a compromise measure. But the moratorium has support from 26 of 31 senators.

Kolkhorst's moratorium would stop private company toll roads and create a committee to study the pros and cons of those private equity finance projects. The committee must issue a report by Dec. 1, 2008.

Kolkhorst attached her moratorium measure to a transportation-related bill. Her own moratorium bill had been stranded in the House Public Transportation Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Taylor, opposes it.

Basically, Rep. Kolkhorst took HB2772, which was her moratorium bill, and attached it as an amendment to HB1892, which regulates how counties can finance and build various transportation projects, including toll roads. House Transportation Chair and staunch toll road advocate Rep. Mike Krusee had promised a hearing for HB2772 if the companion SB1267 passed out of the full Senate, but apparently the pro-moratorium forces didn't trust him.

The moratorium would not affect the Harris County Toll Road Authority, Kolkhorst assured Houston-area lawmakers.

Eye on Williamson liveblogged this debate and made note of the HCTRA exception, which means they will still be able to make private equity arrangements (SA Toll Party flagged a Chron article about this from March 30). Exempting the HCTRA from the rest of the bill led the CTC to make a last-minute push against HB1892, and created the odd specter of Rep. Krusee warning about the evils of public-private contracts, but in the end it didn't matter. HB1892 passed by a 123-17 margin, and barring any last minute shenanigans, it should pass. Now it's on to the Senate, where as noted there's still Sen. John Carona's wobbliness to worry about. So stay tuned.

"Zoning" in the Heights update

Apparently, my post about the Chron article that was subheaded Houston panel urges zoning on development in neighborhoods got mailed around a bit, and as a result I wound up speaking to Planning Commission committee member Mark Sterling, who helped me understand what this is really all about. Here's the gist of it:

1. That subhead was not accurate, and apparently the Chron reporter was not happy about it. Reporters don't write headlines, so these things do happen. Apparently, the Chron ran a corrected version on Tuesday that did not include the Z word in it.

2. What the committee is doing now is based on the lot size and setback ordinance that was proposed in February. Basically, this would impose similar requirements for the height and width of single-family dwellings all structures. In this case, for blocks that qualify for the protection, maximum height and width are set to be at the 70th percentile for the block.

3. To qualify, a block must be at least 60 percent single family dwellings, and must be inside the Loop. This is to weed out blocks that are mostly commercial, though as noted in the prior point, a commercial structure on a 60% SFD block would be subject to the same restrictions. They considered limiting it to specific neighborhoods, but rejected that for the less complicated approach. There is still discussion over whether the ordinance should apply everywhere inside the Loop, or if it should be limited to specific neighborhoods.

4. Both new construction and additions to existing dwellings are covered.

5. Obviously, this method will have some holes in it. If you happen to be a bungalow owner on a block that is mostly three-story townhouses, you'll be out of luck. No ordinance can cover everything, but this one should cover most places that will benefit from it.

6. A key to this will be making sure that the relevant information is available to all interested parties, so that builders can know what their limits are before they pour a slab or build some piers. The lot size/setback ordinance would put the onus of those calculations on the Planning Department. I asked Sterling about this for the height/width requirements, and at this time it is still an open question. How much it would cost to provide the necessary information, and how that cost might be funded if need be, are also still big open questions.

7. Pretty much everything is still a work in progress, and the final product may look different from what is now on the table. Sterling sent me this presentation of the current proposal (PDF) if you want to get a feel for the thought process.

There should be a Chron story in the This Week section for the Heights tomorrow. I'll link it when I see it.

UPDATE: I have made some corrections to the above based on subsequent feedback from Mark Sterling.

Can you read me now?

I just have one question: Have I been banned in Dallas, too? I figure if John Wiley "I Heart Carole Keeton Strayhorn!" Price is doing this on a domain-by-domain basis to filter out us dirty bloggers, I might be safe. It's easy to block *.blogspot.com (which is where the two known affected blogs reside) and *.typepad.com, but beyond that it may get a bit dicey. Still, never underestimate the efficacy of a dedicated modern-day Bowdler, especially one who claims he doesn't know what a blog is. So - anybody out there reading this from Dallas? Just checking.

(So we're clear, the ban is for county workers' computers, and is more than just about blogs. Click that first link for the details.)

Splashtown: Not going anywhere

In case you were curious.

The new operator of the SplashTown water park said Monday the attraction in Spring will stay open for years to come, with rides expected to be added for next summer.

PARC Management of Jacksonville, Fla., bought seven theme and water parks from Six Flags for $312 million. The deal was announced in January and closed Monday.

Under the sale terms, PARC resold the properties to CNL Income Properties, a real estate investment trust, and is leasing them back.

PARC CEO and President Randy Drew said his company will make $500,000 in improvements to the park, including recoating water slides, in time for this summer. It will add rides for next year, but details were not available, he said.

This is what they said back in January when PARC bought the place. Nice to know they're true to their word.

Did we put too much aside for Frew?

Vince asks a good question:

Seven hundred million dollars. That's how much it will cost to settle the ongoing "FREW" lawsuit concerning Medicaid that has been raging for some 14 years.

The settlement means providers will receive bigger Medicaid payments and that more will be done to bring health care providers to underserved areas, call centers will be improved, and there will be more PR-type outreach.

All that is great. What's even better, though, is that this cost less than the "billions" that were estimated and that were left on the table during the first leg of the appropriations process.

The big question now is, what about the money the settlement isn't going to cost?

[...]

All session, we've heard dire predictions. At one point, I even heard the outlandish prediction that it would cost $28 billion to settle the lawsuit, though conventional wisdom seemed to set the number somewhere between $1 and $8 billion.

Luckily, (and it's hard to say "luckily" about a lawsuit that will result in increased services to the poor, because increased services to the poor is a good thing), though, the price tag was much cheaper. Therefore, the question remains, what about the money left on the table?

Which brings up another question: how much money was left on the table, was there money left on the table, and where the Hell is the table, anyway?

He goes into the numbers and the unmet needs that were cast aside in service of Frew, and you should read it. The Senate budget is out of committee and doesn't seem to me to be taking the changed circumstances into account. We'll see what happens when the full debate occurs.

TYC: Indictments handed down on Brookins and Hernandez

Last month, a grand jury heard evidence against accused former TYC employees Ray Brookins and John Paul Hernandez, who were accused of sexual assault against minor inmates at the Pyote facility, but did not take any action against them. Today they did.

Ray Brookins and John Paul Hernandez, both 41, were indicted by a grand jury in Monahans on a total of 13 counts of sex abuse charges involving six students, ages 16 to 19. Neither defendant be reached for comment.

Brookins and Hernandez were colleagues at the West Texas State School in Pyote until they were allowed to resign under a cloud of suspicion in 2005.

Brookins was the the school's assistant superintendent and Hernandez was principal. A Texas Ranger investigation concluded that the men, acting independently, sexually abused as many as 10 male juveniles in their care between 2003 and 2005, using their authority to summon victims out of dorm beds and classrooms.

[...]

Today was the second time the panel convened to hear details about the case.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott appeared in person at the grand jury proceeding.

"With today's indictments, the victims of sexual abuse at West Texas State School are a step closer to the justice they deserve," he said, adding that his office will continue investigating possible wrongdoing at TYC facilities.

Abbott is involved because of the inaction of Ward County DA Randall Reynolds. I just hope that the investigations don't stop with these guys.

In other news, Grits looks at TYC-related legislation that will be heard by the Corrections Committee today.

TYC: Reynolds' removal sought

Here's a strange twist in the TYC saga: Petitions to remove do-nothing District Attorney Randall Reynolds and County Attorney Kevin Acker were filed yesterday, with the latter being filed by Reynolds himself.

A three-page petition to remove Ward County District Attorney Randall W. Reynolds was filed in Pecos, about 15 minutes after a petition to remove Ward County Attorney Kevin Acker was filed in Monahans.

Reynolds filed a three-page petition alleging that Acker overstepped his legal authority by demanding that Reynolds resign or be forced from office. Reynolds also charged that Acker should be removed "for incompetency and official misconduct."

The petition was filed in Ward County, where a grand jury resumed its investigation Tuesday of John Paul Hernandez and Ray E. Brookins, both former TYC employees at the West Texas State School in Pyote.

Patsy Elkins of Pecos alleged in a four-page petition filed Tuesday morning that Reynolds should be removed from office for incompetency and official misconduct, citing his inaction on the TYC case. It wasn't clear who Elkins was or what her role in the case is.

The laws covering a petition of removal are in Chapter 87 of the Local Government code. It goes to a district judge and lists the grounds for removal, which can include "incompetency" and "official misconduct", and as far as I can tell, the judge makes a determination and it goes from there. If it does proceed, there is a trial, and by Section 87.018 (noted by the Morning News), the state would be represented by the County Attorney. Which has to make one wonder if Reynolds filed his petition against Acker as a retaliatory maneuver. If so, that strikes me as being both dumb and petty. We'll see what the judge thinks about it.

Pearland kids get anti-smoking measure on the ballot

Back in March, an intrepid group of sixth-graders in Pearland decided to do something about the city's lack of a smoking ordinance for public places.

A group of sixth-grade science students got a standing ovation at a Pearland City Council meeting Monday when they told council members that it was their duty to add Pearland to the growing list of Texas cities that have ordinances banning smoking in public places.

"You have the power and the duty to protect Pearland citizens and visitors," Christopher Lay told the council during the presentation.

Students unrolled a banner listing 247 Texas cities, including Houston, where ordinances similar to the one they are proposing have passed.

"Coming soon - Pearland!" the banner proclaimed.

[...]

Mitchell Hoffman said he and other students surveyed restaurants in the city and found that most managers strongly supported the proposed ordinance, including two who smoked themselves.

He said one manager even offered the students food. "Reluctantly, we refused," he said.

The students took action after hearing an anti-drug lecture from a local police officer. They considered protesting in front of City Hall but decided with encouragement from their science teacher to find a more proactive approach.

Yesterday was the deadline for Pearland City Council to adopt their proposed ordinance. It didn't pass, but the signatures they had gathered on a petition to put the measure on the November ballot were certified.

The students from Sablatura Middle School, most of them 12 years old, said they were disappointed that the City Council didn't adopt their proposed ordinance Monday night, but they resolved to campaign for it until the November election.

By then, they will be seventh-graders at Pearland Junior High West.

"I look at it as a win," said Savannah Owen. "It will just take a little longer this way."

But, said a disappointed Mitchell Hoffman, "Now I have to breathe in smoke for seven more months."

He and the others pledged to make signs and campaign for approval of the ordinance.

Good for them. I know it's corny and all, but getting involved in the political process, especially for a cause in which you believe, is a Good Thing. Call me sentimental, but it makes me happy to see stuff like this.

I find the Pearland Council's reason for deferring the matter to be interesting:

Council members said they were impressed with the students but thought something this important should be decided by the voters.

Really? I don't want to read too much into something that isn't a direct quote, but does this mean that everything the Council does choose to vote on is less important? One could certainly argue that by taking this approach, the Council is shirking its responsibility. There's a reason why we elect representatives to legislative bodies - we empower and expect them to legislate. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the logic here.

Be that as it may, getting these students involved makes the experience a net positive, whatever the outcome and whatever the Council's rationale for inaction may be.

City Secretary Young Lorfing certified last week that 418 signatures could be verified. The students needed 343 to put the smoking ban on the ballot.

"They did a very good job," Lorfing said.

Science teacher David Bean said students in the class voted 21-1 to seek the ordinance after having a class with a police officer about substance abuse.

Several students complained about smoke in public places, Bean said. Some at first wanted to picket City Hall, he said, but others decided a more positive approach might be better. They asked Councilman Kevin Cole to speak to the class.

"They asked very specific questions about how to get the issue on the ballot," Cole said. "They were awesome."

The students researched ordinances other cities have adopted to ban smoking in public places and used those to draw up their own ordinance. The project won't bring them extra credit and has no effect on their grades, Bean said.

They just did it because it was important to them, and they wanted to make a difference. God bless 'em.

Friends of the Center at City Council

According to Houstonist, today's City Council meeting should be interesting:

Join the Friends of Cullen (Cullen is the residence hall at The Center) in going to the City Council meeting on Tuesday April 10th at 2pm. City Council members have encouraged advocates for The Center to be aggressive and make their voices heard, and this is the best way to do it. They ask that participants arrive 30 minutes early.

That's the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation, of course. Expect to see all of the local TV news tonight showcase what happens.

As you know, I understand where Mayor White is coming from on this. Being reminded of the KHOU story on city-managed leases makes his motivation clear. What I don't understand is why this has been handled so badly. The Mayor has been taking a beating on the letters to the editor page, he's going to get an earful today, and you can imagine what the sound bites the TV newsies capture at City Hall will be like. He's saying the right things in his public statements, but he hasn't followed that up with any action yet that demonstrates his commitment to living up to the principles he speaks of. I have no good explanation for why that is. Maybe we'll see something at today's Council meeting.

I believe Mayor White is sincere when he says he wants to negotiate in good faith with the Center. That's why I believe there will be a satisfactory resolution to this standoff. Even if you don't believe he's sincere, the political reality of this is that it's bad for him now and will get worse the longer it drags out. He's smart enough to know that, and he's smart enough to fix it in a way that makes him look good. I'm just waiting for him to do it.

RIP, Johnny Hart

Didn't get to this yesterday - Johnny Hart, the creator of the comic "BC" and co-creator of "The Wizard of Id" has passed away at the age of 76. I haven't read either strip in years, partly because I couldn't stand Hart's politics and proselytizing, but mostly because I hadn't found either of them to be funny in awhile. Which is not to say that they were never funny - I've got an old "BC" paperback (not this one, but contemporary to it), and I'm here to tell you, it's witty and clever. But somewhere along the line, Hart stopped relying on his characters for humor, and started doing gag-a-day strips, which just gets old after awhile. Throw in the religion and the right-wing slant, and there was less than nothing to recommend his work as far as I was concerned.

And unfortunately, it looks like his "work" will continue on past his death:

Richard Newcombe, founder and president of Creators Syndicate, said Hart was the first cartoonist to sign on when the syndicate was created 20 years ago. "Traditionally, comic strips were owned by syndicates," Newcombe said. "We were different because we allowed cartoonists to own their own work. It was because of Johnny's commitment to this idea that made us a success."

Newcombe said "B.C." and "Wizard of Id," which Hart co-created, would continue. Family members have been helping produce the strips for years, and they have an extensive computer archive of Hart's drawings to work with, he said.

Ugh. You already know how I feel about this sort of thing, so let me just quote the Comics Curmudgeon (link via Chad Orzel), who sums it up nicely:

If I have any pull at all in the comics industry, I have to beg and plead for this not to happen. Say what you will for good or for ill about Hart's work, but it has always struck me (despite that note about help from family members) as being indisputably his work. The best way to honor that would be for it to stand on its own, not to be continued by assistants cutting and pasting new dialogue into scans of old strips. Because of the way that comics publishing works, there will be a few weeks worth of Hart-authored strips still to run, but after that it should bow gracefully out. It may be hard to believe for younger folks, but Hart was one of a generation of young turks who shook up the comics page in the 1970s, and letting his strip continue in other hands denies that chance to others and diminishes what went before.

Amen. I'm gonna draft me an email to Kyrie O'Connor and ask her to please please take this opportunity to find a fresh new voice for the Chron's comics pages. Please feel free to join me in this effort.

Finally, since Mark Evanier is always the best source of celebrity obituaries, let me recommend these two posts of his, the latter of which points to this nice obit for Hart. Check 'em out.

Ben Barnes for Senate?

I have three words to say to the sudden flurry of Ben Barnes for Senate reports that have popped up: Just say no.

Let's put aside for a moment his call girl issues and his Carole Keeton Strayhorn issues. I can't understand the appeal of a candidate who ran for Governor in 1972, for crying out loud. More than anything, the elections in 2008 will be about the future, and there's nothing about Ben Barnes that says "the future" to me. I respect his service, I respect his financial commitment to the Democratic Party when he chooses to give it, but I don't see his appeal as a candidate, and I don't see how this became a story. And I hope this is the end of it.

Why you can't use your cellphone on an airplane

I don't actually have a problem with the ban on cellphone use on airplanes. Like any normal person, I'd rather not have to overhear however many one-sided conversations - it'd be a smorgasbord of TMI, which (let's face it), we can all do without. Having said that, the reasons for the cellphone ban are bogus and lame, and it annoys me at a fundamental level to have a rule like this based on such specious logic.

The airlines fear "crowd control" problems if cell phones are allowed in flights. They believe cell phone calls might promote rude behavior and conflict between passengers, which flight attendants would have to deal with. The airlines also benefit in general from passengers remaining ignorant about what's happening on the ground during flights, including personal problems, terrorist attacks, plane crashes and other information that might upset passengers.

[...]

However, the airlines know that some kind of plane-to-ground communication is coming, and they want to profit from it. Simply allowing passengers to use their own cell phones in flight would leave the airlines out of the profit-taking. Airlines would prefer that phones be banned while they come up with new ways to charge for communication, such as the coming wave of Wi-Fi access. Meanwhile, the ban is potentially more profitable.

It goes on from there. Note that evidence that "portable electronic devices" such as cellphones interfere with airplane navigation and/or communication systems is weak at best, and that if it were a real problem it would also be a major security hole - why hijack a plane when all you need to do is recruit people to turn on their cellphones at a key moment? I don't know about you, but if my choices are listening to my seatmates yak about their personal lives or having my cellphone and BlackBerry confiscated by the TSA, I'll put up with the yakking, thanks very much. Link via Marginal Revolution and Matthew Yglesias.

Zoning in the Heights?

There's a provocative subhead if ever I saw one: Houston panel urges zoning on development in neighborhoods. The reality sounds a lot less scary, though.

As the city continues to struggle with the impact of new development on its older neighborhoods, "the next issue is what we would call the McMansions," said Marlene Gafrick, Houston's director of planning and development.

In 2002, the city added provisions to its development code that gave residents inside Loop 610 more influence on development in their neighborhoods. The City Council in March made the measures simpler for neighborhoods to use.

The new concepts being discussed by the neighborhood protection committee would be the first regulations on the size of new structures. Using the same petition process, residents could establish a maximum height for buildings as seen from the street, and a maximum width based on the lot size.

Don't we already have some of this, in terms of things like setbacks? And aren't residential structures limited to 2 1/2 stories? I guess I'm a little confused as to what this would be doing that's different.

By early May, [Mark Sterling, a University of Houston research physicist who serves on the city's Plannin Commission committee,] said, the neighborhood protection committee plans to recommend ways to help neighborhoods deal with aesthetic and practical impacts of new development in older neighborhoods.

A three-story townhome that fills a lot next to a one-story bungalow, he said, can intrude on the privacy of residents of the older house, restrict their views and block sunlight from their gardens.

"These ideas are not draconian in any way," said Sterling, who became active in such issues after fighting a condominium development in 2005. "They are just meant to leave a little elbow room for the folks in the neighborhood."

I have a lot of sympathy for that bungalow owner, and I think that neighborhoods should have a certain amount of ability to self-determine. Unfortunately, I don't feel like I have a greater understanding of the solution that's being proposed after having read this story. Maybe it'll become clearer after the committee makes its recommendations. We'll see.

What the city hopes to do with its WiFi

There's a lot of "coulds" in this story about how the city of Houston hopes to integrate its new WiFi network into existing functions, but there's some meat to it as well:

Richard Lewis, the city's director of information technology, uses this as an example: It now costs the city $45 per month for each wireless card provided to building and restaurant inspectors so they can do computer work from the field. Under the EarthLink agreement, monthly subscriptions would cost $10.

City employees who work from their offices now use wired Internet, and they would continue to do so even after wireless becomes available, Lewis said. Wireless would be used mainly by mobile employees.

He said the city and EarthLink plan security measures to preserve the integrity of wireless city communications.

Police officers and firefighters, as well as many other mobile workers, don't have Internet access from their vehicles now because it's too expensive.

So while police can access certain databases and communicate with dispatch and other vehicles from their patrol cars, their computers can pull up only limited text.

With Wi-Fi, as wireless Internet is called, they could look at photos of suspects, use more databases and other crime analysis tools, access maps and perhaps even watch real-time videos of crime scenes.

Paramedics, emergency medical technicians and firefighters would have similar benefits.

They could send live video feeds of fires to the command center, use satellite images to understand building or property layouts and access other Internet-based information from their trucks.

Some if not all of this will require an investment in hardware. That will undoubtedly put a dent in some of the savings projections, but that's how it goes. It's not like such investments can be avoided forever. It's a question of how they're leveraged. Esme Vos suggests a few other possibilities.

Diane Zamora revisited

Diane Zamora, one half of the infamous "Cadet Killers", sat for her first interview in prison, which aired on Dateline last night. Among other things, she agreed to take a lie detector test. It's fascinating reading whether you think she's lying through her teeth or might possibly be telling the truth about some things. Stone Phillips has his own thoughts on the subject as well. I see in my archives that David Graham did an interview with the Associated Press in 2002, but I can't find a remnant of that story on the Chron site. Too bad, it would have been interesting to compare.

One curiosity: From the Dateline transcript, the police officer who arrested Zamora and Graham says the following about them.

Sgt. Allan Patton believes Graham and Zamora are both guilty of murder, with one crucial distinction:

Phillips: You believe she has a conscience.

Sgt. Patton: Yes, sir. I do.

Phillips: And David Graham?

Sgt. Patton: A cold-hearted killer.

Phillips: Had Diane Zamora not spoken about this crime, this murder, to those fellow midshipmen--

Sgt. Patton: It would still be unsolved.

Compare that to what he told the Dallas Morning News in a story that ran before Dateline aired, but apparently a couple of months after he was interviewed by Dateline:

Sgt. Alan Patton of the Grand Prairie Police Department, who took Ms. Zamora's confession, also appeared on the program.

"They were trying to get me to agree that it could have happened another way than I know it happened," Sgt. Patton said. "I stood by my guns."

He said he was interviewed for 2 1/2 hours before the television crew went to the Mountain View women's prison unit in Gatesville, Texas, to interview Ms. Zamora the next day. That was in late November or early December 2006.

Producers told Sgt. Patton that Ms. Zamora's polygraph indicated that she tried to manipulate the results.

He said he wouldn't be surprised if someone without a conscience was able to suppress the signs of stress normally brought on by lying, which is what a polygraph relies on to detect deception, especially 11 years after the fact.

"She is someone with no conscience. She thinks she did nothing wrong," Sgt. Patton said.

So does she have a conscience or doesn't she? It'd be interesting to know if Sgt. Patton changed his mind, and if the Dateline experience played a role in that.

Finally, the mother of murder victim Adrianne Jones reacts to Dateline:

Linda Jones said: "My whole family is not happy about this. We're very disappointed by the whole thing.

"I'm angry. I feel like (Dateline) has nothing better to do than to do a story about a whiner. (Zamora) was tried, and she went to prison. She went through the appeals process several times, and she had the opportunity to prove her case differently and all of her appeals were denied.

"I don't believe she should be interviewed where she can say she's innocent when the case is settled," Jones said, adding that Dateline didn't contact her or her family for comment.

I think there's value in Dateline revisiting a case like this and talking to a Diane Zamora, whatever she might say. I think there's always something we can learn from what happened. Of course, that's easy for me to say.

The Chron talks trash

The Chron editorializes about the trash task force report and its recommendations.

Derided by Councilman Michael Berry as "less service, higher cost," the proposal actually would be a bargain. It would create a dedicated fund of as much as $19 million annually to upgrade solid waste services. This otherwise untouchable account would pay for more recycling facilities, cover a portion of heavy trash pickup and launch a composting program for yard waste.

Right now, all trash services are paid out of the city's general fund, which comes from taxes. Essential services such as police and fire-fighting drain that fund almost to the bottom: Long-term investments such as recycling are simply shut down.

Yet as property prices go up and landfills spread, Houston must find an alternative to hurling everything from leaf compost to plastics into vast pits. Investing in a large-scale recycling program -- with proper equipment and promotion -- will be cleaner, cheaper and help the city break even on its solid waste costs.

This fee is far less than other cities charge for basic trash pickup. Fort Worth, for instance, charges residents $12.75 for each 32 gallon cart of trash collected and $22.75 for each 96 gallon trash cart. Dallas charges residents a monthly flat fee of $19.36 for their trash pickup.

All this is pretty straightforward, and it's covered in the report (PDF) if you care to read it. The reaction from some quarters has been predictably reflexive, so in some sense it doesn't matter what the report says, and it certainly won't matter that the Chron endorses it, albeit with some tut-tutting over its presentation. But it's there if you want to actually understand what it's all about.

Speed trap!

The only thing that surprises me about this article regarding small town speed traps in Texas is that the town of Selma isn't on it. That place, just north of San Antonio on I-35, was notorious back in the day before the State Lege passed a law that limited how much moolah an under-5000-population locality could rake in from speeders. (Steve Earle sung about it a few years ago.) Perhaps these towns did a better job of adjusting to the new math than Selma did, or maybe the northward expansion of San Antonio gave Selma a real tax base and thus obviated the need to bleed the speeders. Whatever the case, I'm just glad that none of the places listed is anywhere near a regular driving route for me. The rest of you, caveat driver.

Harris County jails: Deadlier than ever

Back in February, the Chron reported that an average of 17 inmates had died in the Harris County jails between 2001 and 2006, with the latter seeing 22 prisoner deaths. If the first three months of this year are any indication, that tragic mark will be left in the dust.

Eleven deaths occurred in the first quarter of this year, compared with the 22 recorded in 2006. Last year's total was the jail's highest since the same number was recorded in 2002.

In at least one of this year's cases, the prisoner's family thinks she did not receive adequate care.

"She kept trying to get medical treatment, trying to get them to help," said Gloria Humphries, whose sister, Kimberley Humphries, died Jan. 23 after suffering complications from an apparent staph infection.

Ms. Humphries was jailed on October 29, apparently in good health. She was sent to the hospital on December 30 for that staph infection, and died 24 days after that.

The Chronicle reported in February that at least 101 prisoners died in county jail custody from 2001 through 2006 -- an average of almost 17 per year. At the time of their deaths, at least 72 had not been convicted of the charges that led to their incarceration. Of the 11 who have died in custody this year, five were awaiting adjudication.

The number of deaths thus far this year has the attention of the state agency that oversees jails.

"I think they raise a concern to anyone, whether it be the Texas Commission on Jail Standards or local officials," said Adan Muñoz, the commission's executive director. "However, I would (qualify) that with, 'What is the cause of death?' "

The county medical examiner's office has completed autopsies in three of this year's deaths, ruling that they resulted from natural causes. Similarly, none of the records reviewed concluded that jail employees contributed directly to the 101 deaths from 2001 through 2006.

However, the Chronicle found that in at least 13 cases, relatives or documents raised questions over whether the prisoners received needed medications.

Eleven of the deaths involved infections and illnesses suggesting sanitation problems. In 10 cases, county records suggested possible neglect by jail workers.

In each of the past three years, the jail commission has found the county jail in noncompliance with Texas jail standards, primarily for conditions related to crowding. A state inspector concluded in 2005 that those conditions led to "safety" and "sanitation" issues.

And perhaps to the death of Kimberley Humphries, among others. You'd think this would be a bigger issue than it is, but it isn't. Which is probably why it continues to be such an issue.

The Mayor talks about the Center

Mayor White has an op-ed in the Chron about the current unpleasantness surrounding the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation. I haven't done a word-for-word comparison, but I believe it's the same as the memo he sent to City Council on Friday, which was excerpted in the City Hall blog. While it's clear that there's a lot of public relations ground to make up, the Mayor's case basically boils down to this:

During this administration, we have tried to improve management of our real estate. Historically, Houston maintained surplus real estate with no planned use, or permitted nonprofit and occasionally for-profit entities to lease city real estate for little or no value.

There are two problems with handling public assets, whether it be cash or real estate, without formal standards: first, we lose the opportunity to maximize the use of our assets in the public interest; and second, we fail to account annually for the value of grants or gifts to various organizations, and to subject them to open annual debate in our budget process.

As noted by Matt Stiles, the genesis of this policy appears to have been a KHOU investigation of city-managed leases, which demonstrated that nobody had given them any thought in many a year, which led to some properties (all the ones cited in the KHOU piece were for-profit businesses) having extremely cheap rents. Far and away the best bit in the piece is the following:

"If you had told me that happened and not shown me, I wouldn't have believed it," City Councilman Michael Berry said.

[...]

"It borders on criminal that the taxpayer could be cheated that badly," he said.

Who could have ever foreseen such a reaction from the conservative wing? Different Council member, but the script is pretty much dead on. Color me unsurprised.

Seeing that story answers a question that has been bugging me: Why had the city gone so far as to bring up the subject of selling the Center's land when it was clear that negotiations for a new lease had not progressed very far? My guess at this point is that once the city's real estate division did a review of all its leases, they were prioritized by value, which naturally would have put the Center at or near the top. That neither excuses nor explains the heavyhanded approach the city took in that letter to the Center - indeed, it speaks of ignorance about the Center, which I'm told Mayor White has not visited and whose name he got wrong in his article (though as a commenter on the City Hall blog notes, he may be using a previous name for it) - but it at least gives a reason why this happened at this time.

There's another question that needs to be answered. From the companion op-ed that chastised the city for its approach to the Center:

The city of Houston and the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation entered into a written contract in 1963. The city of Houston recently announced that it would terminate the contract.

Why shouldn't the city have the right to seek the termination of a contract that is apparently invalid? An earlier City Hall blog post asks the question why these leases were created in the first place. Alas, we can't ask Mayor Cutrer - perhaps there's still someone from his staff around who can answer that - but if you accept that a 99-year lease is forbidden by the city charter, then why should Mayor White be required to honor it? What if it were Brennan's or Bubba's Burger Shack (two of the businesses noted in that KHOU story) in possession of this lease?

Well, the Center is a nonprofit that delivers a vital service to the city. That's true, and they do deserve to be treated differently than a for-profit business. No question about that. But do they deserve to be treated differently than other nonprofits that deliver vital services to the city? Should all nonprofits get the same deal the Center has, or should the Center get a deal that's more in line with what its peer institutions get? The latter is clearly the Mayor's position, and if you accept it, then we're just dickering over the price. (If you don't accept it, then by all means please elucidate.)

The good news is that nobody has done anything yet that can't be taken back. I continue to believe that we'll see a deal soon. Frankly, the longer this drags out, the more pressure the Mayor will come under to give in, so it's very much in his interest to get this resolved. We'll see how it goes.

"The Sopranos In Seven Minutes"

There are two awesome things about this story. One is that it exists at all:

[W]here "The Sopranos" has so far taken around 77 hours to deliver the dark saga of family and crime in New Jersey, this other "Sopranos," which tells the same story, lasts only 7 minutes 36 seconds.

Paul Gulyas and Joe Sabia, recent college graduates living in Los Angeles, first posted their video "Seven Minute Sopranos" to YouTube on March 29. It is an audacious effort by two of Mr. Chase's fans eager to prove their loyalty to his creation. But, as they know, it is also an act of violence.

"We included what stood out, what flowed better or images that people would like to see," Mr. Gulyas said. "But we kind of adapted the story to our own taste. It's so reductionist to what David Chase has done."

See it for yourself (NSFW). Truly, we live in wondrous times.

The other awesome thing about this is how the people who actually made "The Sopranos" have reacted to it.

According to a publicist for HBO, [series creator David] Chase does in fact like it. His assistant showed him the video on the set of the series finale, and he laughed all the way through it, said the publicist, Quentin Schaffer. "It reminded him how much has happened during the run of the series," Mr. Schaffer said.

[...]

To date "Seven Minute Sopranos" has attracted around 80,000 views and counting. Ilene S. Landress, an executive producer of "The Sopranos," loves the video and insists that it stay on YouTube. (Some companies, citing copyright concerns, have pulled material off this video-sharing site.)

Another "Sopranos" executive producer, Matthew Weiner, said, "The guys really understand not only what happened in the show, but they displayed their knowledge with humor and love."

The point is that not every unauthorized use of copyrighted content is an intellectual property violation, and that giving a little freedom to the consumers of an intellectual property can enhance its value. It's not just about piracy, and it's restorative to one's faith to see that folks like Chase and Landress get that. May others follow their lead.

Throws right and left

Here's something you don't see every day: a switch-throwing pitcher.

The pitch was nothing remarkable: Pat Venditte, Creighton University's temporarily right-handed pitcher, threw a fastball past a Northern Iowa batter for a called strike three. It was his next windup that evinced this young pitcher's uniqueness and, perhaps, professional future.

As his teammates whipped the ball around the infield, Venditte smoothly, unthinkingly, removed his custom glove from his left hand and slipped it on his right. Moments later he leaned back, threw a strike left-handed to the next batter, and finished the side in order.

Venditte is believed to be the only ambidextrous pitcher in N.C.A.A. Division I college baseball, the ultimate relief specialist. A junior, he throws left-handed to lefties and right-handed to righties, and effectively. In a home game in Omaha last Friday, he allowed only one hit in five and a third shutout innings to earn the victory against Northern Iowa.

There have been, as the article notes, ambidextrous pitchers in professional baseball, but they've all been gimmicks and trivia questions. This guy sounds like he could actually make it as a two-handed pro, though the impression is still one of oddity more than anything else.

Venditte has improved so much in the past year that major league scouts are starting to consider him a possible late-round pick in this June's amateur draft because of his versatility. "He could be an economical two-for-one," Jerry Lafferty, a longtime scout for the Philadelphia Phillies, said last Friday while assessing the 21-year-old Venditte from behind the backstop.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say his future is more likely to lie as a lefty specialist, for the simple reason that lefty throwers are more valuable than righties, but you never know. I for one will certainly root for him to make it as a both-ways guy. Thanks to Dan Wallach for the link.

Toll road moratorium passes Senate committee

When last we checked, State Sen. John Carona had flipflopped on the two-year toll road moratorium bill SB1267, saying it would not get heard in committee. In the end, however, Carona did bring the bill up, and it passed out of committee unanimously, albeit with some changes.

"With the time it covers, and the amendments, it does little more than make a political statement," said John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee.

Carona, who voted for the bill in committee despite saying in recent days that he doubts its worth, said Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, presiding officer of the Senate, had urged him to give the bill a vote.

But the bill was largely defanged on its way to committee passage. It exempts two road projects in Tarrant County that would add toll lanes to existing highways: the proposed Trinity River Parkway toll road through downtown Dallas and all of El Paso County.

Carona specifically mentioned opposition from Tarrant to the original SB1267 as the reason for his change. I'm in half-a-loaf mode here - if that's the best we can do, that's the best we can do.

The moratorium, were it passed and signed by Gov. Rick Perry (unlikely, given his condemnation this week of the concept), might or might not apply to the Texas 121 project northeast of Dallas.

The Texas Transportation Department has announced that a consortium led by Spanish toll road concessionaire Cintra would build and run that 26-mile road for 50 years, the second such contract in Texas. But if the law were to take effect before a contract is signed, then the ban would apply to Texas 121.

That road aside, Carona said, given the exceptions and the early status of Trans-Texas Corridor work, there are basically no other pending toll road projects in the state that would be affected by SB 1267.

But Nichols, a former Texas Transportation Commission member who in recent months developed concerns about the state giving away too much in toll road leases, said his bill needs to pass.

"We don't have the luxury of time," Nichols said. "If we wait too long, these contracts will be signed, and Texas will be trapped in agreements that will hold our transportation system hostage for the next half-century."

I agree with Sen. Nichols. Let's put a stop to this for now, and hope that saner heads can prevail in two years' time.

Not that Gov. Perry sees it this way, of course. But then, I did say "saner heads".

With U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters offering her support, Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday lashed out against legislation that would impose a two-year moratorium on toll-road privatization.

Perry said the proposal, co-sponsored by strong majorities in the House and Senate and reflecting the public controversy over the Trans Texas Corridor, would cost Texas critical business expansion opportunities.

"Our message today is that building needed infrastructure is essential to creating jobs and attracting economic development investments in Texas. And you can't accomplish that with a two-year moratorium on needed road projects," he said.

Mmm hmmm. What gave you the impression that people were receptive to this message, Governor? Was it the 75%+ support in the Lege to impose that two-year breathing period you so strongly oppose?

Of course, Perry may not have to worry, since one of his fellow 25-percenters on this issue has his back.

State Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County, said Wednesday evening that if SB 1267, the moratorium bill, reaches the House, he will bring it up in the House Transportation Committee. Krusee, a consistent supporter of giving the Texas Department of Transportation broad powers to create toll roads, chairs that committee.

"If it comes out of the Senate, I will give it a hearing in the House," Krusee said. "However, I continue to think it's a mistake to take away our cities' only tool for building new infrastructure without giving them a replacement tool such as gas tax indexing, or more money from the state budget."

The moratorium bill would actually take away just one tool for addressing highway needs -- long-term leases with private companies to build and operate toll roads -- and would do so for just two years. And the bill, as amended Wednesday in a Senate committee before that panel passed it, would exempt most projects currently on the cusp of reaching agreements. Even if the bill becomes law, the state and local toll road agencies would still be able to plan and build toll roads.

In other words, don't expect a fair and balanced hearing from Krusee. He'll be going through the motions so as to make it look like an accident when the bill gets snuffed. Eye on Williamson and McBlogger have more.

Frew settlement

Didn't get to this yesterday, but we appear to have a settlement in the Frew lawsuit, pending approval of the judge.

A source close to the negotiations, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the state would spend more than $500 million in additional general revenue over the next two-year budget period to meet the terms of the agreement. That would be substantially less than the price tag of as much as $5 billion some lawmakers worried might be quickly due.

The state spending would trigger more federal funding.

The source said that among high points are large increases in reimbursement rates for doctors and dentists who treat Medicaid patients, considered a key element in expanding the number of health care providers available to them.

[...]

Susan Zinn, a lawyer representing the interests of the children on Medicaid, said she thinks U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice, who has a hearing scheduled Monday in the case, will "wait until he's sure the Legislature comes through with the funding before deciding whether to approve the settlement."

Zinn would not disclose the total cost to the state but confirmed that the agreement included a rate increase of 25 percent for doctors who serve children in the Medicaid program and 50 percent for dentists.

"Our hope is that with the increases in reimbursement rates, more doctors and dentists will be willing to take care of the children so more of the children can get the care that they need," she said, adding that dentists "have been left behind in terms of reimbursement rates, even more so than the doctors."

Zinn said there also is some extra money for payments to doctors who provide specialized services, such as pediatric cardiologists.

Hopefully that will be that, and we can do what is right going forward. Note that this validates the CPPP view as to the total cost of the settlement. Burka has more.

Bad baby names

It's probably a good thing I didn't come across this before we decided on Audrey's name. Not because there'd have been any danger of us adopting any of the wonderfully weird baby names contained therein, but because I'd have been in danger of being murdered by Tiffany for saying "Hey, how about..." one time too many. Prepare to waste a little too much time reading through this site. You have been warned.

City responds to Jones again

As Matt Stiles notes, the city has filed its response (PDF) to Ray Jones' appeal to the Supreme Court to get on the ballot for the May 12 special election. I don't know if the Supremes will act as quickly as the 14th Court of Appeals did, but they'd better do something soon or the question will be moot. Early voting begins April 30, and the ballot has to be printed and certified before then. I'd say if the matter isn't settled by the end of next week, it may not matter what the Court does. We'll see.

More on the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation

When I first read about the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation, I said I needed more information to know how I'd feel about the issue. I'm at that point now, having seen more news and yesterday's Chron editorial, with which I agree. I also had the chance to speak to a gentleman named Ed Davis, who works for a communications firm that is representing the Center. He helped me to better understand the Center's position, and after speaking to him I feel confident that a workable agreement will be reached. I think they're probably closer to an agreement than some of the initial coverage might have led me to think.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion of the merits of the Center staying where it is for an affordable price. The Chron editorial covers that ground well, and if I hadn't been persuaded before, I am now. Just a couple of observations while I have the time to blog today: One, as I said before in response to Cory's statement about Weingarten and the River Oaks Theater/Alabama Bookstop, is that while the support for preserving those landmarks is wide, as so many people have frequented those places, it's not particularly deep. If the bulldozers come tomorrow, I'll be sad, but it won't wreck my life. I daresay the same is true for most people who've signed those petitions. But in the case of the Center, while you'd expect the support to be narrower since it serves a small community, it's much deeper, since it's about people protecting their children. What was surprising to me (and to Ed Davis) was that the support has turned out to be pretty broad as well. He told me that their petition was drawing 75-100 signatures an hour, which is pretty extraordinary all things considered.

One reason why I expect a resolution that will be acceptable to the Center is that the support it has is the kind that won't give up and won't go away. What else would you expect - it's families fighting for their own? It will therefore attract high-profile supporters like Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who had a press conference there yesterday and whose statement in support of the Center is included beneath the fold. Interestingly, Rep. Jackson Lee is not the representative for the Center. That would be Rep. John Culberson, as the Center falls within CD07. Given how much support for the Center has come from some of my colleagues on the right, perhaps we'll eventually hear something from Rep. Culberson on this matter. If nothing else, there may be some federal funds that could be made available to the Center to help offset any increased operating costs they may incur under a new agreement.

Anyway, bottom line is that I think we'll have a solution soon. Common sense and compassion, as well as political calculations, will likely prevail. Stay tuned.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee released the following statement regarding the current situation at the Center Serving Persons With Mental Retardation:

"Today I stand before you on behalf of over 318 constituents of the 18th Congressional District and 600 total Houstonians who rely on the center serving persons with mental retardation who are among our most vulnerable citizens. I am hopeful that all parties involved will understand the importance of taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Yes, it is important to expand the city's economy and provide services for all the taxpayers; however, when the need to care for the disabled buttresses financial concerns such as making sound financial investments to expand the economy, we must understand the value in investing in the care of our disabled.

"As we all know, the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation (The Center) is a private not-for-profit United Way Agency, which has for more than 60 years served children and adults through educational, residential and work training programs. The philosophy of The Center is that every person has value and worth, is entitled to the highest quality of life, and should be treated with dignity.

"From a visionary group grew a multi-faceted organization serving a diverse group of people with a wide range of needs. Underlying The Center's broad array of programs and services is a guiding principle that is disarming in its simplicity: the conviction that persons with mental retardation, given opportunities for personal growth, community involvement, and the exercise of individual choice may live rewarding, fulfilling lives as growing, developing human beings.

"I have long been a strong advocate of the mentally disabled, both in terms of legislation in Congress and to the residents of our beloved city. The Houston community has a moral and social responsibility to allow the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation to remain in its' current location. They represent the most vulnerable among us who deserve our unequivocal support, and for over 40 years, the Center has provided that support.

"As I stated earlier, more than 600 Houstonians rely on the Center. The Center, which has a budget of $11 million, offers a wide array of programs including education, vocational training and job placement services. Likewise, with close to 200 adults residing at the facility, forcing the Center to move does not seem to be an optimal alternative.

"In 2002, the Center began the process of renewing its lease. Unfortunately, the negotiations were never finalized and a deal was not reached. We are all seeking a reasonable resolution of this matter. I encourage all of our civic and community leaders to join me in reinvigorating that effort.

"My commitment to the mentally disabled is sincere, steadfast, and unwavering. Thank you for your consideration, and please contact me if I can be of further assistance in the expeditious handling of this important matter."

MLB returns to InDemand cable

Since this was the very first thing my mother asked me about when I picked my parents up at the airport yesterday, the least I can do is blog about it.

Extra Innings will return to cable television under a seven-year agreement announced Wednesday by Major League Baseball and the In Demand cable group.

The agreement ensures that cable subscribers will have access to out-of-market baseball games, and it also ensures that the new MLB Channel will be available on at least 40 million households when it launches in 2009.

"Our chief goal throughout the process was to ensure that fans would have access to as many baseball games and as much baseball coverage as possible," MLB president Bob DuPuy said. "With this agreement, the MLB Channel will launch with an unprecedented platform."

And there was much rejoicing in Portland, where my folks live. Apparently, both of my siblings who live out there called Mom and Dad first thing in the morning to make sure they'd seen this. I would have, too, but I actually didn't see the sports section yesterday until they were already on the plane to come here. In any event, here's to the art of compromise.

Please pardon the interruption

My site has been basically inaccessible to me all day - I don't know what was going on with my webhost, but I was last able to use Movable Type around 9 AM this morning. I think they must have rebooted the server I'm on, because I was getting a 403 error trying to connect to anything a few minutes ago. It's back now, and I've lost a days' time plus a post on this Metro story (executive summary: this sounds like a bad idea to me, with a high potential for abuse). As my parents are scheduled to land at the airport in the next 30 minutes or so, I likely won't have too much time at the keyboard this weekend - I have one or two things in the queue, but won't be staying on top of the news much. So, look for a light posting schedule till Monday, and enjoy the weekend.

No deal yet in Frew lawsuit

The Frew lawsuit over Medicaid has been the subject of negotiations between the victorious plaintiffs and various legislators with budget responsibilities, but as of yesterday there was no deal yet.

Susan Zinn, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said she had hoped the two sides would reach an agreement Wednesday.

"The legislators and the agencies are acting in good faith," Zinn said Wednesday evening. "We've been trying very hard all day to work this out. I think we're closer to working everything out than we were earlier today."

She met Wednesday with the heads of the budget-writing committees in the House and Senate, top lawyers from the attorney general's office and Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins, among others.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, said lawmakers are trying to settle the case to keep the decisions out of the hands of Justice, who's been known to cause headaches for tight-fisted lawmakers.

"We don't feel very comfortable relying on Judge Justice to give us any slack," Chisum said.

Perhaps that's because the Lege doesn't do well in these matters unless given strict, can't-be-weaseled-out-of guidelines. Remember how the West Orange/Cove lawsuit was supposed to be about school finance? Give these guys an inch, and they'll turn Frew into an excuse for further property tax cuts. Patricia Kilday Hart has more on this.

The giant Presidential heads get set to move to Pearland

sniff It won't be the same driving by on Sawyer and not seeing the Giant Presidential Heads once they've been moved to their new home in Pearland.

"This is a natural," [developer Richard] Browne said. "We can make this the Venice of Houston."

The location of Browne's WaterLights District and the presidential park is near other new retail development near Texas 288 and Beltway 8, and close to the booming Shadow Creek Ranch community.

[...]

City officials are excited about the busts going to Pearland because they expect customers and tourists will follow, said Fred Welch, executive director of the Pearland Economic Development Corp.

"It's going to be a great draw for Pearland," he said. "It'll create a destination where we haven't had one before."

It also provides a Houston-area home for the third and final set of Adickes' presidential heads. The first two ended up in presidential parks near Mount Rushmore in South Dakota and in Williamsburg, Va.

"I'm really thrilled to put these here because people always tell me, 'You've got to keep these in Texas,' " said Adickes, who is also known for the 67-foot Sam Houston statue in Huntsville along Interstate 45, a 72-foot Stephen F. Austin in Brazoria County and other larger-than-life sculptures, including the cellist next to downtown Houston's Lyric Centre and a trumpet in Galveston.

Yes, I suppose we should be glad they'll remain in the Lone Star State. I'd just have preferred for them to stay in Houston. I like having them in my neighborhood.

The Presidential Park at WaterLights would have one feature the parks in Virginia and South Dakota do not: a bust of the 44th president. Adickes has committed to build at least one more statue, whether it's Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or another candidate.

Doesn't Ron Paul represent Pearland? Maybe he can make a side deal with Adickes for his own bust, since he sure as heck isn't going to be Number 44.

A chat with Berke Breathed

The Chron has a chat with Opus artist Berkeley Breathed, who has a new children's book out. There's a TMI-style Q&A with him, and this interesting tidbit from the story:

His latest children's book, Mars Needs Moms! (Philomel, $16.99), which goes on sale Tuesday, features a cranky boy and needy Martians in a story about the sacrifices parents are willing to make.

Mars Needs Moms! and Flawed Dogs, a previous book, are in development as feature films. And although there have been a jillion penguin films lately, don't look for Opus on the big screen.

That project is gloriously dead and decaying on the Weinstein Co. beach, Breathed said. "They were set and determined to make the cheapest animated film in Hollywood history, and they finally gave up trying to figure it out, thank God. Opus shall remain the way he is without Hollywood's interpretation sullying his dubious legacy."

Probably for the best. I actually think Opus would be better served by another TV special, whether based on a book like A Wish For Wings That Work or not, as I believe Breathed would be able to have more control over the final product on that medium. Or heck, just get someone to show A Wish For Wings That Work again - it's a sweet little Christmas special, which thanks to some friends I now have a VHS-to-DVD copy of. It definitely deserves a wider audience.

And speaking of Opus, Breathed discusses the penguin's ultimate fate as well as his own colorful past at UT in this Texas Monthly interview. Check it out.

Red light camera bills pass out of Senate

The Carona bill, which would limit the revenue cities can collect on tickets generated by red light cameras, has passed the Senate.

The provision requiring cities to spend some of the resulting revenue on trauma care and traffic safety is intended to discourage use of the cameras as a municipal revenue windfall.

"We ought to ensure cities don't use them as money-makers. We are taking some of the financial incentive away," said Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, who chairs the Transportation & Homeland Security Committee and sponsored the legislation.

"Most cities were not eager to share their money. But when faced with the reality that some members wanted to outlaw them altogether, they realized this was the best option on the table."

Senate Bill 125 limits the amount of money cities can keep to the cost of maintaining and operating red-light cameras.

The rest must be split evenly between traffic safety and a regional trauma account, so money stays in the area where it is collected. Notes accompanying the bill did not estimate how much money might be involved.

[...]

A second measure, Senate Bill 1199, gives cities the legislative authority to operate red-light cameras. It prohibits contracts between cities and vendors that base compensation on the number of citations issued. And it requires cities to study intersections' traffic volume, collision history and frequency of red-light violations before installing cameras.

There were several attempts to gut Carona's bills. He said he expects the legislation to have an equally rough time in the House, where the Urban Affairs Committee has left several red-light camera bills pending until the Senate acted.

Rep. Jim Murphy, R-Houston, is sponsoring a bill that combines the two by Carona.

As far as I know, the city of Houston already meets most if not all of the criteria Carona lays out. I believe the main effect of this bill if it goes the distance would be to moot the Kubosh lawsuit, since cities would then quite clearly have the authority to install cameras and issue fines via their use. Since the leading opponent of red light cameras is Rep. Carl Isett, who has a bill filed to outlaw them, Carona's measures may or may not make it through. There will certainly be a fight if and when they come up for a floor vote. Stay tuned.

Council members back Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation

The recent news about the Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation has now brought the first wave of backlash, from some members of City Council.

"We are going to do the right thing," Councilwoman Ada Edwards assured the six people who spoke to the council and Mayor Bill White on behalf of the center.

Council members Addie Wiseman, Adrian Garcia and Sue Lovell also raised concerns about the center's plight, saying the city needs to be sensitive to the vulnerable population served by the nonprofit group.

[...]

White said he has met with representatives of the center and tried to make an offer that would let them stay on the property. The mayor, in his Oct. 24 letter, said the city would sell or lease the property to the center for a fair market price, but he said the center was not responsive.

"It takes two parties who are willing to go about a mutual problem-solving exercise," White said.

But Jane Cahill, who has a brother with Down syndrome, defended the center's directors, saying they had taken "a very patient and measured approach" to this matter. Center officials say that although no figure was ever discussed, a lease rate based on the market would be beyond their range.

I think it's high time that some figure is discussed. There's a huge gulf between $1 a year and full market value. Surely some number that's acceptable to everyone and that takes into account the value the Center gives to the city by the services it provides can be reached. What I'm hearing here is that the two sides have not yet begun to negotiate. I say that needs to happen, and soon.

Wiseman said she was appalled when she learned that the city had told the center that it should prepare to move.

The property has been in the possession of the center for more than 40 years under a 1963 lease that the city attorney now says is invalid. That, she said, might raise an all-new question.

"I think we have an issue of squatter's rights in this matter," she said. "I would hope the center and its supporters are as aggressive as possible."

Cory noted the irony of Democrats playing the part of Snidely Whiplash while Republicans rush to the defense of the needy. He notes that when we talk about Weingarten Realty wanting to charge a "market rate" for the leases that occupy the River Oaks Shopping Center, the responses are quite different. While I doubt that the Landmark Theater chain is in possession of a 99-year lease signed by a long-since-retired Weingarten CEO, his point is taken.

Having said that, here's what bugs me about the response from folks like Council Member Wiseman. The Center has two leases, a 99-year lease on its original 5 acres, signed in 1962, and a 30-year lease on the rest of its space, signed in 1972. The latter was not renewed, and they have been on a year-to-year lease since then. Imagine instead if the original story had been about Mayor White's offer to renew the Center at the same $1 per year for 30 more years. I for one can picture Council Member Wiseman getting an appraisal on the site, calculating how much in property taxes it could be generating, then loudly complaining about how many police officers could be hired if the Mayor had been true to his fiduciary responsibilities.

Is that unfair of me? Maybe. Is it so farfetched? I don't think so. I have come to think the folks now defending the Center, including Wiseman, are on the right side of the matter, but I believe that a fair solution can and will be reached. I hope Mayor White will try to come to terms with the Center before taking any further action. We'll see.

Petition for hearings on campaign finance bills

Over on BOR, the John Courage PAC 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy and education organization True Courage Action Network has a link to a petition that they plan to hand delivery to Elections Committee Chair Leo Berman asking him to give a public hearing to three bills (two authored by Dems, one by a Republican) that would impose limits on contributions to individual campaigns for state offices, limits on aggregate donations, limits on corporate contributions, and more. Follow the links on their site to read the bills, and sign the petition if you agree.

UPDATE: TCAN is not a PAC. I have corrected this above.

RIP, Eddie Robinson

Legendary coach at Grambling University Eddie Robinson has passed away at the age of 88.

Robinson's was a career that spanned 11 presidents, several wars and the civil-rights movement.

His older records were what people remembered: in 57 years, Robinson set the standard for victories, going 408-165-15. John Gagliardi of St. John's, Minn., passed Robinson and has 443 wins.

"The real record I have set for over 50 years is the fact that I have had one job and one wife," Robinson said.

He had been suffering from Alzheimer's, which was diagnosed shortly after he was forced to retire following the 1997 season, in which he won only three games. His health had been declining for years and he had been in and out of a nursing home during the last year.

Robinson said he tried to coach each player as if he wanted him to marry his daughter.

He began coaching at Grambling State in 1941, when it was still the Louisiana Negro Normal and Industrial Institute, and single-handedly brought the school from obscurity to international popularity.

His story is too big, too amazing, to capture in an excerpt here. Go read that obituary, then do a little Googling and learn some more about him. Rest in peace, Eddie Robinson.

CHIP bill passes House

On its second attempt, the CHIP restoration bill by Rep. Sylvester Turner passed out of the House.

The bill would end some of the eligibility and enrollment restrictions that helped shrink the number of recipients by about 182,000 since 2003.

It advanced by a lopsided vote of 126-16 after a day of contentious debate over budget priorities and how much responsibility to place on the working poor. After a final procedural vote in the House today, it advances to the Senate, where GOP leaders oppose a provision allowing families to renew coverage every year instead of every six months.

Rep. Sylvester Turner, a Houston Democrat and the measure's lead author, asked for a big show of bipartisan support to try to sway the Senate. He noted the bill has five Republican authors and co-authors, including Rep. Kirk England of Grand Prairie.

[...]

Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, expressed concern about a provision allowing families to deduct from income their child-care expenses.

For a family of four with two very young children, the change would raise the program's income ceiling to $46,100, from $41,300.

Asked Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving: "Do we want the taxpayer to provide health insurance for people who make up to $50,000?"

Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, countered that the state should allow the deduction because it encourages people to work. He was among 38 Republicans - including most of those in the Dallas-Fort Worth delegation - who joined Democrats in crushing Mr. Howard's attempt to disallow child-care deductions. That vote was 105-36.

There were many other amendments offered, by Republicans to weaken the bill and by Democrats to make it go farther. Burka criticized Rep. Garnet Coleman's attempts to do the latter, saying it was a half-a-loaf/perfect-versus-good situation. In the end, when Coleman voted for the final bill, Burka retracted his criticism. I've got a statement from Rep. Coleman beneath the fold on the bill and its next step in the Senate.

There was more along these lines, mostly on the Republican efforts to maintain the tighter requirements that led to so many people being tossed off of CHIP. I'll refer you back to the article and to the many blog posts by the Capitol crew for the details. One to highlight, from the Statesman blog, concerns an argument made by Rep. Gattis in support of a different amendment:

Gattis argued that it's not fair to extend the eligibility period for CHIP, a program for working Texans who cannot afford private health insurance, when families on Medicaid -- "the oldest and sickest and poorest among us" -- have to apply every six months. His proposed amendment, modified by Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, to allow families to stay enrolled for a year and then after that require them to reapply every six months, failed 91-49.

I agree, that's not fair. Of course, I'd say the solution is to make the Medicaid process an annual one instead of making CHIP biannual. In the Morning News story, Rep. Rafael Anchia has a pretty good rejoinder:

Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, said it was unfair to hassle working poor families, when the state only requires first-time sex offenders to re-register every 12 months.

"Where is the justice in that?" Mr. Anchia said.

Good question.

Anyway, the bill goes on to the Senate, where as we know it is sure to be undone in substantive ways. I'll let Burka bring it home from here, from his first post:

This entire exercise may have been meaningless anyway. This was the number one priority for Turner and the Craddick Ds. Turner told Craddick that it wouldn't be enough for this bill just to pass the House, that he wanted Craddick to go to bat for the bill in the Senate, which doesn't like the restoration of twelve months of eligibility. Turner may have felt he had Craddick's support--after all, Craddick wouldn't be speaker without him and the other Craddick Ds--but Craddick insisted in a heated meeting with the Craddick Ds that he had promised only to facilitate passage through the House and make it possible for Turner to argue for his bill in the Senate. (Yeah, those House members have a lot of stroke in the Senate.) This scenario was related to me by another of the Craddick Ds, and if it is true, I would say that the Craddick Ds have been had.

And when that happens, don't say they weren't warned.

Statement by Rep. Garnet Coleman on the passage of HB109:

"I like progress, because I'm a progressive, and HB 109 is progress. We took an excellent first step today by restoring CHIP coverage to 102,000 Texas children.

I'm proud of the work done by Rep. Turner, Speaker Craddick, Chairman Davis, Chairman Rose, and others on this bill -- and I trust that they will fight for this bill to stay in its form as it goes through the Senate.

The next step will be for Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst and the Texas Senate to maintain CHIP restoration as it passed out of the House. Governor Dewhurst has said this is the 'session of the children.' Now we get to see if he means it."

Read the reports

Want to know more about the WiFi contract or the task force report on solid waste management? The City Hall blog has you covered here and here, respectively, with a comparison to how other cities do the latter as a bonus. The level of whining in the comments regarding the possible trash fee is quite amusing. Who knew there were so many people expecting to go through life paying the same amount for goods and services forever? Anyway, read the reports so you can better focus your own whining on these two topics. I've now read the solid waste report, and I think they make a pretty strong case for the recommended changes. Note that in addition to the fees, a change to the inconsistent policies on who is eligible for city trash pickup are also discussed. Read it yourself and see what you think.

Van Chancellor elected to Basketball Hall of Fame

Congratulations, Coach Chancellor!

Van Chancellor's chest swelled with pride when the national anthem played for his undefeated United States women's team at the Athens Olympics, and there was an overwhelming sense of achievement when the Comets won each of their four WNBA titles.

But what Chancellor experienced Monday was on-top-of-the-world joy when he received word he's among a seven-member class of 2007 elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame.

"It's been the most unbelievable day that I've experienced in a long, long time," Chancellor said before a dinner for the honorees prior to Monday's NCAA men's championship game. "I've had so many memories and so many chances to reflect on all of the people and all of the experiences that have gotten me to this point.

"To think that you're going to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, a place where all of your basketball heroes are enshrined, is overwhelming. I mean, guys like Oscar Robertson and now me? My gosh, what can I say?"

A native of Louisville, Miss., Chancellor joined Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson, North Carolina coach Roy Williams, the late Mendy Rudolph, an NBA referee from 1953-78, international coaches Pedro Ferrandiz and Mirko Novosel and the 1966 Texas Western team in the 2007 class.

Chancellor, 63, was the head women's coach at Mississippi from 1978 to 1997 posting a record of 439-154 before moving to Houston as the first coach of the Comets. He guided the Comets to the first four championships in WNBA history and had a mark of 211-111 in 10 seasons before resigning in January.

He also has a 38-0 record in international competition.

Winning four straight championships in any sport, at any time, is amazingly difficult. Chancellor has an enviable record of success beyond his WNBA accomplishments. He's a credit to the Hall. Congrats, Coach Chancellor, on a well-deserved honor.

Seventeen named hurricanes predicted

Last year, the official estimate for the 2007 hurricane season was 14 named storms. Then we heard that La Nina was active, which would tend to increase the number of hurricanes. And sure enough, that esitmate has now been bumped to 17 for 2007.

Forecaster William Gray said he expects 17 named storms in all this year, five of them major hurricanes with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater. The probability of a major hurricane making landfall on the U.S. coast this year: 74 percent, compared with the average of 52 percent over the past century, he said.

Last year, Gray's forecast and government forecasts were higher than what the Atlantic hurricane season produced.

There were 10 named Atlantic storms in 2006 and five hurricanes, two of them major, in what was considered a "near normal" season. None of those hurricanes hit the U.S. Atlantic coast--only the 11th time that has occurred since 1945. The National Hurricane Center in Miami originally reported nine storms, but upgraded one storm after a postseason review.

Gray's research team at Colorado State University said an unexpected late El Nino contributed to the calmer season last year.

[...]

A weak to moderate El Nino occurred in December and January but dissipated rapidly, said Phil Klotzbach, a member of Gray's team.

"Conditions this year are likely to be more conducive to hurricanes," Klotzbach said Tuesday. In the absence of El Nino, "winds aren't tearing the storm systems apart."

Link via Houstonist, which notes that an updated forecast will be made on May 31, the day before the season officially begins. While it's always a good idea to be prepared for the worst, bear in mind as SciGuy reminds us that this is an inexact science. They predicted 17 storms last year, after predicting 13 for 2005. I'm hoping this forecast is inaccurate in the way that last year's was, but let's be honest: Sooner or later, we're going to be imperiled by another big storm. May as well be ready for it, even if we don't have to rely on that readiness this year.

The 50 best tech products of all time

Last year, PCWorld gave us the 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time. Proving perhaps that there's more good than bad in the world, they now give us (via Dwight) the 50 Best Tech Products of All Time. Looking through the list, I can say I've used something like 29 of these 50 items, including 8 of the top 10 (never had a Motorola StarTAC phone, never used Napster). Some of these items brought back very fond memories - CompuServe (my first ever email address)! The Atari VCS/2600! Amazingly, some of these things are still in use in some form, 20+ years after their debut. Check it out.

There's no such thing as free trash

Is a $3.50 monthly "waste reduction fee" in your future in Houston? It might be, though it's a little early to say for sure.

The fee, which would be new for Houston, would generate as much as $19 million that could be used to enhance recycling, launch new conservation efforts and pay for more enforcement of illegal dumping, according to the task force.

"This is the beginning of a conversation about where we're going with solid waste in the future," Mayor Bill White told council members at the start of a two-hour special meeting on the topic.

He said after the meeting that he agreed with many of the task force's ideas, though he wouldn't endorse the amount of the proposed fee, which he said needs more discussion and assurances that it "wouldn't be a burden on families."

"I want feedback from the council and members of the public," White said.

The fee was one of many recommendations by the task force, which was chaired by retired CEO Lorne Bain and included a cross-section of people from the community, government and business.

First things first: Just because it appears in a task force report doesn't mean it's going to happen. Anyone remember Governor Perry's task force on appraisal reform? Their recommendations haven't exactly caught fire in the Lege, though it's still early days for that sort of thing.

Council members focused much of their attention on the fee, with some voicing concern about public reaction and others suggesting their constituents would accept the charge if the rationale were explained.

"I don't think a fee is going to be a problem," Councilwoman Toni Lawrence said. "You just have to educate, and people understand. If they're getting something in return, I see a lot of cooperation on this."

Councilman Michael Berry, however, suggested the idea would be a tough sell, particularly the recommendations for reducing heavy trash collections.

"All I hear is less service, higher cost," he said. "It's very hard for me to justify that that's not true."

I dunno, I'm hearing "less money spent on an underutilized service, and new money available to expand existing services". Guess it's all in how you look at it. I wouldn't claim to be typical, but I think we use heavy trash maybe once a year. I generally don't even know when heavy trash pickup is. The story says only 30% of neighborhoods use it regularly. Doesn't it make some sense to rethink how that's done? I'm a little surprised by Council Member Berry's skepticism.

As envisioned by the task force, the proposed "waste reduction fee" would be used to pay for heavy trash pickup, recycling and yard waste collection. Regular weekly garbage service would continue to be paid for out of the tax-supported general fund.

City Controller Annise Parker, who co-chaired the panel, said the extra revenue in a new, dedicated fund would let the city focus more money on conservation at the same time it faces an austere budget climate as costs for public safety increase. Police, fire and emergency medical services account for about two-thirds of the city's operating budget.

The city's Solid Waste Department, for example, would need at least $3 million to restart its composting program for yard waste, an effort White has touted as a way to divert that waste from area landfills.

What I really want to know is what the city intends to do to about recycling, which as we know is also an underutilized service, though in a different way than heavy trash is. Everyone has paper, plastic, cans, and the like to get rid of every week, but many people haven't made a habit of separating them out from the regular garbage. If part of the goal is reducing solid waste (which was a stated goal of Mayor White's in his State of the City address), boosting the recycling program should be a key component. I at least won't mind paying $3.50 a month to help make that happen. I just want to know what the plan for that will be.

UPDATE: Miya has more.

City WiFi details emerge

The city WiFi contract is on the Council agenda tomorrow, and the Chron has some details from the contract.

The City Council on Wednesday is expected to consider a $2.5 million contract with EarthLink Inc. that would allow the company to build the city's wireless network and agree to be its "anchor tenant" for the first five years of the project.

While the agreement allows Mayor Bill White to keep his promise of not using taxpayer money to build the network, the city would be required to pay the company at least $500,000 annually for five years to use the service.

[...]

Under the contract, EarthLink must provide outdoor coverage to 95 percent of the city's 640 square miles and indoor service to 90 percent of the residential and commercial buildings in that area. The company is expected to invest nearly $50 million in the two-year buildout.

Access to the network would allow city and emergency workers to complete jobs in the field using wireless devices.

Certain inspectors already work out-of-office, but applications on the wireless network would expand the possibilities, making city government more efficient and effective, [Houston's director of information technology Richard] Lewis said.

City officials had initially hoped network access would be free for city government. But once discussions were under way, it became clear that wasn't feasible, Lewis said.

"What we came to understand was that the players in this field really need the city government to be an anchor tenant for network use," he said. "That way they can finance the project."

The City Hall blog cites this story from last March for the point about the service once being touted as free, but notes that idea was dropped months ago.

But some locals are critical of that decision, saying it's an indirect way of putting taxpayer money into the project.

"There's a hidden cost," said Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights Association. It's not prudent to invest in the project without first seeing whether it works, he added.

The city will get some money back from the deal: $1,200 a month for each rooftop where EarthLink installs its transmitters, plus 3 percent of subscriber revenue starting in the third year.

So if the city leases out 35 rooftops for transmitter installations (not an unreachable number, I'd say), it will more than cover that $500K per year, and that's before any subscriber revenues come in. I'm not seeing the problem here.

And if EarthLink defaults on the agreement to build the network, it would owe the city up to $5 million.

Municipal wireless experts said the contract appears to cover all the bases.

"It looks fair," said Esme Vos, founder of MuniWireless.com, which follows projects in various cities. "There's something for both sides."

Craig Settles, a consultant not affiliated with this project, said the city was smart to agree to serve as EarthLink's main customer because that helps ensure the company's success, which in turn benefits all city residents.

"They seem to have avoided the kinds of things that have plagued other cities and their projects," Settles said, adding that EarthLink's proposed rates for Houston city government are decent discounts.

Sounds good so far. Newswatch, which summarizes the deal, says they'll post a copy of the contract later today. I'll look for it.

UPDATE: Cory points out that the $1200/month rooftop lease would go to building owners, not the city. Which makes sense now that I think about it.

Talton 2, Turner 0

As he did with the CHIP bill, State Rep. Robert Talton has (temporarily, at least) derailed a measure by Rep. Sylvester Turner via point of order.

Rep. Sylvester Turner's effort to restore electricity discounts for thousands of low-income Texans was delayed by a point of order in the Texas House on Monday, though Turner said he'll retool the measure and bring it back soon.

"Not dead by a long shot," the Houston Democrat said.

Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, derailed the proposal by invoking a House rule that restricts consideration of legislation diverting state funds until after lawmakers send a budget to the state comptroller and the comptroller certifies it -- no earlier than the 119th day of each 140-day regular session.

Turner said he'll fix the weakness exploited by Talton's point of order by creating a dedicated account within the state budget.

Turner had proposed establishing a trust fund to corral dollars raised by a fee of about $1 levied on monthly electric bills. Utility discounts for low-income Texans were funded from the collected fees until 2003, when lawmakers shrunk the program. Members cut off the utility discounts entirely in 2005, with the fees' revenue going to general budgetary purposes.

Turner seeks to bring the discounts back -- adding in utility discounts for non-profit nursing homes as well.

The discount in question is known as the System Benefit Fund (SBF), about which you can learn more here. The SBF is a dedicated fund that has been raided for general revenue and budget-balancing purposes for the past several sessions. It's supposed to be used to help needy folks with their ever-escalating electric bills, but other needs have trumped that purpose. The CPPP has a detailed discussion of the ins and outs of dedicated funds versus general revenue, with the SBF as an example, here (PDF). There's broad support for Turner's bill, which I meant to write something about before it came up for a vote but never quite got to, but that apparently wasn't enough to keep it from meeting this ignominious fate. Capitol Letters has more on the politics of Talton's maneuver, while Inside the Texas Capitol connects objections by Turner to a Calendars rule to the fate his bill ultimately suffered.

Meanwhile, say whatever else you will about Talton, he's consistent:

Talton said he doesn't think the fees should be collected at all. He said too that utilities are free to give discounts to customers, as it should be. "If I can vote for smaller government, it's fine with me," he said.

Like I said before, it's all about the values.

I accept your offer

PSoTD says:

Just an experiment. Using an edited version of Avedon Carol's blogroll, below are a list of blogs that I would appreciate being blogrolled from, and that I think the content here is appropriate to be blogrolled from on a regular basis. And I'd provide a link back, obviously. I'm mostly curious as to whether anyone will salute such an approach - you know, blog barter diplomacy.

Consider me saluting. After all the hoohah surrounding Blogroll Amnesty Day (about which I have no real complaint, even though I was excised from a couple of high-profile 'rolls), it's nice to see someone taking the alternate approach. Besides, PSoTD had linked to a couple of my posts recently, so this was easily done.

Also added to the sidebar: the new blog of local radio personality Laurie Kendrick, formerly with Rock 101 KLOL, now unfortunately dealing with unemployment. I have many fond memories of Laurie during her stint with the Stevens and Pruett Show, so I'm glad to welcome her to the blogosphere. (She also had the good taste to blogroll me, which is nice.)

Finally, I realized that I had failed to include Booman Tribune and SciGuy on my sidebar. There was no particularly good reason for either of these to have been omitted. Both oversights have now been corrected.

It wasn't all Accenture's fault

When the state finally cut bait on the disastrous Accenture/HHSC outsourcing experiment, many fingers were pointed at Accenture in blame. But as the Texas Observer reports, a significant amount of blame should land on the shoulders of the Health and Human Services Commission itself, and its director, Albert Hawkins.

An Observer review of thousands of pages of state documents reveals that while Accenture certainly made mistakes, it was Hawkins who relentlessly pushed the program toward launch on January 20, 2006--what HHSC described as the "go-live" date--despite numerous warnings from federal officials, Accenture, and his own auditor that the network of call centers wasn't ready. HHSC officials also intentionally scaled back tests they knew the system would fail. And Hawkins moved the call-center project forward at two separate stages without obtaining prior federal approval--despite repeated warnings from the feds--actions that cost the state millions in federal funds.

Read the whole thing - it's a great summary of the full sorry saga, with new information added. As HHSC Employee says:

In any other business anywhere else, if this happened, Hawkins would have been fired. Heads would roll in the State Office Corridors. We certainly know that if a worker(s) were the cause of this much money being flushed down the drain, they'd have CERTAINLY been fired. If QC read cases on Worker A who gave out millions in error- that worker would be GONE. Virtually IMMEDIATELY. Yet, Hawkins, in whatever quest he's on - is still the "head" of this and still hasn't been asked to leave.

Will that change now? It was reporting by the Observer that has largely led to the TYC shakeup. Who's to say that lightning won't strike again? Stay tuned.

Justice for Laura Candlelight Vigil reminder

Just a reminder that tonight at 7 PM in Friendswood is the candlelight vigil to mark the tenth anniversary of the abduction and murder of Laura Smither. Here's the press release from the Laura Recovery Center:

JUSTICE FOR LAURA - CANDLELIGHT VIGIL
Tuesday, April 3, 7 PM - Stevenson Park, Friendswood

TO: Media News Crews and Editors
WHO: Laura Recover Center for Missing Children
WHAT: Justice for Laura - Candlelight Vigil
WHERE: Stevenson Park, 1100 South Friendswood Drive, Friendswood, Texas
WHEN: Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 7:00 P.M.

Laura's family and the Laura Recovery Center will hold a public candlelight vigil, calling for Justice for Laura. The vigil marks the 10th anniversary of 12-year old Laura Kate Smither's abduction and murder. During the vigil, Laura's parents Bob and Gay Smither, joined by Friendswood Police Chief Bob Wieners and Laura's priest Rev. Robert Wareing, will call for justice and the resolution of Laura's 10-year old case.

Friendswood churches will ring their bells at 9AM on April 3rd in memory of Laura.

The evening will include prayers, the distribution of remembrance bracelets, and the lighting of candles which have come to symbolize "lighting the way home" for missing children throughout the nation.

Laura Smither disappeared on April 3, 1997 when she went for a run from her home in Friendswood, Texas. When she didn't return, the police were called and a massive community search began which eventually included over six thousand volunteers and a battalion of U. S. Marines. After 17 days Laura's remains were found on April 20, 1997, 14 miles from her home in a Pasadena, Texas retention pond.

Media opportunities: public candlelight vigil; "Call for Justice" and remarks by Laura Kate Smither's dad, Bob Smither, Friendswood Police Chief, Bob Wieners and Laura's priest, Rev. Robert Wareing; interviews with all speakers and the community who attend.

The Laura Recovery Center - for missing children - is a nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organization that was founded in Laura Smither's memory. The Center focuses on Education, Search, and Prevention in the area of missing children, has offered free abduction prevention programs to over 135,000 children throughout the greater Houston area, worked with over 1,100 families with missing loved ones, and has organized over 75 community searches nationwide. The Center trains law enforcement at the Houston Police Department training academy and distributes educational materials and child ID kits.

Website: www.LRCF.org Toll Free: 1-888-898-5723 Local: 281-482-5723

May the Smithers find peace for themselves and justice for Laura.

UPDATE: Here's the Chron story.

One step forward, one step back

Bill to legalize abortion set to pass in Mexico City

Dominated by liberals, Mexico City's legislature is expected to legalize abortion in a few weeks. The bill would make this city one of the largest entities in Latin America to break with a long tradition of women resorting to illegal clinics and midwives to end unwanted pregnancies.

[...]

Leftists and feminists, meanwhile, have accused opponents of turning a blind eye to reality. They say millions of women here, and indeed throughout much of Latin America, already ignore the law and choose to abort fetuses, often in dingy underground clinics or the private homes of midwives. They risk infection, sterility and sometimes death.

"Women are dying, above all poor women, because of unsafe abortions," said María Consuelo Mejía, the director of Catholics for the Right to Decide. "What we would like is that these women never have to confront the necessity of an abortion, but in this society it's impossible right now. There is no access to information, to contraceptives. Nor do most women have the power to negotiate the use of contraceptives with their partners."

Link via LGM. Meanwhile, here in Texas, we have this:

Abortion, a perennial hot-button issue, will make its debut for this legislative session this afternoon when the House State Affairs Committee hears several related bills.

One, House Bill 175 by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, would outlaw the procedure in Texas if the U.S. Supreme Court were to reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in 1973. A companion bill, SB 186 by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, hasn't been heard yet.

Interestingly, the nine-member panel includes only one woman, Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston.

I will not be surprised to see both bills passed and signed by Governor Perry. But at least when that happens, women with means will now have a cheap and easy option in Mexico City for when they need these services in a post-Roe world (assuming that happens, not a given now that the voters of South Dakota have spoken). Poor women, well, their options will be the same as always. And so it goes.

Ah, opening day

Well, the glorious 2007 baseball season is officially underway, even if the folks who are DirecTV-impaired can't enjoy it to the fullest. While Opening Day is always a time for hope and faith, I just want to say that recent results notwithstanding, I'm not particularly bullish about the Astros' chances this season. While I agree that everything is possible (hope and faith! hope and faith!), not everything is likely. I don't see the Stros doing too well unless they patch some of the gaping holes in their lineup - I don't care how liberally they're smeared with Veteran Leadership Butter, Adam Everett and Brad Ausmus could go up to the plate swinging pencils and it wouldn't materially affect their offensive ability. But hey, I could be wrong, and that's the beautiful thing about it - they've got 162 games to make me eat my words, and they're in a division that's riddled with mediocrity, where (say it with me now) anything is possible. That's why they play the games, and so I say: Play ball!

More Council interviews

I have an interview with City Council special election candidate Kendall Baker up over at Kuff's World. In posting this, I discovered that I'd managed to forget to link to my earlier interview with Ivan Mayers. Sorry about that. I'm at or close to the end of this series, so I hope it's been useful to you. I'll be doing more for the November elections, starting some time after the special is fully over.

On a related note, Republican blogger Rorschach sent out some interview questions via email to all of the candidates. He only got one response, from Andy Neill, but it's still worth reading. Obviously, Rorschach and I don't have the same perspective on many things, but I nonetheless appreciate the effort to get as much information about the candidates out there as possible.

All of my Council interviews are listed below:

Melissa Noriega - Interview

Andy Neill - Interview

Roy Morales - Interview

David Goldberg - Interview

Noel Freeman - Interview

Ivan Mayers - Interview

Kendall Baker - Interview

Fundraiser for Mark Strawn

Mark Strawn is a neighbor of ours who was involved in a serious car crash a few weeks ago. He's recovering nicely, but he is still mostly immobile, is in need of constant care, and has a long rehab with an uncertain outlook ahead of him. He and his wife Sabrina, who is currently on leave from her job as Executive Director of GHASP, have two children, and they are facing enormous medical bills that may force them out of their house.

To help offset some of these bills, friends of Mark's have organized a benefit for him on Friday, May 4, at the Heights Fire Station on Yale at 12th. Details are at the link. There will be live entertainment, food from Treebeard's, and a silent auction, for which donated items are still being accepted. A planning status meeting will be held at Onion Creek on Friday, April 6, at 5:00 PM for anyone interested in helping out.

Sabrina has been maintaining a blog about Mark's recovery for those who care about him. If you can help at all, please come to the benefit or drop me a note. Thanks very much.

Kids and restaurants

What Polimom says regarding this story about a restaurant owner who told the parents of particularly unruly kids to not come back.

Civilizing young people is a slow, sometimes frustrating process, but it can be done. Children are high energy, curious, and loud; that doesn't make them bad, or evil -- but it can make them annoying in certain circumstances.

If Little Janey and Johnny can't yet control themselves when you tell them, "No", that's not (necessarily) a reflection on them... and if they're still tiny, that's not a reflection on you, either. As parents, though, it is incumbent upon us to consider that they may not be ready for prime time, and that other diners are also paying for the privilege / relief / novelty of dining out.

Kids are kids; Unless you're prepared to pay for the meals of those around you who don't actually want to listen to them thunder about the room or scream because the food's not served yet and they're hungry, mom!, take them somewhere that is set up to let them behave that way... and slowly work your way up to ketchup from a bottle instead of packets. It can be done. I promise.

Common sense goes a long way here, and can help avoid most problems. Get to the restaurant before your kid is hungry. Go places where there's someplace safe for the kid to play or explore. Be prepared to change your order to "to go" and hightail it out of there if the kid won't behave.

Olivia has accompanied us to restaurants since she was a babe in arms. Audrey goes with us now, too. We generally go to kid-friendly places (the neighborhood Berryhill's, which is always swarming with kids, is one of her favorites), but there are still rules, and she's been good about following them. It can be challenging, as Polimom says, but it's a lot easier if you don't set yourself up for failure in the first place.

There's never an excuse for being rude to other diners, and there's no need for adult conversation that excuses letting your kid run around unchecked in a restaurant. If you just have to get away from the responsibilities for a little while, get a sitter. Thanks to John for the link.

Expanding the NCAA tournament

I've been wondering if the size of the NCAA tournament is something that might get tinkered with again now that 64 is no longer a sacred number. Looks like the possibility exists for it to happen, though apparently not soon.

Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim admitted he probably isn't the greatest person to ask about expanding the number of the schools that can compete in the NCAA tournament.

''Somebody else better take that one,'' Boeheim said when he was asked about it during a National Association of Basketball Coaches news conference Thursday. ''If it was retroactive, I think it would be a great idea.''

The Orange widely was regarded as the team most unfairly left out of the 65-team field this season, but Boeheim has been on the expansion bandwagon before, even in seasons when Syracuse made it easily.

A record 104 schools won 20-plus games this season, which bolsters the argument for an expanded field.

''It's something that coaches, I think, feel very strongly about -- that there should be some level of expansion,'' Rice coach Willis Wilson said. ''But I think it's going to take more than just a basic conversation to figure out what that number is.''

NCAA president Myles Brand said he thinks too much of an expansion would hurt the tournament, but he said adding a few more play-in games might be one workable way to bring in more teams.

''When asked that question this past year, [college presidents] said no,'' Brand said. ''But it's not off the table. I think in the future that may happen. There are no active conversations going on right now, but I think that kind of conversation over the next few years may well take place.''

I think expansion is a good idea, but not an incremental add-a-few-play-in-games type of expansion, because I don't think most people think of the play-in games as being a part of the "real" tournament. I think if you're going to expand, you go ahead and add another round of play. That doesn't mean you have to go to the next power of 2, but you could easily accomodate 80 or 96 teams by starting the tournament on Tuesday and using byes. With 80 teams, you have 32 of them play for the right to be seeded 13 through 16; with 96 teams, the top 32 get a bye and the rest play for the 9 and lower slots. We already have 64 teams playing a game over the course of two days, so this is logistically possible. It might mean compressing or shifting the regular season and/or conference tournaments, or it might mean accepting the fact that March Madness will permanently bleed into April, just as the World Series now crosses into November. Either way, it can be done.

But should it? Well, I think a strong case can be made that there's room for more. Consider this:

College basketball (if you don't count the NIT, and let's not, since it's very much a consolation prize) has the lowest percentage of teams that qualify for the postseason of all the major North American sports, and hockey.

College Basketball: 19.3%. 65 out of 336 teams.
MLB: 26.6%. 8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs.
NFL: 12 out of 32 teams make the playoffs: 37.5%
College Football: 62 teams play in bowl games, out of 119 total: 52.1%
NBA: 16 out of 30 teams make the playoffs: 53.4%
NHL: 16 out of 30 teams make the playofs: 53.4%

Expanding the tournament to 80 or 96 brings it more in line with other levels of postseason participation. Making these extra games a two-day affair at the regional sites enables them to feel like a part of the real tournament and not a tacked-on extra. It would make seeding more important - right now, the difference between being an 8 and a 9, or even a 7 and a 10, is small, even negligible; under a 96-team tournament, it would be crucial. But overall, I think the case for is stronger than the case against.

You may say that any expansion would just be adding teams that have no legitimate shot at the championship. I'd say that's true, though as George Mason reminded us last year, having a low seed is not a bar to making it to the Final Four. But if the tournament were just about crowning a champion, we might as well shrink it, for surely in any given year only a handful of teams have a real chance to win it all. But who wants a basketball version of the BCS? What makes the Tournament so special isn't just the finals but the opening rounds, with its upsets and Cinderellas and anything-can-happen attitude. Expanding the Tournament gives a few more teams the chance to experience that thrill. Given that there's room to expand within the size of the NCAA basketball field, I say that's a worthwhile reason. What do you think?

The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation

I can't tell you how many times I've driven past this place. I've always been curious about its history, and now I know a little something as its future is threatened.

For more than 40 years, it has occupied a prime chunk of public real estate near River Oaks caring for, employing and housing the mentally retarded.

But now the city of Houston is planning to sell the land to the highest bidder, meaning the nonprofit Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation has to find a new home.

The center's directors do not intend to go quietly. They have a 99-year lease signed with the city in the 1960s that required them to construct buildings and provide services for one of the city's neediest populations.

"I'm trying not to be real combative about it, but, doggone it, at the end of the day, if it comes to it, we'll fight," said Jack Manning, a member of the center's board. "We are not going to knuckle down and just move out."

But the city says the center may have no option.

The 99-year lease, signed in 1963 by then-Mayor Lewis Cutrer, is not valid, city lawyers argue, because the city charter limits such agreements to no more than 30 years.

And though the center has been paying the city $1 a year to lease the land, real estate investors say that particular tract, which sits on six acres between West Dallas and Allen Parkway near Shepherd, has become extremely valuable.

By real estate broker Stan Creech's estimate, it's worth about $26 million.

[...]

City Attorney Arturo Michel said it's not fair to give such a sweetheart deal to one nonprofit. In fact, the city has begun reviewing similar deals with other nonprofits housed on public property. The Lighthouse for the Blind nearby leases part of its property from the city, but officials say that lease, for 30 years, is valid. It's set to expire in 2030.

Mayor Bill White said he offered the center for those with mental retardation an opportunity to lease the property at a rate closer to market value, but he got no response.

"We are trying to make sure that we use the resources that we have to help the most number of people that are most in need," White said, adding that the city has offered to help the center find another location.

[...]

The center built the six-story Cullen Residence Hall after signing a 30-year lease with the city in 1972 to acquire an additional acre to go with the original five included in the 99-year lease.

Former Mayor Lee Brown's administration started to renew the lease when it expired in 2002, but, after White took office, it was never finalized. The center has been on a year-to-year lease ever since.

Executive Director Eva Aguirre said the center has more than held up its end of the lease, which required at least $17,200 in annual social services in trade for using the property. Aguirre said the center has provided more than $1 million in yearly services to people who can't afford to pay.

[...]

Councilwoman Ada Edwards, whose district includes the center, said the city is in a difficult spot.

On the one hand, it's taxpayer money, and the city has a financial responsibility.

On the other hand, the city also has a moral and social responsibility, and there is no question the center provides valuable services to a vulnerable community.

"I think there is a larger issue that needs to be raised, and I hope the community will help us look at this issue," she said. "Because, if we do remove them, where will they go? And who will be responsible for their care?"

I've read this story a couple of times through and I don't know what to make of it yet. I mostly agree with Council Member Edwards, but feel like I need a lot more information before I can make a good decision. What do you think?

One person who has picked a side is City Council candidate Andy Neill. I'm including his statement beneath the fold. Click on for more.

Houston City Council's At-Large position # 3 Candidate Andy Neill is throwing his support behind "The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation" in their upcoming fight against the City of Houston who is looking to renege on their signed lease and sell the Center's land to the highest bidder.

From the Houston Chronicle's story by Reporter Melanie Markley: "The 99-year lease, signed in 1963 by then-Mayor Lewis Cutrer, is not valid, city lawyers argue, because the city charter limits such agreements to no more than 30 years."

The Center is a private not-for-profit United Way Agency, which has for more than 60 years served children and adults through educational, residential and work training programs. The philosophy of The Center is that every person has value and worth, is entitled to the highest quality of life, and should be treated with dignity.

City Council Candidate Neill is fuming over this situation and is pledging to raise awareness on this effort by the City; by openly challenging the Mayor and other City Council Members if he obtains the At-Large Position #3 seat in the upcoming May 12th Special Election. Neill states:

"This is the type of action that one would expect if they were doing business in a place like Cuba not here in the United States; and especially not here in Houston, TX. The Mayor seems most definitely to have overstepped his bounds not only in a possible legal capacity, but most importantly from a human decency standpoint. This is a morally bankrupt way to generate a new stream of revenue for the City of Houston, and I hope others won't stand for it either."

You can read the Chronicle's story by Melanie Markley in it's entirety by visiting their website at www.chron.com. You can learn more about the "The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation" by visiting their website at www.cri-usa.org. You can learn more about Candidate Andy Neill's quest for the City Council At-Large Position # 3 seat at his website at www.neillforhouston.com.

One last hope for the Astrodome Hotel

So the Astrodome Redevelopment folks didn't get financing by the March deadline. There's always the county to turn to for help.

"From day one, we have always known that it is an option to do this as a publicly developed program," said Mike Surface, chairman of the Harris County Sports & Convention Corp., which manages Reliant Park. "If I'm looking out for Reliant Park's interests, I would say, 'County, you should think about doing this.' "

No property taxes would go toward the project in any case, he said.

If the county paid for part or all of the project, it would use hotel and sales taxes generated by the hotel complex and other Reliant Park revenue, such as concessions.

I guess it's not exactly clear to me how an Astrodome Hotel benefits Reliant Park. Will that help sell more tickets to events at the stadium and/or Reliant Arena? Will it bring more events there in the first place? Tom had mentioned using the space currently occupied by the Dome as extra parking for Reliant. Whether you think that's a good idea or not, at least it's easy to see how it affects Reliant. It's not at all easy to see how the Dome Hotel does.

Which doesn't make it a bad idea, mind you. If what Mike Surface means is that the county (and by extension Reliant) would get some guaranteed rate of return by investing in this project, then I can see the link. But if the redevelopment folks can't get private financing, are we sure this is a winner? I'm perfectly happy to give them a shot at this, and I'm fine with the county cutting them some slack to get their ducks lined up. Putting county money in, at least without some tight controls, is where I'm drawing the lines.

It's a fair question to ask, by the way, what those Reliant revenues would have been used for otherwise. There are lots of questions that would need to be answered.

Surface said he and some other board members are so confident in the project that the board may look for another developer to step in if Astrodome Redevelopment's effort fails.

The county is looking to invest as little as possible in the project. Astrodome Redevelopment could turn out to need $20 million to $50 million to obtain a loan, Surface said.

But a feasibility study concluded the hotel will be profitable, and the county would be wise to invest in the project to make it happen, he said.

County Commissioner Steve Radack has said, however, that he does not think the project makes sense and will oppose any county participation.

Color me skeptical here. Maybe a different crew would get different results, but I'm thinking that if these guys fail, it's not a management issue but a lack of faith in the project's feasibility. I'd rather see the Dome get reused than removed, but let's not lose sight of what's doable.

Scratch-off ripoff revisited

In February, the Chron printed a story about how the Lottery would continue to sell scratch-off games long past the point where all of the top prizes had been claimed. After the predictable outrage, the Texas Lottery Commission has changed its policies to prevent such ripoffs in the future.

Texas Lottery officials announced Friday they will order all scratch-off tickets pulled as soon as the games' top-tier prizes have been claimed.

The move comes just a month after a Houston Chronicle story highlighted the fact that the agency continued to sell games long after players had virtually no chance of winning the significant prizes advertised.

Agency spokesman Bobby Heith said "public concern" about the games had prompted the decision.

"I don't know that the public has lost faith, but it goes to us wanting to reassure it that our games are the best in the land," Heith said.

Lottery watchdog Gerald Busald hailed the move.

"I'm thrilled. This is one of the things they were adamant about not doing," said Busald, a mathematics professor at San Antonio College who brought the issue to the attention of the agency's commissioners at a public hearing in January.

I agree with Professor Busald that this is a good thing. I only wish I could find a clear definition of the phrase "top-tier prizes" - it's not in the story, and it's not in the TLC news release (PDF). I mean, look back at the original story, which said the following:

[A]nyone spending $5 on a Deal or No Deal scratch-off Friday might entertain hopes of winning the $1 million top prize advertised on the ticket.

But it'd be pure fantasy.

All three of the top prizes have been claimed. So have all four of the $100,000 prizes. And all 10 of the $50,000 prizes. They've been gone since Dec. 9.

"It's an unfair game," said Dawn Nettles, an unofficial, unpaid watchdog of the lottery commission.

In fact, of the 52 $10,000 prizes that were offered for that game, only one remained unclaimed Friday. Taken as a whole, more than 96 percent of the prizes and 99 percent of the money for Deal or No Deal is no longer available -- yet the game continues to be sold statewide.

The point is, at the time of that story, there was still a $10,000 prize unclaimed. Would it be acceptable to keep selling those tickets till that last holdout was located? Or would there need to be an earlier cutoff point? If so, how is that determined? I presume that these details have not been worked out yet, but since I didn't see any clear statement of that, I don't know for certain. Point is, this is only the first step. How the TLC implements this matters as well.

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said: "No longer is the public going to be spending money on a fixed game."

Well, that depends on how you define "fixed". The Lottery is still heavily rigged against the customer - it has to be. This makes it slightly less so, but that doesn't change the underlying dynamic.

Patrick said he met with agency officials a month ago and demanded they change their policy on pulling games, and he filed Senate Bill 1200 that would do as much to show them he meant business.

[...]

Patrick said despite Friday's development, he will continue to push his bill.

"I want to be sure it is law, just in case," he said.

I think that's appropriate, and I support the passage of Sen. Patrick's bill. There's no need to rely on the goodwill of the agency going forward. This also allows for a stricter definition of how a game gets pulled, if need be.

Side note:

The change comes just weeks before lottery officials plan to introduce a $50 scratch-off game.

A fifty dollar scratch-off game? Holy crap. That makes as much sense to me as a $50 slot machine, but apparently, there's a market for this. I am utterly dumbfounded.

Last but not least, some background info on Gerald Busald and the effect he and his students have had on the TLC. Check it out.

Woodlands annexation legislation passes out of committee

Back in December, a deal was brokered between the Woodlands and the city of Houston to take annexation of the Woodlands by Houston off the table forever. On Friday, SB1012 by Sen. Tommy Williams, one of the deal brokers, passed out of committee and appears to be headed to passage in the full Senate.

The enabling legislation allows cities and special districts to enter into agreements in which the parties would share the cost of mutually beneficial regional projects, including roads and parks.

Under the deal, Houston would release The Woodlands from its extraterritorial jurisdiction -- the legal designation that allows annexation -- and the community of more than 85,000 residents would decide after 2014 what type of governing structure to adopt.

In return, The Woodlands would give an initial $16 million to pay for certain regional projects, with the money coming from existing sources to be determined.

The Woodlands also would dedicate a portion of its sales tax revenues to pay $45 million over 30 years to fund such projects.

[...]

Although no opposition was expressed at the committee meeting Wednesday, state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said he still has concerns.

"I have not seen an analysis of what it means for Houstonians down the road," Coleman said, suggesting that giving away annexation rights has hurt other major cities.

[...]

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who said before the legislative session began that he was reluctant to tie the hands of future leaders, said Wednesday that meetings with stakeholders have allayed those concerns.

"I have a better understanding of the checks and balances that need to be met," Whitmire said. "It's probably inevitable."

Whitmire was a critic of the original deal, so if he's on board I'd say the odds of final passage are good. There's a companion bill in the House, Rep. Rob Eissler's HB2197, which is scheduled for a public hearing on April 4. We'll see what happens then.