The Chron has a long and thorough story on the financial woes of Supreme Court Justice David Medina, who may or may not face arson-related charges from the Harris County DA's office some day. It bolsters the existing yet entirely circumstantial case that Medina and/or his wife may have caused the fire that destroyed their house, but it leaves a big question that so far has not been explored, and raises another question that perhaps should be explored in more depth.
On the first item:
Long before his home burned, Medina had used it as a source of ready cash. Assisted by a mortgage company whose name became synonymous with the excesses of the subprime lending frenzy, he took advantage of a rising market to draw every dollar of available equity from his house, even though the result was increasing monthly payments that may have played a role in a 2006 attempt to foreclose on the property.Over a five-year period, Medina and his wife, Francisca, took out three high-interest, adjustable rate home equity loans amounting to most, if not all, of the entire official appraised value of the property. The loans were made through Ameriquest Mortgage Company, a controversial lender, now defunct, that was the target of lawsuits and attorney general probes alleging unscrupulous or predatory lending practices.
[...]
Medina's final loan translated into a monthly payment of $2,525, which was scheduled to begin adjusting upward in December 2005. He began to fall behind on payments in early 2006. The company that serviced the loan, WM Specialty Mortgage, did not receive a payment after February, according to the foreclosure lawsuit it filed in July of that year.
Medina, who earns $150,000 as a Supreme Court Justice, later blamed the missed payments on a "miscommunication" with his bank. He brought the home out of foreclosure in December 2006.
Twenty-five hundred bucks a month is a pretty hefty house payment, especially for something that was not that extravagantly priced when it was purchased back in 1993. I don't know if Francesca Medina is employed or not, but that mortgage payment by itself represents 20% of Medina's gross salary. I can tell you that that's considerably bigger a share of gross salary than my house payment is of mine, and we're a two-earner household. So the question this raises for me is what in the world did they need all those home equity loans for? Nobody borrows themselves into that kind of hole without some need for the extra cash. What were they doing with all that borrowed money? I have a feeling there's another shoe to drop here.
Item two:
After refinancing for the last time -- and struggling to meet the higher note -- Medina began to look for other sources of money. He sold 110 acres of land in Gonzales County in 2004 and 2006. He reported selling both at a loss.He also began to draw reimbursement from campaign funds for mileage driven between his Houston home and Austin. From 2005 through 2007, he collected almost $57,000. The Texas Ethics Commission has previously ruled that mileage reimbursement from campaign funds for commuting amounts to using that money for personal benefit, a violation of state law.
Yates has said that Medina received bad advice from an accountant indicating he could charge his campaign for commuting costs. He said the judge will repay the money he withdrew.
As Burka has pointed out, Medina's excuse is pure hogwash; John Coby provides further evidence of that. But here's the thing: How often do you have to drive between Austin and Spring over three years to rack up $57K in mileage? Compare Medina's $57K to the considerably smaller amounts spent by Justices Hecht and Green over a period of time at least as long. Does Justice Medina have the receipts to back up his claims that all that money was spent on travel? Again, I think there's more going on here than meets the eye. I just hope ADA Vic Wisner's claim that the Medina case is still under active investigation is true, because I think there are a lot of questions to be answered.
Retiring Craddick D Rep. Robert Puente is going to vacate his seat early.
State Rep. Robert Puente will leave office Friday, he said in a letter submitted this morning to Gov. Rick Perry.Puente, dean of the Bexar County legislative delegation, said he's urging the governor to call a special election to fill his District 119 seat in May.
In October, the San Antonio Democrat announced his decision to retire from the Legislature, saying he wouldn't seek his ninth full term this year. That opened the way for Democrat Roland Gutierrez.
Gutierrez stepped down from the City Council in December to run for Puente's seat. As it turned out, he was the only taker; no one else -- Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or independent -- filed to compete in Texas House District 119.
Puente said his decision to leave office early stemmed from talks with Gutierrez.
"He's the heir apparent, he's going to be the next state representative," Puente said. "The more we talked about it, the more it became apparent that I should resign, let him take over early and hopefully get some seniority built up."
Seems wasteful to hold a special election for a seat that isn't contested in November, but the seniority rationale does make some sense. I doubt Governor Perry cares about giving someone like Roland Gutierrez a leg up, but I suppose you never know.
Could be. In the meantime, before that happens, the guy who actually runs the DA's email servers got himself grilled.
Gary Zallar answered technical questions from U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt for more than hour about the backup capabilities of the e-mail server in the district attorney's office.The hearing, in which plaintiff's attorney Lloyd Kelley has asked Hoyt to hold Chuck Rosenthal in contempt, relates to a federal civil rights case lodged by two brothers against the Harris County Sheriffs Office.
Kelley and Rosenthal's attorney, Ron Lewis, each had 45 minutes to question Zallar, who estimated that about 2,000 e-mails that Rosenthal deleted are unrecoverable.
Kelley's 45 minutes were marked by yelling and furious scribbling on a large pad of paper on an easel in front of Zallar, to do the math on how many e-mails remain unaccounted for.
"Is that a lie, or is there some process in your office that you haven't told us about?" Kelley shouted.
Lewis brought laughs from the gallery when he objected to Kelley, asking the judge to instruct Kelley to stop yelling his questions at Zallar.
Much more quietly, Lewis tried to nail down the differences between sent e-mails and received e-mails, Rosenthal's public e-mail box and his internal e-mail box.
"It's confusing, isn't it?" Lewis asked.
"Yes."
I know what questions I'd have asked Mr. Zallar - questions about backup frequencies, deleted item retention, what the backup policies are for other server drives, where personal folders might be kept, and how long it is before backup tapes got reused, among others. I'd like to see the transcript when it's available, to see what actually got asked and how it was answered.
Although Kelley has subpoenaed Rosenthal's executive assistant Kerry Stevens; Republican district attorney candidate Kelly Siegler; her husband, Dr. Sam Siegler; his chief investigator, John Ray Harrison; his political consultant, Allen Blakemore; and prosecutor Mike Trent, the tenor of Hoyt's order suggests that he only wants to hear from those with direct knowledge about the e-mail deletions. In scheduling the hearing, Hoyt told attorneys not to even file briefs.
Well, that certainly reduces the potential for fun. I'm still looking forward to hearing what Rosenthal has to say for himself. I'm expecting some kind of lame excuse, but I'm prepared to be surprised. It's not like anything else about this saga has been predictable.
Elsewhere, KTRK did a story on the background of the case, which as we know started with a raid by the Sheriff's department that led to the arrest of two bystanders who were taking pictures of it. The wrongful-arrest lawsuit that stemmed from that is what ultimately led to the discovery of the deleted and embarrassing emails.
This is all about Chuck Rosenthal. The thing is Rosenthal didn't know about the raid beforehand six years ago, he certainly wasn't there six years ago, in fact his name doesn't even come up in this lawsuit. So then why is Chuck Rosenthal going to court facing jail time in the morning?"I think something should happen to him," said attorney Lloyd Kelley.
Lloyd Kelley is the Ibarra's lawyer. Kelley wanted Rosenthal to investigate the way sheriff's deputies behaved at the raid.
Kelley claims the DA's didn't conduct a proper investigation so he subpoenaed Rosenthal's emails to see what the DA was saying about the case.
Under court order, Rosenthal turned over hundreds of messages, but deleted 2,500 more. That's why Rosenthal has to face a federal judge.
"He destroyed evidence," Kelley said. "You can't do that in our system."
There wasn't anything in the recent emails about the Ibarras, but there sure was enough in there to cause Rosenthal a lot of trouble and help Lloyd Kelley's friend Clarence Bradford who happens to be running for DA.
Something Lloyd Kelly quickly dismisses.
"You would have to give me power of clairvoyance to know what he had," Kelley said. "I was looking for stuff about my case. What falls out is evidence of illegal activity, racism - sexism, all sorts of horrible stuff."
"I'd hate to see a political hit job ruin a guy's career, but Chuck Rosenthal has a lot to answer for here," said attorney Mark Bennett.
Houston defense lawyer Mark Bennett is the president elect of the Harris County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Bennett believes Kelley had political, as well as legal motives, for exposing Rosenthal's email. In a federal contempt hearing, motive just doesn't matter.
"I don't know if he belongs there, but he's there and when you're in federal court and a federal judge tells you to do something, you do it," he said. "If I had a client who did the same thing, I would remind the client it was an exceptionally stupid thing to do. The question is was it contempt of court and was it a criminal violation?"
We should know by the end of the day what Rosenthal had to say, and perhaps what will happen to him. Stay tuned.
We've missed out the last two times we've tried, but Houston is once again bidding to host a Super Bowl.
The Texans hosted Super Bowl XXXVIII in February 2004. In the next three years, the Super Bowl will be held in Tampa (2009), Miami (2010) and Dallas (2011)."When I received the bid specifications from the NFL, I circulated them to leaders in the community to get their response," Texans owner Robert C. McNair said. "Their response was an overwhelming and totally-committed, 'Yes, we want to bring the 2012 Super Bowl to Houston.' With that, I said I would totally support our community's efforts."
Houston may have trouble winning the bid since Dallas will host the game at its new stadium in 2011. But Houston officials are hopeful they can lure the game to Texas two years in a row.
Houston also bid on the 2009 and 2010 Super Bowls. Tampa won the 2009 bid in May 2005. In October 2005, Miami won after Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga offered up yachts to each NFL owner at the last minute.
"I was feeling pretty good until Wayne Huizenga said everybody was going to get a yacht for a week," McNair said after the voting in 2005. "And he guaranteed they'd all be over 100 feet long.
"I offered quail hunting, but that didn't quite compete."
Good to know the process is so objective, isn't it? We'll see what happens. I personally will be rooting for the delegation to succeed, but it's not that big a deal one way or the other. What do you think?
Note: This entry is part of a series of written Q&As with judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates.
1. Who are you, and what are you running for?
I am Judge Steven Kirkland and I am a candidate for the 215th District Court.
I grew up in West Texas. I moved to Houston to attend Rice University where I graduated in 1982. While at school, I got involved in Houston politics and have been involved ever since. I worked my way through law school as a paralegal at Texaco and attended school at night. In 1990, I earned a position litigating environmental cases for the company. In 1998, I left Texaco and represented residents of East Houston and Harris County in their lawsuit against the ship channel industries to clean up our air. I have also worked with Avenue Community Development Corporation to develop affordable housing. In 2001, Mayor Brown appointed me to serve as Municipal Court Judge, which is what I do now.
You can learn more at www.kirklandforjudge.com.
While I am legally single, my life partner and I just celebrated 21 years together.
2. What kind of cases does this court hear?
The 215th District court is a civil court hearing cases involving personal injury, property damages, contract disputes and other civil complaints.
3. Why are you running for this particular bench?
The Judge on this bench is a republican appointed by W when he was still governor and while I don't have any particular beef with him, I know plenty who do. I do have a problem with a Courthouse dominated by one party that hasn't been challenged for a while. This lack of competition has created an atmosphere where the people get lost in the shuffle and justice falls short. Judges forget that they serve the people and rather than use their powers to make sure cases are heard, they use their powers to shut down the process. The most dramatic example of that is when the Court of Criminal Appeals closed its doors at five o'clock preventing the filing an expected application for stay of execution, but it happens in smaller ways on regular basis in all the courts.
As to why me for this bench, I answered the call of my party. In an effort to manage the chaos that was expected in the wake of the Democratic sweep in Dallas County, the Harris County Democratic Party put together a group of folks to screen candidates and recommend races to them. That group asked me to run in this race.
4. What are your qualifications for this job?
I have six years judicial experience, seventeen years legal experience, both as plaintiff and defendant. I've seen the courtroom from all sides which gives me the unique perspective to be a balanced fair and excellent jurist at the start.
I also have twenty-seven years experience of activism and accomplishments in the community and the party, working on diversity of representation, affordable housing, historic preservation, homelessness and many other issues. This is a solid track record to show where my heart lies and how I will l serve you as a judge.
I have been recognized with the Government Friend of the Homeless Award by the Coalition for the Homeless for my work in creating Houston Homeless Recovery Court. This is a Court where folks who are working their way out of homelessness at a shelter or rehab program come to the Court to convert their outstanding warrants to community service orders. This allows them to continue their progress without being placed in jail to clear up the old warrants. While I will not be able to implement a homeless court as a Civil District Judge, I point out the award as an example of how I think and how I seek to make government and the Courts more accessible and meaningful to everyone.
5. Why is this race important?
Our Democratic Campaign for the Courthouse is critical to Justice in Harris County. The Courthouse has become an echo chamber with partisans trying to out do each other in appealing to the far right base of the Republican Party. It is time to restore balance, and Democrats need to turn out in great numbers to make that happen.
My candidacy itself is important to folks who value diversity as it will be the first opportunity to elect an openly gay man to a county-wide office in Harris County.
6. Why should people vote for you in the Democratic primary?
I have a passion for justice. This passion directs my politics, career and community choices and activities. All my life I have stood up for what is right and spoke out against and tried to change what is wrong.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Armando Walle, candidate for State Representative, District 140.
Carol Alvarado, candidate for State Representative, District 145.
Andres Pereira, candidate for 190th District Court (Civil).
Ron Reynolds, candidate for State Representative, District 27.
Sam Houston, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Jessica Farrar, District 148.
Fred Cook, candidate for 215th District Court (Civil).
Adrian Garcia, candidate for Harris County Sheriff.
Now hear this: Christine has declared today to be an International Comment On Blogs Day. So, if you've always wanted to leave a comment here but never got around to it before, now's your chance. Or if you are a regular or semi-regular commenter here, consider this an excuse to do your thing. Let's call this an open thread, so comment away. Enjoy!
The following press release from State Rep. Ana Hernandez is significant for the candidacy of Carol Alvarado.
Former Houston City Council Member and candidate for State Representative in Texas House District 145, Carol Alvarado has received significant endorsements from progressive leaders of the Texas House of Representatives, including Representatives Ellen Cohen, Garnet Coleman, Jessica Farrar, Ana Hernandez, Borris Miles, Richard Raymond and Hubert Vo. Alvarado's commitment to the Democratic Party and its principles has not gone unnoticed as these Democratic legislators have pledged their support to her candidacy. During her six years as a council member, Alvarado marched for immigrant rights, fought for tougher toxic emission standards and helped pass a city wide smoking ban. She has served her city council district well and is now ready to continue the fight at the Texas House of Representatives.These Democratic State Representatives embody the spirit of the Democratic Party as they each have a proven record of fighting for the rights of their constituents and against the current Republican leadership in the Texas House of Representatives. They look forward to Alvarado joining them in the fight to regain the Texas House majority.
This should not just kill the idea that there's any "squishiness" about Alvarado's bona fides, it should drive a stake through its heart, cut its head off, and burn the carcass. With that crew standing behind her, there's no reason for anyone to hesitate. I support Carol Alvarado (whom I interviewed here), and if you live in HD145, I hope you will as well.
This ought to provide some grist for a lot of mills.
A lawyer for Andy Pettitte's former personal trainer said Tuesday he believes the pitcher will tell Congress he discussed human growth hormone with Roger Clemens between the 2001 and 2002 seasons.The lawyer, Earl Ward, said Pettitte talked about HGH with trainer Brian McNamee following a conversation with Clemens, who has denied he used HGH or steroids. McNamee worked with both Clemens and Pettitte.
"We're hopeful based on Andy's reputation that he will corroborate Brian's statements with regard to Roger," Ward said in a telephone interview.
Pettitte's meeting with a congressional committee investigating drug use in baseball was postponed until Monday. He originally was slated to appear for a deposition or transcribed interview today, but the date was changed Tuesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
[...]
Ward said the discussion he was referring to occurred at Clemens' house.
"Based on what we know, there was a situation where Andy was speaking to Roger in Brian's presence, then Andy came over to Brian and essentially said, 'Why didn't you tell me about this stuff?' He referred to HGH," Ward said. "Brian discouraged him, and then several months later, when he (Pettitte) got injured, he came back and asked Brian about it, and that's when Brian injected him. We believe that based on the fact that Andy came to Brian and asked him about HGH, it was Roger who told Andy about HGH, and that's why he asked Brian about it."
Richard Emery, another lawyer for McNamee, said his client and Pettitte also discussed steroid use by Clemens.
"Pettitte is certainly going to tell the truth, and if he tells the truth, everything will be fine," Emery said.
"There are a number of conversations where Pettitte and Brian talked about Clemens' use. I think there is everything to believe Pettitte is not a liar."
Jay Reisinger, Pettitte's lawyer, would not discuss what Pettitte would say.
"He hasn't testified yet, and I'm not going to comment on what he's going to testify about," Reisinger said.
Lanny Breuer, Clemens' new lawyer, said the seven-time Cy Young Award winner stood by his denials.
"Roger Clemens' remarkable success as a pitcher has everything to do with his extraordinary work ethic and his innate abilities, and nothing to do with HGH or steroids," Breuer said in a statement. "Let me be clear: Roger Clemens never took HGH and he never took steroids."
Andy Pettite's admission that he did take HGH was a huge boost to the Mitchell Report's credibility. Even though discussing HGH with McNamee and Clemens isn't really evidence of anything, testimony from Pettite that such a thing happened will be seen as a blow to Clemens' denials of HGH and steroid use. On the other hand, if Pettite corroborates Clemens in some way - like saying he believes Clemens, for instance - that would be a huge win for the Rocket. Needless to say, I think this is going to be the biggest day-after-the-Super-Bowl story out there.
In related news, you may have heard that Team Clemens has released a report that attempts to debunk claims that his late-career surge is evidence of steroid/HGH use. (*) While statheads are not terribly impressed by this effort, it could certainly fool some of the more gullible members of the sportswriting public. And I think the point that Joe Sheehan made that "Clemens' career path isn't normal, but the career paths of the greatest players ever aren't normal" is one that should carry more weight than it does.
And finally, though it's crappily formatted, Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball is challenging head on the notion that so-called PEDs have had any measurable effect on baseball players' performance and statistics. Be prepared to be frustrated with the layout, but check it out anyway.
As we know, the city of Farmers Branch passed a new ordinance to restrict undocumented immigrants from renting apartments, with the burden of verifying the applicants' status falling on the city. They did that in an effort to bypass the legal morass they had encountered with the first ordinance, which they are currently injuncted from enforcing pending the outcome of a lawsuit. They have now asked the judge to consider that new ordinance to see if it makes muster.
The ordinance, which the City Council adopted last week, would require all prospective tenants in the city to claim U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status when applying for an occupancy license. If a federal database check later showed any non-citizens were here illegally, they would lose their licenses and be subject to fines.The judge, Sam Lindsay, is already considering an ordinance the city's voters approved last May that bars landlords from renting apartments to illegal immigrants. That ordinance has been held up by legal challenges.
The new ordinance is different in that it applies to houses as well as apartments. It also shifts enforcement responsibility from landlords to government.
"We are committed to getting a final resolution of the legal challenges ... in an orderly and timely manner," said Michael Jung, an attorney for the city.
The Chron has a bit more on this. What's fascinating to me is that Farmers Branch can't say for certain that they're approach of checking with the feds themselves is even doable:
While in Dallas on Monday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director Emilio Gonzalez said Farmers Branch first must seek an agreement with his agency to access the database. Then the agency would then consider whether the use is lawful and appropriate.
Obviously, that could render the whole matter moot. I suspect that because of that, Judge Lindsay will not grant Farmers Branch's request. But we'll see.
Just some links and video highlights from Rick Noriega's South Texas tour, which you can also follow here.
- From Valley stations KVEO and KGBT.
- From the Texas Politics blog, which also includes some video with Rick's parents.
- And from Daily Kos, where Rick answered a bunch of questions in the comments.
Oh, and for those of you in San Antonio, there will be a grand opening of the campaign's headquarters there tonight starting at 6 PM. The address is 7121 W. Hwy 90 @ S.W. Military, Suite 214, in the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center.
I wish these guys good luck in their quest.
A delegation from Houston left Tuesday night for Indianapolis with hopes of securing future NCAA men's and women's Final Four basketball championships.Delegations from both Reliant Stadium and Toyota Center will meet with NCAA officials this morning to begin discussions for dates 2012 to 2016.
Reliant Stadium is attempting to lure another men's Final Four date, while the Toyota Center is hoping to lock down a women's Final Four during that four-year period.
Reliant Stadium already is set to host the men's Final Four in 2011 and has a NCAA regional final coming in March.
[...]
Houston joins San Antonio and Dallas and seven other cities in bidding to host both men's and women's Final Fours.
Each city must submit a formal bid by the middle of June, and the host cities will be announced in August.
What, no mention of the economic impact of hosting these events? Where's Jordy Tollett when you really need him?
Seriously, I hope the delegation is successful. If we manage to land a women's Final Four, I want to take Olivia to it. She'd be at an age to really appreciate it by then. Audrey too, if it's closer to 2016.
On a side note, does anyone have any clue how far along Metro rail construction will likely be by March of 2011? Obviously, the Main Street line is in place, but given how the 2004 Super Bowl was essentially its shakedown cruise (and how shaky it was), I'm hoping that the coming extensions are either fully finished and operational by then, or not close enough to done to try to squeeze their completion in before then. As long as we can avoid the first week, we-have-no-idea-what-we're-doing impression that we gave back then, it's fine by me.
Astrodome Redevelopment: Not dead yet.
A group of entrepreneurs missed a Tuesday deadline for reaching a deal to turn the Dome into a convention hotel, but have negotiated a proposed long-term lease for the aging sports venue.Astrodome Redevelopment Co. and the Harris County Sports and Convention Corp. will forward the lease proposal to the county attorney's office for review Monday, County Attorney Mike Stafford said.
The sports corporation can ask the Texans and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo for input on the lease if the county attorney's office finds that it does not violate their rights, Stafford said.
"In reading the draft, we didn't see any problems," he said.
[...]
A letter of intent signed by the sports corporation and the company spelled out that Astrodome Redevelopment had to work out deals with the Texans and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo -- Reliant Park's main tenants -- and secure financing.
The deadline for reaching those milestones expired Tuesday -- in part because county officials had told Astrodome Redevelopment they needed more time to review financial and legal aspects of the deal.
[...]
Sports corporation vice chairman Charles "Sonny" Sowell said the group's proposal is not dead. "We hope they tailor it in such a fashion that (Reliant Park's) two main tenants will approve it," he said.
Leroy Shafer, the rodeo's chief operating officer, said the rodeo has been waiting for months for Astrodome Redevelopment to revise its proposal to make it more workable for the rodeo.
A consultant's report on the viability of Astrodome Redevelopment's proposal will be given to Commissioners Court Feb. 19, a county official said.
We'll have to see what Bob McNair thinks about this, too. I'm looking forward to that consultant's report. Stay tuned.
It's easy to try to make the jump from guest blogger to at least semi-regular blogger when a candidate I feel so strongly about makes a big move. I'm a little bit heartbroken, and I can't help but wonder what happened to all the "in it through the convention and into the White House" talk. One thing's for sure though, Edwards is playing this classy.
Last year, the President didn't mention Katrina or rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the SOTU, and a lot of news outlets made a big deal out of it. This year, the same thing happened and no one said a word. The most important thing John Edwards has done is (at least try) to keep disenfranchised people on the political radar, and it's infinitely appropriate that his campaign began and is now ending in New Orleans (AP):
Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago -- with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.
I respect Edwards to the nth degree, and really, I'm glad that he's going to spend his time walking the walk again after talking the talk for so long. He was good for progressive Democrats because he shifted the dialogue in this campaign to the left. Even when it became obvious that he was more than a longshot for the nomination, I thought his candidacy was important because it did that. I think he can still have an influence on politics and policy from where he's going now, even if he never holds a position in government again. It's doubtful that someone as passionate as Edwards will fade into private life now that his campaign is over.
I'm not sure if any other Edwards supporters feel a little bit betrayed - he was the only candidate I was really excited about, and he said over and over again that he wasn't dropping out yet. I'm sure his wife's health was a factor in the decision, but I also think he was probably itching to get back on the ground and wasn't all that interested in playing kingmaker. Ezra Klein did a good profile on Edwards almost a year ago that highlights a lot of the reasons I supported him as well as why the time is right for progressive candidates. Hopefully that will still hold true for other 2008 races.
Note: This entry is part of a series of recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing written Q&As with judicial candidates.
I've been proud to be a constituent of Adrian Garcia since he was first elected to City Council in District H back in 2003. He's been a dedicated and conscientious Council member, who has done a lot for the district, and it's always been clear he has a bright future. I'm excited about his decision to run for Harris County Sheriff, not just because it's so obvious that we need a change of direction in that office, but also because he's just as obviously the right person to implement those changes. He has my support in the primary and beyond, and I hope he'll have yours as well.
The interview is here, as always in MP3 format. I'm starting to get close to the end of this series, which I hope has been useful to you, though I've still got a few more interviews and Q&As lined up. I should have most of it done by the start of early voting on February 19.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Armando Walle, candidate for State Representative, District 140.
Carol Alvarado, candidate for State Representative, District 145.
Andres Pereira, candidate for 190th District Court (Civil).
Ron Reynolds, candidate for State Representative, District 27.
Sam Houston, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Jessica Farrar, District 148.
Fred Cook, candidate for 215th District Court (Civil).
I see that Cory disagrees with my assertion that SD17 is "somewhat purple", based on the spreadsheet I had linked to earlier. Fair enough. Here's a more detailed look, which as you can see is still a bit of a work in progress. I'll summarize the relevant data here:
GOP candidate Votes Pct
============================
Abbott 87,643 61.51
Hutchison 88,162 61.46
Dewhurst 85,510 60.54
Combs 85,388 60.42
Patterson 81,029 58.31
Staples 78,889 56.77
Ames Jones 78,321 56.61
Keller 79,830 56.43
Perry 58,089 55.43
Willett 74,538 53.95
Dem candidate Votes Pct
============================
Moody 63,630 46.05
Bell 46,669 44.57
Molina 61,641 43.57
Henry 60,041 43.39
Gilbert 60,077 43.23
Hathcox 57,932 41.69
Head 55,943 39.58
Alvarado 55,739 39.46
Radnofsky 55,305 38.54
Van Os 54,836 38.49
I threw in a Perry-versus-Bell comparison as well just for the heck of it. As you can see, across the board Dem performance was a point or so better in the district than statewide. To my mind, anyplace that Bill Moody can draw 46% of the vote is at least somewhat purple, so I'll stand by my assessment. As I said before, it'll take a chunk of money for any Dem to have a chance. But I do believe that chance exists, if the candidate and the funding exist. We'll see how that goes. And as The Professors note, the Republicans may have to deal with a little internecine squabbling to keep their hold on this one. So who knows what might happen?
Finally, here's a little update on who may or may not run from the Chron:
Former Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Polland, state Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, and state Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, have said they will consider a Senate race.Sportscaster and former Houston Oilers football player Spencer Tillman of Sugar Land, who also had been weighing a race, is out of the running because he doesn't live in the district.
Janek said he had talked with Tillman about running but failed to double check his residence.
"I'm not trying to engineer it (the election date)," he said.
The district has a Republican edge, but Hochberg said it has been "trending less Republican, more Democratic" in recent years.
In a special election, Republicans and Democrats run on the same ballot. If the special election were held on Nov. 4, however, House nominees would have to choose between running for re-election or for the Senate.
Hochberg is unopposed in the Democratic primary and will face a Libertarian opponent in November. Howard has two opponents in the GOP primary.
As we know from the Vilma Luna situation, should either Hochberg or Howard (assuming he wins his primary) resign to run for Senate, both Rs and Ds would get to nominate candidates to run to replace them. That would benefit Rs more than Ds, as Hochberg's district is much purpler than Howard's.
UPDATE: WWLBJD thinks the Rs are favored here, but likes the Dems' chances more against Howard or Polland.
While I'm always glad to hear about a sports league reaching a collective bargaining agreement with its players, I'm scratching my head a bit at this:
The WNBA and the Women's National Basketball Players Association announced Monday that they have entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering six seasons, starting in 2008 and going through the 2013 season.The 2007 season was the league's most successful. The WNBA set attendance records for the playoffs (216,863 fans at 21 games) and the finals (74,178 at five games). Regular-season attendance grew by 2 percent in 2007. The 2007 campaign also was highlighted by a new eight-year television agreement with ESPN, which extends the league's relationship with the network to 20 seasons.
I'm glad to hear that the WNBA is doing well, and is looking that far ahead. I enjoy going to Comets games, and I can't wait till Olivia and Audrey are old enough to really get into the action. Olivia already seems to be a bit more interested in sports if girls are playing; she actually sat and watched a little of the NCAA softball tournament with me this past spring.
My concern is that from where I sit, the Comets don't seem to be doing as well. Their fan base is dedicated, it's just not very big, and their move to Reliant Arena just reinforces that perception to me. I feel reasonably confident that new owner Hilton Koch will take steps to broaden the fan base, but until I see more fannies in the seats, I will remain concerned. I want my daughters to enjoy the women's basketball experience. I hope they will be able to do so.
Oh my God, I can't tell you how much I've been looking forward to tomorrow night's "Lost" premier, which according to the Tubular blog totally kicks butt. Before then, we get an "enhanced" rerun of the Season Three finale, and a for-those-who-just-tuned-in clip show to catch us all up on where we are in the story line. I'm ready, the TiVo is ready, my favorite "Lost"-related blog is ready...Bring it on!
State Sen. Kyle Janek has made official his departure from the Senate.
Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, announced today that he was resigning his Senate seat, effective June 2, to spend more time with his family.The resignation date, he acknowledged, is different from the March 10 timetable he gave Senate colleagues in a conference phone call on Monday.
He said he prolonged his departure to give more potential candidates time to consider a race to succeed him and to give voters in District 17 more time to consider their options.
A March 10 resignation would have allowed Gov. Rick Perry to schedule a special election on May 10 to fill out the remainder of Janek's term, which expires in January 2011.
A June 2 resignation means the governor could either set the special election on the same day as the November general election, which is the next uniform election date, or declare an emergency and set a special election sometime after June 2.
In other cases like this, Governor Perry has consistently picked election dates that best served whatever political purpose needed serving, so who knows what he'll do. If he thinks the GOP has better odds of retaining the seat with a standalone election, he'll declare an emergency. If not, he'll let it do till November.
Former Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Polland, state Rep.Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, and state Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, have said they will consider a Senate race.
Hochberg would be an exciting candidate, partly because it'd be great to see him become more influential, and partly because his need to step down to run for the Senate would mean that his fairly swingy seat would go from being uncontested this year to hotly contested as an open seat pickup opportunity for the GOP. The part of me that envisions Senator Hochberg wants him to run. The part of me that imagines him losing, and his House seat falling to the GOP wants him to stay put. I'm also curious to know what other possible Dems there may be for this seat.
Janek said sportscaster and former Houston Oilers football player Spencer Tillman of Sugar Land, who he had been considering a race, is out of the running because he doesn't live in the district.
So much for Burka's teaser, though honestly it's unclear to me why this would be a big deal, given how loosely the residency requirement is interpreted for most other members. Maybe he doesn't have a relative who lives in the district whose house he could claim as his own.
(On a side note, I guess this means Tillman is a Republican. Alas.)
So. Who do you want to see run - or not run - to fill this seat?
The Statesman has an overview of the two Democrats running for CD10.
They may share the same goal and many of the same policy positions, but there are some pretty clear differences between the two Democrats who want to take on U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, in the November election.Lawyer Larry Joe Doherty speaks with a folksy frankness that helped propel him to a starring role in a television courtroom series. "I've never had as much fun with all my clothes on," Doherty, 61, said about his TV gig, "Texas Justice," which ran locally on Fox.
Such a line is unlikely to come from Dan Grant, a somewhat cerebral 33-year-old who attended the London School of Economics and has spent much of his adult life working on elections and other development projects in war-torn countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Serious times call for serious candidates," Grant said.
The prize in their March 4 primary fight is the chance to challenge McCaul, 46, in a district that stretches east from Travis County along U.S. 290 to the western end of Houston. The district includes parts of West and North Austin, as well as Pflugerville and Manor. In 2006, as Democrats were capturing enough seats across the country to take control of Congress, McCaul comfortably won re-election over Ted Ankrum, a Democrat who raised virtually no money.
"Comfortably" is a relative term. As I've shown before, McCaul did not do particularly well relative to other Republicans in CD10, especially in Travis County. It's a guarantee that this year's candidate, running in a more favorable environment and with Presidential turnout a factor, will have more resources to compete than Ted Ankrum had. I wouldn't be all that comfortable if I were Mike McCaul.
Doherty built a Houston law practice focused largely on legal malpractice cases -- representing clients who thought they got raw deals from other lawyers. Around 2000, when Doherty had just moved to Washington County near the center of what would later become McCaul's district, a friend told him that producers were looking for a judge or lawyer to star in a new reality series.He beat about two dozen others to win the part, and the show eventually aired nationally. Producers plucked cases from court dockets all over the country, and Doherty presided over court proceedings that functioned, in effect, as arbitration hearings. The role even landed him a cameo on Anna Nicole Smith's reality show.
"With the last ounce of good sense that some of these people had, they went to small claims court rather than try to take the law into their own hands and get revenge," Doherty said. "And we ought to encourage that. We ought to make more civil courtrooms available for that."
Grant, who attended McCallum High School, moved back to Austin last year from Iraq. There, and earlier in Afghanistan, he worked for nonprofit groups that the U.S. State Department hired to help with development efforts. Those included working on the constitutional convention in Afghanistan and helping conduct the 2005 elections in Iraq.
In Iraq, he was helping a country in the aftermath of a war that he had misgivings about.
"I went there to help organize the elections, and the elections themselves were a technical success," Grant said. "But there was not interest on the part of the Bush administration to actually exercise any follow-through."
I'll be posting an interview with Dan Grant next week. I'm waiting to hear back from Larry Joe Doherty's campaign manager about an interview with him. We'll see how it goes.
In this video, Chron football writer John McClain asks Texans owner Bob McNair what he thinks about the Astrodome Redevelopment project. Forward to about 2:50 in the clip to hear the Q&A:
If you don't feel like watching, McNair basically says that anyplace that can support only being open six days a week during football season is okay by him; anything else, he won't support. It's clear he doesn't think a hotel/convention center meets this criterion. File it away for future reference, for whenever the next plan gets put forward. Thanks to Stephanie Stradley for the pointer. Swamplot has more.
A federal judge ordered 10 Cameron County property owners to open their land to the government for border fence surveying, but not before he denied the government the right to take the land without a hearing.U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville ordered 10 of the 12 landowners to comply with the government's request for access to their land for 180 days. The other two were near settlements with the government.
But Hanen's order revealed he had denied a request from the federal government for a swift and private order like the one it received in a similar case in Eagle Pass. In filing its suit, the Justice Department asked Hanen to rule immediately without participation from the landowners, a legal maneuver that is allowed in eminent domain cases.
Hanen denied that request and ordered the government to inform all property owners of the hearing, held last Friday.
"This court will make itself available if needed for the resolution of any disputes, but it expects all parties to act cooperatively and with due concern for the rights and needs of the other parties in the implementation of this order," Hanen wrote in the order dated Friday and released Monday.
By contrast, U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum received the government's lawsuit against the city of Eagle Pass and issued an order before the city could respond.
Hanen, like Ludlum a Bush appointee, questioned the government's efforts at contacting landowners and heard from some property owners and their attorneys at Friday's hearing.
[...]
Hanen also ordered government contractors to work with landowners to make the intrusion as minimal as possible.
Hanen denied the government's request to access properties adjacent to those included in the order.
Well, at least this judge is giving the landowners a chance to speak first. We'll see what happens when the disputes move on to the next phase. Stay tuned.
Note: This entry is part of a series of written Q&As with judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates.
1. Who are you, and what are you running for?
My name is Fred Cook and I am running for Judge in the 215th Civil District Court of Harris County, Texas.
2. What kind of cases does this court hear?
This Court hears exclusively civil cases and is the highest trial bench in the Texas judiciary. My 25 years of practice have been exclusively in civil litigation.
3. Why are you running for this particular bench?
I screened with the committee of Democrats who were recruiting potential candidates for the judicial races and they asked me to run in this particular race.
4. What are your qualifications for this job?
a. I am the only candidate in this race with over 25 years of civil litigation experience in Harris County and throughout the State of Texas.
b. I am the only candidate in this race who is admitted to practice in a federal district court and I am admitted and have practiced in all four federal districts in Texas, as well as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
c. I am the only candidate that has received a rating from Martindale Hubbell. This system is peer review by other rated lawyers and my rating is the highest rating an attorney can receive from his peers for both legal skill and ethics. I have held this rating for over 10 years.
d. I have served as a director of the litigation section of the Houston Bar Association.
e. I have spoken at various seminars on issues ranging from insurance defense to testifying in depositions and at trial.
5. Why is this race important?
This race provides Democrats with an opportunity to elect a qualified and successful Democratic lawyer who has excellent credentials and experience that will be fair and impartial in dealing with any litigant who comes before the 215th Civil Judicial District Court.
6. Why should people vote for you in the Democratic primary?
I believe that judges should be elected based upon their experience and ethics. My best recommendation in this regard comes from my experience and also, and possibly more importantly, from other lawyers. Through Martindale Hubbell, other lawyers have anonymously rated my skill and ethics with the highest rating which exists, AV. That means other lawyers have rated my legal skill as superior to preeminent and my ethics rating is the highest allowed. I have held this rating since 1997. The fact that I am the only candidate in the race to be admitted to practice in federal court (and I am licensed and have practiced in all four Texas districts and the Fifth Circuit) demonstrates a further depth and breadth of judicial experience that separates me from both of my other opponents. All my work experience in the last quarter century has been in civil law, which is exactly what this court does. Finally, and most importantly, I pledge to bring that skill and experience and that ethical standard to insure that all litigants before the 215th Civil Judicial District are treated fairly and impartially and with the respect that every person deserves. This job is a public trust and I believe my qualifications and background demonstrate that I will carry out that trust better than any other candidate in this race.
I am a lifelong Democrat who has worked in campaigns beginning in 1972, when my mother had to drive me to the McGovern headquarters. I have served as a Democratic Precinct Chair and election judge in my home precinct in Bellaire and, in 2006, Ellen Cohen carried my Bellaire precinct in her Democratic bid for state representative. Since coming to Houston to begin my practice in 1982, I have attended two state conventions and numerous senate district conventions and precinct caucuses. I have the experience, skill and temperament to insure that every litigant who comes before the 215th is treated fairly, impartially and with respect.
I have also been involved in public service throughout my career. I have served as:
a. an initial member of the Bellaire Chapter of the Caring for Children organization (prior to the CHIP) program;
b. a director of the Texas Conference of Churches, a statewide organization that promotes communication and coordinated mission of the various denominations in Texas;
c. a commissioner to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, PC(USA)
d. an officer, volunteer and Sunday School Teacher at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Bellaire Presbyterian Church and ChristChurch Presbyterian.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Armando Walle, candidate for State Representative, District 140.
Carol Alvarado, candidate for State Representative, District 145.
Andres Pereira, candidate for 190th District Court (Civil).
Ron Reynolds, candidate for State Representative, District 27.
Sam Houston, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Jessica Farrar, District 148.
Once again, our State Supreme Court is in the news, and once again, it's not for anything good.
At a time when the Texas Supreme Court's case backlog has reached record levels, Justice Paul Green was spending Friday driving to Corpus Christi to speak to a group of appeals lawyers."It's 40 (degrees) and raining and I'm driving four hours to Corpus Christi," Green said from his cell phone. "Yes, I've got stuff to do at the office, but some of us like to do this."
Green, who wrote the fewest opinions -- four -- of the high court's nine justices during the 2007 fiscal year, said he thinks it's important to get out of the office and talk about the court's work.
"If all of a sudden I said I'll just stay in my chambers and work on opinions, I don't think people would like that," Green said, adding that he has a "bunch of cases" that are ready to be issued.
Jim Jordan, a Democrat who is challenging Republican Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, has a different opinion.
He said Green needs to take care of the court's business before he travels to "schmooze" with lawyers. When parties in a legal dispute get to the Supreme Court, they already have been through an expensive and time-consuming trial and appeals process, said Jordan, a Dallas County trial judge.
"Texans don't need to be told they need to take a number and get in line and wait," Jordan said. "These kinds of delays create a distrust in the legal system."
At the end of 2007, the court left more cases pending than ever before. The court had heard arguments but not issued rulings in 111 cases, including 36 that were more than a year old and 13 others more than 2 years old.
Jefferson said he's concerned about the backlog but denied it's because the justices aren't working hard. He said the court disposed of a record number of cases last year, but also accepted more cases for review, a trend since 2005.
[...]
Although lawyers who appeal cases to the high court may be reluctant to criticize its slowness for fear of hurting their clients, the legal community has taken notice.
Mary Alice Robbins, an Austin-based reporter for the weekly newspaper Texas Lawyer, wrote in December that the Supreme Court members should get the "Justices Delayed Award" for taking almost four years to issue an unsigned opinion compelling arbitration for two couples who accused their homebuilder of failing to install shower pans.
This story now also appears in the Chron, though with Judge Jordan's comments edited out. Make of that what you will. Meanwhile, Paul Burka looks at all of the ethics complaints that have been filed against sitting Justices, and gets a little frustrated:
I don't think that the offenses here qualify as egregious. Indeed, the Legislature may want to take a look at whether to allow reimbursement of appellate judges who wish to live in a place other the city where the court on which they sit is located, provided that the reimbursement comes from public funds rather than campaign funds. (If a commuting trip also involves a political appearance, the reimbursement should come from campaign funds.)The larger concern is that the judges did not make sufficient effort to investigate the legality of their conversion of sizable sums of money from their contributors. They used campaign funds to subsidize their lifestyle. Judges should be held to the highest standard of ethics. Let me rephrase that. Judges should hold themselves to the highest standard of ethics. But the judges on the Texas Supreme Court do not have to worry about how they are perceived, because there is no accountability. The judges are bulletproof. All of them are Republicans. While Democrats have had some electoral success in courthouse and legislative races, they haven't won a statewide election since 1994. Republican judges have little to fear at election time because they are protected by TLR and the big firms with the big clients who always win -- BP being the most recent example. The Court is consistently criticized for being result-oriented at legal conferences, but there is no incentive for judges to change their behavior, either in their decisions or in their ethics, and there won't be until somebody loses a race.
Maybe if we see enough of this kind of coverage, we can achieve that result this year. I sure hope so.
Seems to me the last couple of years there haven't been any real "OMG did you see that?" kind of ad during the Super Bowl. Maybe this year will be different.
For most of us, Super Bowl ads make fine entertainment. But for the advertisers who make and buy them, Sunday is white-knuckle time.The blogging boom has created crowds of armchair critics; the price for a 30-second spot is up again, to $2.7 million; and a writers strike has wiped out many other opportunities to reach mass audiences by putting scripted dramas such as Desperate Housewives on hold.
Even against odds like these, many major marketing powers and even a few first-timers couldn't resist the opportunity of reaching more than 90 million people in a single shot -- something that's increasingly hard to do in any medium.
Advertisers still love the Internet for its ability to deliver measured results from click-throughs and carve audiences into tiny segments. But only the largest of television's "events" -- the Super Bowl, Olympics, Oscars and the Grammys -- have the muscle to pull in tens of millions of people in real time.
"There are so few media vehicles out there that reach that size audience that there's still a big value in not only reaching so many people but in such an engaging manner," said Andy Donchin, director of national broadcast at Carat, a major buyer and planner of advertising.
Add the extra buzz created by the possibility of the New England Patriots making history with an undefeated season, and advertisers have a lot on the line. The placement is great if they have a winning ad, not so great if the ad tanks. Last year's viewership of 93.2 million was close to the all-time record of 94.1 million set in 1996, and many believe that record could be surpassed this year.
The results from online advertising often confirm the value of hitting big audiences with TV, Donchin said, because advertisers can measure the upswing in traffic to Web sites after an ad is broadcast.
There are a lot of factors in place to tempt the ad mavens into taking some chances. We'll see if they go for it. Oh, and for better or worse, there won't be any political ads, even with Super Tuesday following two days later. I actually think that's a bit of a shame, but there it is.
It's Super Bowl week! As you stock up on chips and beer in anticipation of the big game, here's a full supply of Texas Progressive Alliance blog posts from the past week. Click on for the highlights.
Off the Kuff looks at the woes of the Harris County GOP and what it may mean in November.
North Texas will have one less class II commercial injection well pumping toxic soup underground. Reported by TXsharon on Bluedaze.
TXDOT has dug itself into quite a hole by using your money to lobby for the TTC and to pay for an advertising campaign to sell the wildly unpopular TTC to the citizens of Texas. McBlogger at McBlogger has the details and a great video.
Hal at Half Empty got his TI-83 out and ran the numbers on the Presidential Primaries. Conclusion? Texas has a chance to crown a king (or queen).
WhosPlayin? looks at the case of a teen brought up on charges for "huffing" hand sanitizer and is frustrated at the lack of discretion caused by "zero-tolerance" policies.
The action plan for Monday's FISA-with-telecom-immunity legislation is contained in PDid's post at Brains and Eggs. Don't strain your dialing finger, and don't forget to call Senators Corndog and Hutch. It's a waste of time, yes, but they still need to hear from us.
nytexan at BlueBloggin explains who Voters, Pledged Delegates and Super Delegates are and how they influence the democratic party nomination at the convention.
North Texas Liberal reveals which celebrity is destroying the planet... and no, it's not Britney Spears.
Could we be looking at beginnings of the first upward trend in labor membership since 1983? The Texas Blue thinks we just might be.
Retired political consultant George Strong offers his view of late former Mayor Louie Welch.
It was the fall of 1985 and I was working as a political consultant for the Louie Welch for Mayor campaign against my old dear friend Kathy Whitmire. Whitmire had decided that I was bad news for some reason (I guess I said something that she did not like to the Houston Post) and later when I tried to get on the City's lobbying team I was told, by an assistant, that no way in hell would the Mayor ever hire me for anything. So, the Welch folks approached me to help them in their campaign. And I was ready for a little revenge. By 1985 I had elected a few folks to City Council and had 12 years of experience in city politics so I joined Bob Heller, Jim Edmonds, George Shipley and a few other experienced folks to see if we could elect Louie.Welch had not been involved in a political campaign for about 15 years and things had changed. There were TV cameras that used tape and not film for the news casts. Louie had been used to TV stations having to quit "filming" early in the afternoon so they could go back and develop their film. Not any more, they could edit tape in a very short time, day or night. He was not in tune with the new ways of using TV for political purposes.
And the AIDS epidemic was in full swing in 1985, and many voters were asking Louie what should be done. Some of his more conservative right wing friends wanted quarantines and blood tests for many occupations. If you had HIV you would not be employed. Louie was not in favor of such methods and so he developed a more moderate 4 point plan which he was prepared to announce at the TV station.
And he was ready to do a live broadcast with Heller at the studio and that is when he said the solution to the AIDS crisis was to "Shoot the queers" when he was just joking around with the crew and did not know that the camera was live and that the station was taping the broadcast. I have always blamed his conservative buddies for the "queer" jokes they told him for him saying those remarks even in jest.
Louie didn't think that his comments would do any real harm to his campaign. I did and I told him and his team that not only would the Gay community take offense but that women voters would also not like him saying that anyone should be shot. And after all we were running a campaign against a woman Mayor. Well Louie did apologize for his remarks and we took a poll which showed we lost some voters and momentum and the rest is history, Kathy went on to win not only the 1985 race but also two more elections.
As I said before, it's the attitude that led him to oppose gay rights in the earlier referendum that to me is the serious sin, not so much the joke. I appreciate that Welch did good things, and that there was a lot more to him than this, but it's still not something I can't lightly dismiss. Be that as it may, at least now I feel like I have a better picture of the man myself.
Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, who moved his family to Austin several months ago, will announce Tuesday that he is resigning from the Senate in mid-term on March 10.There has been speculation for several months that Janek, an anesthesiologist, wouldn't complete his current four-year term, and it increased when he enrolled his young sons in an Austin school last fall.
Janek wouldn't confirm his plans, other than to say will have a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday.
I had a conference call with some of my Senate colleagues about 45 minutes ago,'' he said. "I discussed my future with them, and I'm going to lay it all bare tomorrow at a press conference.''
Other sources, however, confirmed his pending resignation.
Janek, who sold his house in Houston, has been living in a rental house in Galveston, within his district, and commuting to a new home he and his family purchased in Austin last year.
Fort Bend Now and The Professors, who speculate about possible Republican successors (may I just say "UGH!" to the idea of Sen. Dennis Bonnen?), have more. I presume, though I haven't consulted the election code yet, that there would need to be a special election this year to replace him; it'll be interesting to see if Gov. Perry tries to shoehorn it into May, or waits till November. Janek's district is somewhat purple (Excel spreadsheet), though for it to be competitive for a Democrat, he or she would need to start out with a chunk of money and be able to raise a lot more fast. We'll see what happens.
UPDATE: Greg has more, and Burka has an interesting tease.
I have written before that having a Republican voting past should not be a disqualifier for anyone who wants to run in a Democratic primary. As I said then, and will say again now, Democrats aren't going to get anywhere in this state without getting some Republicans to change their preference, and it will behoove us to be welcoming to those who do. That said, it's certainly a valid issue to explore in a primary, and it's on the candidate him or herself to convince voters that their change is real and lasting. Anyone can talk the talk - you have to show that you're walking the walk as well.
There's an interesting debate going on at BOR regarding the voting history of a judicial candidate, Karyl Krug. Without drawing any conclusions about the relative merits of her candidacy versus that of her incumbent opponent, Judge Jim Coronado, I think Krug provides an instructive case, and that she acquits herself pretty well in the comments. I suspect we're going to see more examples of people with a GOP primary vote or two in their history, especially during the darker times when a lot of Republicans were running unopposed for judicial seats, and we're going to have to come to terms with that. There have been rumors for some time here in Harris County about judicial wannabees with Republican votes wanting to run as Democrats, as well as a couple of potential party-switchers. If 2008 is as successful as we hope it is, I predict we'll see some of this here in 2010.
Now, if we're talking about a legislative race, the burden of proof is higher, what with Tom Craddick being dependent on Democratic support to maintain his iron grip on the Speakership. Given Craddick's ability and willingness to get involved in Democratic legislative primaries, any evidence of connections to the GOP is cause for concern, especially when the primary involves an anti-Craddick incumbent. And when that evidence is this clear and obvious, well, there's nothing more to be said. Some stains can't be washed out.
Here's the longer obituary for former Houston Mayor Louie Welch, who passed away yesterday at the age of 89. I'm going to highlight the bits that deal with his his infamous remarks of 1985.
"He was one of Houston's finest mayors," said former mayor Bob Lanier. "He was a good and decent man who loved public service and fought to make people's lives better."Welch, who served four terms on Houston City Council and won the mayor's office on his fourth try, was an effective, aggressive politician whose salty comments occasionally landed him in political trouble.
And while younger generations will remember Welch for the "shoot the queers" joke he made while describing his plan for fighting AIDS that submarined his 1985 mayoral bid, Welch made his most lasting mark on city government decades earlier.
It was on his watch that lakes Conroe and Livingston were completed to provide water for Houston. Welch also boasted of closing 40 inefficient sewage treatment plants; beginning the cleanup of the Houston Ship Channel; bayou beautification; and the development of the downtown Civic Center.
[...]
After running unsuccessfully for mayor in 1952 and 1954, Welch was elected mayor for the first time in 1963, ousting the entrenched incumbent, Lewis Cutrer.
In challenging Cutrer, Welch's role was as an outsider jousting with the establishment. As such, he drew support from labor, the poor and minorities. In later years, much of that support evaporated, especially that of blacks.
In 1973 he did not run again, joining what was then the Houston Chamber of Commerce. In his political swan song in 1985, Welch tried to wrest the mayor's job from Kathy Whitmire. In so doing he alienated another group of outsiders, the city's gays, who turned out in force against Welch.
During the campaign, Welch, who often referred to the career of politics as a "shooting gallery," made the notorious remark about homosexuals that was accidentally broadcast during a TV newscast and contributed to his loss to Whitmire.
The newscast included a report about Welch's four-point program to prevent the spread of AIDS. He offered the joke without realizing his microphone was still on.
The gaffe triggered numerous newspaper articles and denunciations from various political figures and organizations. Some gays struck back with humor, donning T-shirts that sported the slogan: "Don't shoot, Louie!" Welch apologized for the remark, but the damage was done. He lost to Whitmire.
[...]
Perhaps Welch's most vexing problem as mayor stemmed from the police chief who served under him: Herman Short, a tough, no-nonsense, outspoken chief who became a lightning rod for discontent among the city's blacks.
These feelings erupted in May 1967 in two days of battles between Houston police and students at predominantly black Texas Southern University. One police officer was killed and about 500 TSU students were arrested. These events created a rift between the administration and many of the city's blacks.
More than 20 years later, during his race against Mayor Whitmire, Welch acknowledged that the imputation of racism to him in the wake of the TSU episode still rankled.
"It hurt," Welch said. "It still hurts to be accused of racism. It's just a bum rap."
Despite his problems with the black community, Welch boasted of improving race relations in the city. A fluent speaker of Spanish, Welch was deeply interested in Mexican culture. He resented reports that his support among Mexican-Americans had slipped.
As for gay opposition to Welch, it didn't originate with his "shoot the queers" remark. In early 1985, Welch was a leader in the opposition to a discrimination referendum that sought to extend job protection rights to homosexuals employed by the city government.
More than 80 percent of those voting in that referendum voted against the proposal, a major defeat for Whitmire, who had endorsed the idea.
It's a more nuanced picture, and the print edition of the Chron includes some fond words for Welch from longtime gay activist Ray Hill, so perhaps bygones should be bygones. I can't say I see any evidence in this story that Welch changed his mind about gay rights, however, and to me that's the more serious sin than any didn't-know-the-mike-was-live joke. As I said before, I'm just glad we've at least moved past that type of campaign. Rest in peace, Louie Welch.
Note: This entry is part of a series of recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing written Q&As with judicial candidates.
I think I've already made it clear that I fully support State Rep. Jessica Farrar in her bid for re-election. I won't repeat myself here, so please go read that earlier post if you need a refresher.
I've been heartened by the number of campaign signs for Farrar I've seen in people's yards (including my own, natch), and by the fact that her opponent hasn't exactly been enjoying broad-based financial backing. But I think the bottom line is that Rep. Farrar is clearly one of the good guys, and I think most people recognize that you don't move the ball forward by taking out the good guys. If you live in HD148, I hope you'll agree with me on that, and support State Rep. Jessica Farrar as well.
The interview is here. As always, feedback is welcome.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Armando Walle, candidate for State Representative, District 140.
Carol Alvarado, candidate for State Representative, District 145.
Andres Pereira, candidate for the 190th District Court (Civil).
Ron Reynolds, candidate for State Representative, District 27.
Sam Houston, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
Eye on Williamson has a good roundup of media coverage from Friday's voter ID hearings in Austin, to which I'd add this Karen Brooks post and these three Observer posts. I have two comments to add:
- The partisan nature of this really couldn't be clearer. I mean, the star witness called by Elections Committee chair Rep. Leo Berman (R, Tyler) was Texas GOP chair Tina Benkiser. This isn't about protecting the "integrity" of the vote, it's about making it harder for certain people, whom Tina Benkiser knows full well tend to vote Democratic, to cast a ballot. We know this because of the continued lack of evidence that fraud-by-impersonation is any kind of problem at all, by the studied indifference by the GOP leadership to what kind of problems may exist with absentee and vote-by-mail (both of which skew Republican, which means they're A-OK as far as Benkiser is concerned), and by the equally stark lack of interest in ensuring the integrity of our electronic voting systems. The continued focus on this one specific aspect of elections, and the obvious ways in which it would benefit Republicans at the expense of Democrats, tells the story.
- Interestingly, State Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R, Houston) let the curtain slip a bit in this comment:
"If five or 10 people cast votes fraudulently, that means something to me because every vote is sacred," Bohac said.
Compare that to this:
Texas has between 150,000 to 400,000 registered voters who have no form of government-issued photo identification, said Toby Moore, former project manager for the Commission on Federal Election Reform.
Bohac, who sounds to me to be conceding the point that fraud-by-impersonation is anything but common, is saying that he's prepared to disenfranchise up to 400,000 people in Texas in order to ensure that five cases of fraud-by-impersonation don't occur. The point about this being an extreme overreaction to a nonexistent problem could not be made more clearly than that.
The best way to make this issue go away is to get a Democratic majority in the House. If you're as tired of this crap as I am, your mission is clear. And if you need a little more inspiration, check out this Google video of State Sen. Mario Gallegos, the hero of the voter ID fight from last year, courtesy of the Lone Star Project.
Here's a nice little interview that Eileen Smith, in her civilian guise with Texas Monthly, did with Scott Henson.
What do you see as the most pressing criminal justice needs facing Texas today?The criminal justice system, including every single subsystem, is completely overloaded, with nearly one in twenty adult Texans either in prison, on probation, or on parole. State prisons and county jails are overcrowded and can't find enough guards at current pay rates. The Legislature has created over 2,000 separate felonies for which it's possible to receive a prison term (eleven of them involving oysters). Sentences are longer than ever, and the state can't pay healthcare costs for the aging inmate population. The probation and parole systems have high caseloads that make it difficult to supervise offenders. Counties can't afford to pay lawyers for indigent defendants. Crime labs don't pass muster. The list goes on and on.
We've criminalized so many things and so many people--the system doesn't focus enough resources on protecting people from the most serious threats.
Good stuff. Check it out.
Rick Noriega is kicking off a barnstorming tour of South Texas today. His itinerary is here, and reprinted beneath the fold. If you're in the area, especially if you've not yet met him or seen him speak, go check him out.
And if you can't do that, here's a video of him speaking to the AFL-CIO convention last week:
Easy to see why they endorsed him in the primary, isn't it? Click on for the South Texas agenda.
January 28th, 2008Corpus Christi/Breakfast
Time: 7:30-8:30 am
Location: Executive Surf Club -- 309 N. Water St. Corpus Christi, TXRobstown/Coffee and Donuts
Time: 9:30-10:30 am
Location: Nueces Co. 415 Mainor Rd.-- Oak Pavilion
Kingsville/Lunch Meet and Greet
Time: 11:30-12:30 pm
Location: Lina's Restaurant @ Wild Horse Mall -- 1601 Hwy 77 By Pass
Falfurrias/Coffee and Pan Dulce
Time: 1:30-2:30 pm
Location: Law Office of J. Michael Guerra -- 222 East RiceRaymondville/Meet and Greet
Time: 4:00-5:00 pm
Location: Casa Blanca Restaurant -- 1695 S 7th StMcAllen/Hidalgo County Finance Council
Time: 6:00-7:00 pm
Location: Espana Mediterranean Cuisine -- 701 N. Main St. McAllen, TXMcAllen/State of Union-RALLY
Time: 7:00-8:00 pm
Location: Cine El Rey -- 311 S 17th st
January 29, 2008
Brownsville/Breakfast
Time: 8:00-9:00 am
Location: Law Office of Trey Martinez -- 1201 East Van Buren
Weslaco/Veteran Meet and Greet
Time: 10:00-11:00 am
Location: Fiesta Tex-Mex Restaurant -- 615 W US Highway 83Edinburg, Lunch Meet and Greet
Time: 12:30-1:30 pm
Location: The Social Club-- 205 ConquestMission/Granjeno/Levees Border Fence
Time: 2:00-3:00 pm
Location: Anzalaldua Dam Granjeno, TXZapata, Texas/South Texas/Brush Country
Time: 5:30-6:30pm
Location: Texas-Holiday Inn Express -- 1675 S US HwyLaredo, Texas/ Finance Council Meeting
Time: 7:30-8:30 pm
Location: Phillip V Room at the La Posada Hotel, 1000 Zaragoza St.
January 30, 2008
Eagle Pass, Texas/South Texas/Middle Rio Grande Region
Time:8:00-9:30am
Location: Cactus Steak House -- 1916 East Main St., Eagle Pass, Texas 78852Del Rio, Texas/Southwest Texas/Middle Rio Grande Region
Time: 10:30-11:30 am
Location: Falcon Bank Reception Room -- 504 S. Main St. Del Rio, TX 78840
Uvalde, Texas/Middle Rio Grande Region
Time: 12:30-1:30 pm
Location: Uvalde County Courthouse -- US 90 (East Street) and North St.Hondo, Texas/Medina Valley Area
Time: 3:30-4:45 pm
Location: County Courthouse Steps or National Guard Armory or VFW Hall.
San Antonio/Bexar County-HQ Grand Opening
Time: 6:00-7:30 pm
Location: Rick Noriega Campaign Head Quarters Grand Opening, 7121 New Hwy 90, Suite 214, (West Bexar County).
Former Houston Mayor Louie Welch has passed away.
Louie Welch, five-term mayor of Houston and longtime president of what is now the Greater Houston Partnership, died on Sunday. He was 89.Family members said Welch, who served four terms on City Council and won the mayor's office on his fourth try, suffered lung cancer.
He was known as an effective, aggressive politician whose salty comments occasionally landed him in political trouble. Welch was also considered an able vote-getter with a ready smile. A kind of ambassador-at-large for the city, he sang Houston's praises across the nation and internationally.
I don't know much about Mr. Welch's recent activities. But even though I wasn't living in Houston at the time, what his name conjures up for me is two words: Straight Slate.
In the end, all the sound and fury over homosexuality and the disease AIDS signified little. Kathy Whitmire easily won re-election as Mayor of Houston Tuesday, political experts said, by convincing Houstonians that she was a good Mayor, better able than her opponent to lead the city out of its economic doldrums.That was the prevailing interpretation today among politicians after the 39-year-old Mayor's decisive victory over Louie Welch, the 66-year-old former five-term Mayor who was making a comeback attempt. Mrs. Whitmire won 200,788 or 58.9 percent of the votes; her opponent won 138,552 or 40.6 percent. Four other candidates shared the remaining votes.
Mr. Welch, in the final two weeks of the campaign, had stressed Mrs. Whitmire's backing of job rights for homosexuals and fear of AIDS, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, most of whose victims are homosexual.
''The preference of voters on the gay issue never was correlated to voter choice,'' said Robert M. Stein, a political scientist at Rice University who has monitored the changing attitudes of 500 voters polled periodically since May.
[...]
The campaign left the once-potent Gay Political Caucus on the defensive. Two years ago 18 candidates sought its endorsement; this year none did. The caucus refrained from making recommendations, fearing they would work against sympathetic candidates.
Mr. Welch entered the race after leading a successful effort by the Houston Chamber of Commerce, of which he was president, to repeal the homosexual job rights bill. But his candidacy suffered a severe blow two weeks ago when, unaware that his voice was being broadcast on television, he said one way to halt the spread of AIDS would be to ''shoot the queers.''
Like I said, I don't know what Mr. Welch had been doing in recent years. It's certainly possible that he's renounced his words from 1985 - as a believer in redemption, I genuinely hope so. I suspect I'll get a better idea when a more complete obituary is printed, and the people who really knew him get quoted. In the meantime, I'll just say that I'm glad we'll never see another campaign like that one again.
This article on the continuing planning/anti-planning debate is quite good, partly because it gives some depth and nuance to the question about how much effect regulation has on housing prices, and partly because it shows the inanity of the anti-planning arguments. Well, actually, it just let some of the louder voices speak, and they did the rest.
Experts agree housing tends to cost more in heavily regulated cities, but they disagree on the importance of this factor compared to others such as land availability and quality of life.A 2002 report by the Brookings Institution, reviewing previous studies on the relationship between growth management policies and housing prices, says the impact of such policies was difficult to isolate.
"Housing prices are actually determined by a host of interacting factors, such as the price of land, the supply and types of housing, the demand for housing and the amount of residential choice and mobility in the area," the report states.
One measure of a city's housing affordability is the ratio of its median income to its median housing price. By this standard, houses are more affordable in Houston than in Austin, the same as in Dallas and less affordable than in Fort Worth or San Antonio, according to 2006 census data.
All four of the other Texas cities have zoning and comprehensive plans -- tools that Houstonians for Responsible Growth and its advocates argue make housing less affordable.
Wendell Cox, a consultant and writer who met with City Council members recently on behalf of Houstonians for Responsible Growth, said an ordinance Houston is developing to regulate certain high-density developments "looks like zoning to me."
"There's almost a one-to-one relationship between regulation and housing affordability," Cox said. He said he could not explain why other Texas cities with zoning have lower median housing prices than Houston's.
"To try to parse why San Antonio's prices may be slightly lower -- that's a very difficult thing that we haven't had time to parse," he said.
It's hell trying to make facts fit into a predetermined theory instead of finding a theory that fits the facts, isn't it? But hey, Wendell Cox is an "Expert" on this subject, so I'm sure he'll come up with something.
Even funnier:
[Edward L. Glaeser, a Harvard University economics professor who has studied the relationship between regulation and housing prices,] said problems such as traffic congestion -- the focus of the new high-density ordinance the city is working on -- might be a small price to pay for the economic health associated with new development. If the city feels compelled to enact new regulations, he said, the best approach might be a reasonable fee paid by developers to help offset traffic snarls or other development impacts.Others are more blunt in arguing that Houstonians should put up with inconvenience in exchange for healthy growth.
"Congestion is actually a sign of prosperity," said Barry Klein, the president of the Houston Property Rights Association. "It's really a minor problem in the big picture."
That's very interesting, because in his anti-planning manifesto from last Sunday, Randal O'Toole said the following:
Cities with strong planning authority, such as Portland, Ore., and San Jose, Calif., almost invariably have the least affordable housing, the fastest growing traffic congestion and growing taxes and/or declining urban services.
Emphasis mine. So Portland, that den of planning and iniquity, has some of the fastest-growing traffic congestion in America. That's bad. But congestion is a sign of prosperity, so it must also be one of the most prosperous cities in America, too. That's good! Well, except that it's Portland, so it must be planned prosperity or something like that. Clearly, we can't have that.
You know, I'm beginning to think that the more these guys talk about planning and growth, the less I'm going to have to. They make my case better than I can. Keep it up, fellas.
This is a bummer.
Despite a compromise that reclaimed 7 feet of paved width from a plan to revamp Kirby Drive, it now appears that all of the trees between Richmond Avenue and Westheimer Road will be lost to construction.Houston foresters told a group of about 30 residents Thursday that after walking the site Dec. 7, it was determined that even with a roadway that is 73 feet across, the majority of trees will be unable to survive.
City Forester Victor Cordova said only eight trees within the area have a "realistic chance" of surviving, and that is because they are relatively small rather than in a viable location. He called moving those trees "a very expensive venture."
At an often-heated meeting Sept. 15, about 150 residents were told by an Upper Kirby Redevelopment Authority (TIRZ) arborist that plans to widen Kirby to 80 feet would mean the removal of all 143 live oaks and 18 smaller trees from the area.
However, at a follow-up meeting Oct. 4 a compromise was announced between the TIRZ and the nonprofit Trees of Houston that was intended to save "as many trees as possible." However, no numbers were provided.
"Give us another 3 feet on either side and we can talk," Cordova said of the logistics for the drainage project that will include pedestrian-friendly amenities and buried power lines.
Unfortunately, for those who hoped to see at least some of the present trees remain, traffic ordinances and safety issues preclude Kirby from being rebuilt at its present 66-foot width.
Link via David Crossley. That story is from a couple of days ago - the Chron has a story on it today. It's ironic that this news came out around the same time as Mayor White's State of the City address, because one of the items in his address is this:
For the rest of the State of the City I would like to simply talk to you about some of the obvious and then more difficult choices that we can make to improve our quality of life in the face of incredible growth. Let's start with four obvious choices.More trees. The City of Houston has proposed a five year tree-planting budget with $2 million per year for new tree planting and maintenance. We challenge other governmental entities and the private sector to match that amount. This program will allow us to plant 100,000 new trees. I would ask the Quality of Life Coalition, the Greater Houston Partnership, and Trees for Houston, Harris and Ft. Bend Counties and our philanthropic community to assist us in this investment which will improve our City's appearance, absorb more greenhouse gasses, and cool down the surface temperatures of our city.
One would hope that given this laudable goal, the Mayor would prefer not to start out the year by seeing over 150 mature trees being chopped down in the name of street-widening, especially when stakeholders were given the impression that those trees were going to be saved. Surely there's something that can be done about this.
For some background on this story, see here, here, and here. Construction starts in April, so there's no time to waste.
At some point I'm going to have to ask if there's anyplace left in Texas that doesn't have red light cameras.
Amarillo city commissioners approved installing red-light cameras at five intersections Tuesday after debating whether the cameras will increase rear-end vehicle collisions for a period of time.Four of the intersections approved will require the approval of the Texas Department of Transportation before American Traffic Solutions, which won the red-light contract in August, can install the cameras.
Vicki Covey, director of community services, said at least two cameras will be online and sending out warnings in May.
[...]
Mayor Debra McCartt got fired up during the work session while discussing the motives behind red-light cameras.
"It's not about money. This is about safety," McCartt said.
The intersections recommended by the city's traffic director were not based on red-light violations. The city left off the intersection at Grand Street and East Interstate 40 frontage road, which had the highest number of violations in an eight-hour period, because it had a low accident and injury rate.
City staff avoided several other intersections with high numbers of violations to monitor intersections with high accident rates.
Focusing on intersections with high accident rates instead of high red light violation rates...it's almost like this were about safety and not revenue, or something like that. Very clever, Amarillo, very clever. Link via Texas Politics.
The city of San Marcos is having second thoughts about a citywide WiFi plan due to the potential cost.
Two years ago, San Marcos city leaders were eager to get a wireless network started. Like leaders of other cities, they expected that a private company would build the network at no cost to the city. Now, many of those city leaders -- faced with a new industry business model that asks cities to pay for network construction and to hire private companies to operate them -- are putting their wireless projects on hold or pulling back entirely.On Tuesday, the San Marcos City Council decided to continue negotiations with two private companies. But the $2.5 million to $5 million cost for a wireless network to cover the city's 25 square miles is giving some leaders second thoughts.
"Four to 5 million dollars makes me itch a bit," Council Member Chris Jones said.
For comparison purposes, the somewhat-larger city of Houston voted to spend $2.5 million over five years back in April. One way or the other, that's really saying something about where this sort of project is these days.
San Marcos is pursuing different options with two companies, Maryland-based Solutrea and Austin-based Blue Moon Solutions. Solutrea is proposing a wireless network that follows the older business model in which a private company owns the network and charges the city to use it. Blue Moon Solutions is proposing to operate a network owned by the city.Cooper said the latter proposal might be a better deal for the city because it results in a moneymaking asset. If San Marcos decides to pay to build the network itself, the city could need to find as much as $5 million in savings and new revenue over five years to break even on the project, Cooper said. At the same time, the wireless network could save San Marcos $2.2 million, he said. The city could earn another $4 million by "renting" space on the municipal wireless network to other companies and retail customers.
Other possible benefits of a municipal wireless network, such as lower crime rates, attracting businesses and forcing down rates charged by other Internet service providers, are harder to gauge, Cooper said. A municipal wireless network could help San Marcos brand itself as a "smart city, a digital city," he said, and attract some well-educated workers and high-tech businesses already drawn to Austin.
Council Member John Thomaides acknowledged the importance of attracting the "creative class" to San Marcos, but said, "Is this the best way to go about it?"
It's a little harder to argue for that now. I still think the basic idea is a good one, but it's clear there's a lot of bugs left to be worked out.
Here is Mayor White's State of the City address for 2008, which was delivered yesterday to the Greater Houston Partnership, and here is a brief summary of it in the Chron. The Mayor covered a lot of ground, and I recommend you read his address; I'm going to highlight one small bit of it:
My Administration believes that consumers should have a wide variety of choices provided by those providing housing and commercial facilities. We also understand that there are reasonable rules and regulations that any community needs to preserve its quality of life, and that those investing in a house within a platted residential subdivision ought to have some predictability about the future of our neighborhood.Houston will benefit from a healthy and open debate concerning these policies, by individuals who pay attention to the detail and make practical suggestions about how the City can improve without compromising the affordability or choices offered to consumers within our community.
To those neighborhood activists, I urge you to consider that those who build houses, stores, and office buildings within our City are not your enemy. Few of us live in houses built by amateurs with donated land and materials. Those who build houses and buildings do not survive unless they serve the needs of Houston consumers with a variety of choices.
To those in the real estate development community, please remember that those who live and work in homes and other buildings in our City have a lot at stake in our neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods have had to live for too long with hourly so-called motels and rental properties which are falling apart right smack in a residential neighborhood. Now no neighborhood group should have the right to "pull up the ladder behind them," but the passion of civic club leaders who work hard to improve and maintain their own property values is a tremendous asset for our community. Show me a neighborhood which doesn't care about its future and I'll show you a neighborhood in decline.
Hard to say where exactly he'll come down in the great planning/anti-planning debate based on that, but at least it sounds like he doesn't intend to be cowed by "Houstonians for Responsible Growth". Perhaps the long-awaited Ashby highrise ordinance will give us a stronger clue. We'll see.
Via Carl Whitmarsh's email list, the State Supreme Court has ruled that LaRhonda Torry, who had filed to run against State Rep. Garnet Coleman in HD147, should be restored to the ballot. I wasn't aware that the First Court of Appeals had taken action yet, but they had done so a day after they received a response from Harris County Democratic Party Chair Gerry Birnberg. Where the Court of Appeals denied Torry's writ without comment, the Supremes addressed the arguments:
Birnberg explained that when Torry submitted her application, she did not have a campaign treasurer appointment on file with the Texas Ethics Commission as the Election Code requires. See id. § 252.005(1)(E). Birnberg further stated that the Election Code forbids a candidate: (1) from making a campaign expenditure or accepting a campaign contribution at a time when a campaign treasurer appointment is not in effect; and (2) from accepting a cash contribution exceeding $100. See id. §§ 253.031(a), 253.033(a). Birnberg concluded that, as a result of these Election Code violations, Torry could not have lawfully paid her filing fee. Torry has since appointed a campaign treasurer.[...]
We cannot locate, and Birnberg does not identify, any Election Code provision that authorizes a party chair to refuse to certify a candidate's name for placement on the ballot on the basis of the candidate's failure to designate a campaign treasurer with the Texas Ethics Commission. Nor does the Election Code authorize a party chair to insert additional certification requirements beyond those prescribed in the Election Code.
Birnberg is correct that the Election Code requires a candidate for state representative to appoint a campaign treasurer and report that appointment to the Texas Ethics Commission. Id. §§ 252.001, 252.005(1)(A). Neither statute prescribes a penalty for a candidate's noncompliance with those provisions. Birnberg is also correct in asserting that, pursuant to section 253.031(a), a candidate may not "knowingly accept a campaign contribution or make or authorize a campaign expenditure at a time when a campaign treasurer appointment for the candidate is not in effect" and that a violation of that provision is a Class A misdemeanor. Id. § 253.031(a), (f). Additionally, a candidate may not knowingly accept from a contributor in a reporting period a cash contribution that in the aggregate exceeds $100. Id. § 253.033(a). Assuming, without deciding, that Torry violated sections 253.031(a) and 253.033(a) of the Election Code in paying the filing fee, the Penal Code would provide for any appropriate penalty. The Election Code does not authorize Birnberg, as a county party chair, to prescribe his own penalty for a candidate's failure to comply with any of these provisions.
Seems a bit odd that someone could break the law in the manner described yet still be considered qualified for the ballot, but apparently that's how the Court sees it. I guess that's something for the Lege to address. Our laws sure are weird sometimes.
No news in the Wendy Davis matter. QR opined that "odds are the battle is over" after the Second Court of Appeals ruled that the firefighters who challenged her had no standing to do so. We'll see.
Came across this Spanish-language story on the Chron's front page about Latino candidates this year, and being interested in what it said but extremely limited in my Spanish proficiency, I plugged the text into Google's translator to see what I'd get. The result, which I'm including beneath the fold, isn't exactly a work of literature, but I got the gist of it. Click on and see what you think.
The present generation of politicians Hispanics Houston is struggling to even higher levels of political influence, and it is possible that Latinos will vote in the upcoming elections will help meet that goal, experts agree."When we have credible candidates Latinos, and I mean by that they have sufficient funds for their campaigns, a good education and experience of the previous levels of government, then there is what I call a mobilizing effect of the Hispanic vote," explained Robert M. Stein, a professor of political science at Rice University in Houston.
Therefore, Stein expected that the Latino vote in primary and general elections this year will be higher than in previous elections.
Rick Noriega, Carol Alvarado and Adrian Garcia are three of the Houston Hispanic politicians who now aspire to positions of greater political influence. Others, like Mario Gallegos, Jessica Farrar and Ana Hernandez will try to retain their positions in the Texas Legislature.
These qualities have new Hispanic politicians, the expert believes. "This new generation are going deeper into their positions, directs its policy towards serving the community is more inclined to seek support in other communities, form coalitions and seeking higher positions in politics when there is an opportunity," says Stein .
"The problems of Latinos are problems of Texas," said Noriega, Democrat candidate for the nomination for the office of federal senator for Texas.
"People are concerned about jobs, how we are going to pay the gallon (gasoline) at $ 3, what kind of education children are receiving, how you are going to do to pay for health insurance," warns Noriega. "These problems go beyond ethnicity, race, religion, and are matters that people are living from day to day."
According to the United States political system, all aspirants for a nomination to be candidate of his party for any post must first win the elections or primaries, unless they have no opponents.
The victors in the primaries, which are in Texas on 4 March, and contenderán candidates will be appointed after the general election of November 4.
Noriega, current representative of District 145 in the House of Representatives state, aspires to be the Democrat candidate to dispute that Republican John Cornyn one of the two positions in the Texas Senate.
Noriega faces the first three contenders in the Democratic primary: Ray McMurray, of Corpus Christi, Rhett Smith of San Antonio, and Gene Kelly of Universal City.
"It will be an election to be followed very closely," says Richard Murray, professor of Political Science Center campus of the University of Houston. "The campaign Noriega can get a bigger vote than usual," he says, by the expected participation of more Hispanic voters.
The departure of Noriega of the State Legislature allows another attempt to broaden its Hispanic political level political influence. The former councilman and vicealcaldesa Houston Carol Alvarado is now seeking to influence state policy as a representative of District 145 of the Texas Legislature, a position which shall vacate Noriega.
Alvarado will have to compete for the Democratic nomination against another Latino, the employer Elias de la Garza, and then, if win, against another Latino, the Republican Patricia Rodriguez.
"If we were more votes, we could govern this state," says Alvarado. "Unfortunately, we still have a lot of electoral apathy and we need to improve it," he says.
De la Garza, who is participating for the first time in a campaign, says that "in this district are 137000 inhabitants, 49380 registered voters and as 7700 people are those who vote in the primary. A 6 percent of this amount are Latinos.
Adrian Garcia, councilman District H and also vicealcalde Houston, also seeks to expand its areas of influence policy by participating as a candidate to head of the Democrat Harris County Police.
Garcia, in his last period of 2 years as a councilman, says that some supporters asking compete for the mayoralty in 2009.
"Being mayor is a great honour and one day I will find," he says. "But now the need for deeper throughout our region and the city of Houston is public safety throughout Harris County."
Other Latinos seek to consolidate their political power or gain a position of representation.
Mario Gallegos, senator for the District 6 Houston, the Texas Legislature has no Democratic contender and will seek re-election in the general election of November 4. Another Latino, the Republican Gilbert Pena, competing against Gallegos.
Armando Walle will actively seek the nomination of District 140 of the state House of Representatives, defeating the current representative Kevin Bailey in the primary elections. No candidate filed its registration in the Republican primary.
Walle will have many chances to win, says Murray. "Given that already are very few Anglos in that district, Walle can create interest in the Hispanic community and have a good chance to win the post."
Attorney Ana Hernandez, who seeks re-election as a representative of District 143, has no opponent in the Democratic primary and will face in the general election to the Latino Republican Dorothy Olmos.
Hernandez says that politicians must work harder to educate Hispanics on the issues important to their community.
"I believe that many people do not know enough about the issues, about the political and perhaps not encouraging them to go out and vote," says Hernandez. "As a representative government is my responsibility to educate my community on issues of importance and the need to go vote," he says.
Olmos said that three years ago he left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican conservatives for their ideals as a Catholic, mother and grandmother. "I feel that the Republican Party is a good example of those values."
The architect Jessica Farrar, who has 13 years as a representative of District 148 of the local Legislature, also will seek re-election and will face in the primary election to his former legislative adviser Jose Medrano. Howard H. Gano, Republican candidate, in the general election will face the winner of the Democratic primary.
Farrar said represent a district of about 140000 inhabitants, 60 percent of them Latino.
Medrano justifies its decision to compete with it: "I really hurt, but the reality is that my heart, my loyalty is to my community, not my former employer."
"We know that in a very short time Hispanics will be the majority," says Farrar. "If we are not part of the leadership we can be left behind, because you need people who know (...) all situations by passing Hispanic families," she says.
Here's the best news you're likely to read today.
It wasn't very long ago that Americans often had lunch and dinner -- and sometimes even breakfast -- interrupted by phone calls from sales people.Such nuisance calls were sharply reduced after the 2003 creation of the federal do-not-call list, which prohibits telemarketers from phoning those who have registered.
Despite the popularity of the registry, which has grown to more than 150 million numbers, there had been worries that some home phones could begin ringing again with sales calls this year because of a rule requiring consumers to re-register after five years.
Congressmen are working to fix that: Legislation passed by the House and Senate aims to make permanent the registrations on the do-not-call list maintained by the Federal Trade Commission.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota who sponsored the legislation, said he expects the nearly identical bills to be reconciled and forwarded to President Bush for signature by the end of this month.
Dorgan pointed out that the do-not-call list "has to rank among the most popular programs in history." As he put it, "Not only did the American people respond to the original legislation -- they responded immediately, and en masse."
The new bill, he said, fixes a glitch in FTC rules.
"Certainly, people didn't want to have their names removed from the list and have to come back to the government to create a new list," he said. "That makes no sense."
The FTC has acknowledged the problem and pledged not to drop any telephone numbers based on a five-year limit "pending final congressional or agency action on whether to make registration permanent," according to testimony before Congress last fall by the FTC's director of consumer protection, Lydia Parnes.
The agency said the rule requiring re-registration every five years originally was adopted to try to keep the list as fresh as possible.
Since 16 percent of all phone numbers change every year and 20 percent of all Americans move each year, the thinking was that a re-registration requirement would help eliminate numbers no longer in use or that had been assigned to others.
But the FTC found that changes including "increased usage of cell phones and increased popularity of telephone number portability" had made that unnecessary. Also, a "scrubbing program" developed in cooperation with local phone exchanges automatically eliminates disconnected or reassigned numbers, it said.
Most importantly, it concluded: "The registry has enjoyed unprecedented popularity and helped enhance the privacy of the American people in a tangible way."
Amen to that. If you haven't taken advantage of this yet, go to www.donotcall.gov or call the toll free number 1-888 382-1222. You'll be happy that you did.
Depending on who you ask, either 2008 is going to be another successful year for the Harris County GOP, or it's gonna suck.
As he tries to keep the job of Harris County judge, Republican Ed Emmett is warning that his party has lost its 12-year voting advantage in local elections and needs to look for support away from the suburbs."We have got to make sure that the Republican Party gets its act together and moves forward," the county government chief told a Republican club Wednesday night. "We don't live in 1994, we don't live in 1998 ... we are facing a county that is changing demographically, and I don't mean just racially."
The statements by Emmett, the county's highest ranking Republican official, contrast with the tone that's been set by Harris County Republican Party Chairman Jared Woodfill.
He has said the GOP expects to win countywide races by close margins in the November elections, keeping about 25 judgeships in Republican hands along with district attorney, sheriff, county judge and other positions.
"Every cycle I have been chairman there is always this negative, defeatist mentality before the election." Woodfill said Thursday. "We are going to work like we are behind but we are not going to plan for defeat."
[...]
Emmett, who faces former district clerk Charles Bacarisse in the March 4 primary, also said that Republicans in Harris County simply got too accustomed to winning.
Emmett said that when he moved to West University Place in 2003 after 14 years in Washington, D.C., he saw Republicans winning elections but also noticed "that they have gotten lazy, and I don't mean the candidates, I mean mainly the (campaign) consultants."
"I saw campaign brochures that, basically, you just put clip-art on, you put an 'R' after your name and you expect you are going to win. Well, those days are gone," he added.
Emmett said many young voters have to come to see the GOP as mean-spirited and clubby, and that older Houston-area Republican activists have decreased their participation in campaigns.
As a result, he counseled, "We have to go house-to-house and carry a positive message of why Republicans can provide the government people want."
I think Emmett is closer to the truth than Woodfill is here, but then of course he's saying what I want to hear. So I'll simply note that The Professors have been saying the same things as Emmett and leave it at that. Whether they think that Woodfill and Company have done enough (or anything) to mitigate the issues Emmett mentions I can't say; perhaps when they're finished with their very busy Friday they'll comment on that.
None of this is to say that the Democrats are sitting pretty, of course. For all the GOP-flavored bad news that we've seen so far this year, with more sure to come, the one thing that's been consipcuously absent has been any perspective from Democratic candidates on how they'd do things differently. I expect that to change at some point, but I feel like it's already been a lost opportunity. It's not enough for the voters to think that the current crowd is a bunch of bums - they have to think the other guys won't be bums, too. That, and fundraising, will be the Democrats' challenge this year.
I will say this, as someone who first started paying minimal attention to politics around 1992: I feel like the local GOP had a recognizable brand back in the early to mid 90s, one that clearly came through in its TV and print ads. It was a tough on crime/fiscally responsible brand that worked as a template for just about any candidate, and indeed I'd have sworn that some of those ads just simply substituted names and faces from earlier efforts. I don't feel like that brand has really existed in recent years, partly because the GOP hasn't had to run ads to win most races, and partly because that image just doesn't fit any more. I don't think they have any real advantage over the Dems in terms of defining themselves, especially to newer voters, and I think their association with President Bush and the national GOP does them no favors as it once had.
But hey, it's early, and nobody has spent any money yet. I think we're in for an election season like we haven't seen in a long time (1994 at least), and it's going to be fun, unpredictable, and annoying as hell by the time it's all over. I doubt I'll lack for material, that's for sure.
One more thing:
In presidential election years, about two-thirds of the votes here have been cast with the "straight ticket" option, indicating many candidates will win or lose based on party affiliation rather than voter evaluations of their campaigns.
I'm not sure if this is Emmett saying this, or if it's a data point being injected by reporter Alan Bernstein, but it's important to consider not just how many votes are straight ticket, but the relative share each party gets of that straight ticket vote. In 2004, for example, Republicans had a 370,000 to 325,000 advantage in the straight party vote. That difference was less than the margin in every countywide race except for Kathy Stone versus Sharon McCally - in other words, Republicans would still have had a near sweep even if all straight party votes were thrown out. In 2006, despite not winning any countywide races (though Jim Sharp won Harris County in his near-miss bid for the First Court of Appeals), Democrats had a 146,000 to 138,000 advantage in the straight ticket votes. Obviously, that wasn't enough.
The point is, that even in the low-information downballot races, individual candidates still matter, and straight-ticket voting only takes you so far. Countywide Dem vote totals in 2006 ranged from 277,000 to just under 250,000, meaning they got from 104,000 to 131,000 votes "on their own"; the same totals on the R side were 309,000 to 276,000, or 138,000 to 171,000 "on their own" votes. I submit to you that the non-straight-ticket votes will be vitally important as well.
One thing that bedeviled me as I put together my cover-related Random Tens was running into songs that were definitely not the same, but bore the same name. To apply the final bludgeonings to this expired equestrian, here's a Random Ten list of different songs with the same name.
1. "Bookends" - Eddie From Ohio/Simon and Garfunkel. Being different songs doesn't mean they can't have similar themes, however.
2. "Cherry Bomb" - John Mellencamp/The Runaways. And they can be very different. The latter, from the soundtrack to "Dazed and Confused", is the song that Mellencamp's nostalgia-drenched narrator would warn his children about. Here's a slightly NSFW video so you can see what I mean.
3. "Closer" - Asylum Street Spankers/Keb' Mo'. The Spankers' version is a cover of the Nine Inch Nails song. It's quite possibly the most tasteless thing they've ever done, which is both a compliment and really saying something. "Tasteless" is not a word one would ever use to describe acoustic guitar bluesman Keb' Mo', whom Tiffany and I had the good fortune to see open for Bonnie Raitt some years back.
4. "End of the Line" - Hot Club of Cowtown/Travelling Wilburys. You know, I miss the Wilburys. Their first album was awesome. They never recaptured that magic, perhaps due the the untimely loss of Lefty Wilbury, but they'll forever stand as the exception to the rule that supergroups of the 1980s sucked.
5. "Fire" - Bruce Springsteen/Ohio Players. The Boss don't do disco.
6. "Good Thang/Thing" - Miss Molly/Fine Young Cannibals. I don't need to point out to anyone that Thang and Thing are interchangeable, do I?
7. "I Don't Wanna Know" - Phil Collins/Indigo Girls. I can't think of anything clever to say about this one.
8. "Once In a Lifetime" - Talking Heads/Trinity University Jazz Band. Once again, two very different songs. A million years ago, I had a Rodney Dangerfield comedy album that opened with him crooning a little bit of the jazzy "Once In a Lifetime". I can't quite picture him doing that for the Talking Heads song.
9. "My Home Town/Hometown" - Tom Lehrer/Bruce Springsteen. It's amazing, and a bit sobering, how many of Lehrer's then-topical satires still resonate 40 or 50 years later.
10. "Reason To Believe" - Bruce Springsteen/Rod Stewart. - Yes, that's three same name/different song entries involving Bruce Springsteen. Actually, there was a fourth, a Miss Molly song that now escapes me, as well. Why so much title overlap for Springsteen, I couldn't tell you.
And that, at long last, should be the end of the cover obsession. Next time, we'll do an old-fashioned, honest-to-Elvis random shuffle.
As you may recall, one of the arguments against the expanded smoking ban that the city of Houston passed last year was that watering holes out near unincorporated areas would be put at a disadvantage. Well, it looks like the candidates for County Judge all favor doing away with that imbalance.
Harris County government chief Ed Emmett said Wednesday night he favors a smoking ban in all public areas of the county, and his Republican primary election challenger, Charles Bacarisse, agreed.Both said getting the Legislature to grant the county the power to enact such a ban would be difficult. But Emmett and Bacarisse, the former county district clerk, said that limiting tobacco smoking to homes and other private areas would be a boost for public health.
"I have become pretty adamant about not wanting to be in the vicinity of a closed area where somebody else is smoking, and the fact that your office building is 100 yards outside the city limits really shouldn't matter," Emmett said.
Bacarisse said he leans to the libertarian philosophy of opposition to government regulation on personal behavior, but that on the public issue of exposure to second-hand smoke, "government should be interventionist."
They spoke at a forum sponsored by the United Republicans of Harris County, which will issue an endorsement in the race next month.
[...]
In the Democratic primary, voters will choose between by real estate investor David Mincberg and mortgage broker Ahmad Hassan.
Reached by phone, Mincberg said he would urge a majority of the four commissioners to join him in seeking legislative approval for a smoking ban, and Hassan said he would let voters settle the issue in a referendum.
Assuming that a statewide ban doesn't get passed, the approach favored by Mincberg and the two Republicans looks to be the most promising. It's not clear to me how difficult it would be to get the Lege to allow Harris County to enact its own ban, but I think it would be doable, and ought to have better odds than hoping for a statewide bill to succeed. If nothing else, it's interesting to me that this issue isn't a source of disagreement among the three main contenders. Maybe people just think it'll be harder to get done than it really will be.
I've said before that there really isn't aren't any relevant issues beyond Tom Craddick's Speakership in most contested House primaries. Along those lines, via BOR comes this AusChron story about Travis County Craddick Dem Rep. Dawnna Dukes and her TPA-endorsed opponent, Brian Thompson, in which we see how tightly connected Dukes is to Craddick and his money machine. The way to end Craddick's reign as Speaker is by knocking off his supporters one by one, and with Thompson and Armando Walle, we've got a couple of great opportunities to do that. Check it out.
Miya reminds us that the ongoing planning/anti-planning debate is more than just theoretical, because the anti-Ashby highrise ordinance, which was put off in November, is set to come back before Council soon. Of interest to me is her connection of this issue to another controversial development closer to where I live:
Homeowners living near the Ashby high rise development have been very effective in getting the attention of city hall. But the ordinance they want is facing some tough questioning from two very different sides -- residents in other neighborhoods who feel like they're excluded and developers who want the whole thing to just go away.Case in point, I visited the edge of the Heights, where the site of a potential condo development called Viewpoint has had neighbors upset for some time.
"It's a narrow street," said Heights business owner and resident Gary Mosley. "We're concerned about the fire trucks getting through. People parking on the street and fire engines not being able to get through." His battle sounds similar to the Ashby high rise controversy in Houston's Southhampton neighborhood, but with less successful results.
[...]
So while the development community is worried the Ashby high rise ordinance would be too far encompassing, Mosley says he's worried it's not encompassing enough and leaves out other neighborhoods with similar battles. "I'm hoping the mayor is truly looking at the citizens," said Mosley. "We're pretty much crying right now."
This is very interesting because as it stands, the High Density ordinance would only apply for develops that involve 70 units or more. The proposed Viewpoint development is 68 units, it's actually on a street more narrow than the Ashby High Rise development. Viewpoint is in the Heights, and 3,000 neighbors have signed petitions against its development. But, it's far behind in the public relations battle at City Hall.
Miya's report is here. I've blogged about the Viewpoint development before, here, and here. That battle is at least three years old now. I really can't emphasize enough just how narrow the Viewpoint-affected streets are - there's barely room for cars travelling in opposite directions to pass each other by, there's no curb or sidewalk (there are drainage ditches) but cars do park on Frasier and 5 1/2 Streets. Unlike Bissonnet, everyday traffic flow in the area won't be affected, but the concern about emergency vehicles making it through is real.
The bottom line to me is that it doesn't make sense to craft an ordinance that only addresses one specific development project, especially when there are others out there that have equivalent issues. It's certainly not impossible that the concerns of the folks living near the Viewpoint development could be addressed, but that would require someone to pay for infrastructure upgrades, and as we know that sort of thing gives Leo Linbeck the vapors. I'd rather see Council do nothing, and hope to get a more comprehensive set of reforms under a Mayor Parker or Mayor Brown, than set the precedent that this can be dealt with on a onesy-twosy basis if the affected neighborhood has enough clout.
Finally, on a tangential note, Robert Boyd has an interesting angle in criticizing that lame Randal O'Toole op-ed. Check it out.
Natural and organic grocer Whole Foods Market announced [Tuesday] it will stop using disposable plastic grocery bags at supermarket checkouts and encourage reusable bags instead.The decision affects all of the company's 270 stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Whole Foods said its goal is to be plastic bag-free by Earth Day on April 22.
"Central to Whole Foods Market's core values is caring for our communities and the environment, and this includes adopting wise environmental practices," said A.C. Gallo, co-president and chief operating officer for Whole Foods Market.
Cities and countries are increasingly restricting single-use plastic shopping bags because they don't break down in landfills and can clog waterways, endanger wildlife and litter roadsides, Gallo said.
He estimated that the move by Whole Foods will keep 100 million new plastic grocery bags out of the environment between Earth Day and the end of this year alone.
Before taking the step, Whole Foods tested doing away with disposable plastic bags in San Francisco, Toronto and Austin and saw positive customer response, Gallo said.
The grocery company will continue to offer 100-percent recycled paper grocery bags.
Every little bit helps, and this is more than a little bit. Between this and plastic bag recycling, I think grocery stores can make a big difference if they want to. May others follow Whole Foods' lead. John has more.
I know the saga of the Governor's purged emails feels like it's been going on forever (see here and here for the last updates), but your wait has paid off. Via Elise Hu, we now have our first official peek at some emails that were saved from deletion by the actions of activist/pain in the Governor's posterior John Washburn. And there's some good stuff in there, too.
A top Perry aide acknowledged that the e-mails were "very candid and open" but wouldn't discuss the specifics of them other than to say they would have been deleted if Washburn hadn't filed an official request for them.Washburn is still fighting for more documents under the state's loophole-ridden open-records law. He says many of the accompanying documents he asked for from Perry's office weren't provided, and several records he did get refer to e-mail messages that once existed but now seem to be missing. In addition, Perry's office is declining to release an undetermined number of records until Attorney General Greg Abbott decides whether the law requires their disclosure, records indicate.
Still, what Washburn got -- in just four days' worth of e-mail from early November -- offers some behind-the-scenes glimpses of how top Perry aides and supporters deal with daily crises and events.
One e-mail from former Secretary of State Jack Rains, for example, sparked a heated discussion about the possibility of former state Rep. Ron Wilson, D-Houston, being appointed by Perry to a high-level state post, such as the Texas Department of Public Safety oversight commission or the University of Texas Board of Regents.
"I cannot imagine a worse Republican appointment," Rains wrote Perry's office Nov. 2 in response to a Star-Telegram report about a Wilson appointment. "I would hope every Republican will urge the governor to never consider this racist for any office."
After receiving a copy of the e-mail, Perry's appointments secretary, Ken Anderson, shot back that Rains, a veteran power broker in Texas Republican circles, had been drinking when he wrote the message.
"Ron might be called many things, but racist is NOT one of them," Anderson wrote of Wilson. "Jack must have written that late in the afternoon after coming back from one of his long liquid lunches."
Wilson, a close ally of Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick despite their party differences, could not be reached for comment.
Rains stood by his description of the former legislator, saying Wilson "plays the race card." He declined to elaborate. But Rains reacted angrily to the e-mail questioning his sobriety, and he said he would seek an apology from the top Perry official.
"I don't know Mr. Anderson. I don't drink at lunch, and he doesn't know me very well or he wouldn't say something stupid like that. You may quote me on that," Rains said. "And I will expect an apology from him for popping off about things he doesn't know anything about." Rains, a lawyer, characterized Anderson's statement as libelous.
Wilson and Rains weren't the only big names dropped by the top Perry staffers. In one series of e-mail exchanges, aides passed around a news article about state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo. In the Texas Weekly article, one of Zaffirini's opponents, former Webb County Judge Louis Bruni, calls the longtime senator an "evil, vindictive, mean woman."
"Can you believe this quote?" Kathy Walt, Perry's deputy chief of staff, wrote in an e-mail to fellow top aides.
"Truth can be mean," responded Perry spokesman Robert Black.
Zaffirini called Black's comments "outrageous" and suggested that he was angry that she had helped lead a successful drive to restore millions of dollars in community college funding that Perry had vetoed last year. She said the unvarnished discussions among staffers "at the very best reflects some poor judgment."
Black declined to discuss the specifics of any of the exchanges or to say whether apologies would be forthcoming.
"I think what you have is a snapshot of very open and candid conversations among staff. ... E-mail has replaced personal conversations or phone conversations," he said. "You're going to have open, candid conversations among staff on a variety of issues."
Black said the discussions about Wilson, Rains and Zaffirini would have been relegated to the electronic ash heap if not for Washburn's request. He called the records "transitory," comparing them to paper notes or a phone conversation that don't have to be retained as government records.
Having seen this, I actually have a smidgen of sympathy for the argument that this stuff should be kept out of the public eye. It is important to allow for open and honest communication, which is less likely to happen if you fear everything you say might eventually get reprinted in the newspapers. On the other hand, anyone who expects that kind of secrecy from their email should be prepared for disappointment anyway. And remember, even if this stuff hadn't been auto-shredded at Perry's command, it would likely never have been seen by anyone other than its intended recipients anyway. Who would have requested this stuff? Given all that, I remain convinced that the Governor's policy is wrong, and that there should be pressure for him to change it. We need to know that we can find out what these guys are up to if we want to. And besides, the Rains v Anderson smackdown is promising to be loads of fun.
Via email from Washburn, all the emails he received are available for viewing here. Happy hunting, and we'll see what the next batch turns up.
Finally, it's not directly related to email, but Elise has another example of geeky activism in the person of Mike Conwell.
He volunteers his time as an election judge in a small precinct, and discovered a few years ago a lot of complaints about active registered voters in Travis County being randomly deleted from the rolls for one reason or the other.As a result, he took on a four-year-long project of identifying voters in Travis County who were randomly purged from the rolls due to clerical error. He says the problems are as simple as careless data entry, mishandling registration or proof of residency forms, or not checking and double checking records before deleting what looks like a duplicate record, but is not.
Conwell told us today that he found 1,800 voters deleted from the rolls since 2004, who are still in Travis County and should still be registered. Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector, Nelda Wells-Spears, says he can't be right.
"Mr. Conwell doesn't know what he's talking about," Spears said. (See the video story here.)
But Conwell has all these people in one of his trusty databases. In fact, he sent a spreadsheet to Spears' office in December, which contained 231 voters who he believes were accidentally deleted. He was asking that they check and see what was going on there.
Click here to see the spreadsheet and make sure you're not on it. If you are, RE-REGISTER ASAP.
Why go through all this trouble? Conwell says it really irks him when the fundamental right to vote is stripped from someone because of sloppiness within a bureaucracy. He wants to make sure everyone who wants to vote can vote, especially in light of so many close elections he's seen in recent years.
So, Washburn and Conwell have a lot in common. It's about government accountability, for both of them.
And I thank them both for their tenacity. For a more political take on this, read Glen Maxey's BOR diary. Maxey is Nelda Spears' opponent in the Democratic primary for Tax Assessor of Travis County.
Texas Watch goes for a threefer.
A watchdog group filed ethics complaints today against two Texas Supreme Court justices alleging they illegally used political contributions to pay for personal travel.Justices Nathan Hecht and David Medina face complaints with the Texas Ethics Commission filed by Texas Watch, which monitors the Texas Supreme Court and civil justice issues. Earlier this week, the group also filed a complaint alleging improper travel by Paul Green, another justice on the nine-member panel.
Hecht and Green have denied wrongdoing, and Medina's attorney has said use of the campaign funds was based on bad advice from an accountant.
Using political contributions for personal use is against state law, and the ethics commission has interpreted the law to ban appellate judges from using campaign donations for the costs of commuting between their home cities and the city where the court is located.
"With numerous criminal investigations, ethical lapses, and questions about the court's integrity and ability to be impartial, the entire Texas Supreme Court is under a cloud of scandal," said Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch.
From a strictly political perspective, it's a shame that none of the three justices in question are up for election this year - Medina and Hecht were re-elected in 2006 and don't come up again till 2012, and Green won a six-year term in 2004. I suspect that the "entire Texas Supreme Court is under a cloud of scandal" concept will get some heavy rotation against those justices who are up for re-election. We'll see how good a job they do of differentiating themselves from their less pristine colleagues.
You have to admire their determination.
A day after finding out they didn't have the legal authority to indict Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife in an arson case, former grand jurors said Wednesday they plan to present their opinions to a new grand jury as ordinary citizens.They won't be allowed, however, to talk about what they heard during most of their time behind closed doors.
"Credible people have been giving information (to us) about who should be subpoenaed to testify and we would tell them about other witnesses that our grand jury asked to be subpoenaed but who were not called," said Bob Ryan, the former grand jury's foreman.
[...]
Should any of the former jurors appear before the new grand jury, they cannot divulge anything they heard before their original term ended.
State District Judge Jim Wallace said the grand jurors aren't legally obligated to remain silent about what they heard after Nov. 2, but asked them to do so.
[Prosecutor Vic] Wisner said Ryan, and any citizen, is welcome to try to get an audience with a grand jury, as long as grand jury testimony, which is secret, isn't divulged.
"I'm thankful I don't have to deal with him anymore," Wisner said. "More power to him, but he may want to wait until a new district attorney takes office in January 2009."
Wisner has long asserted that he wants to go forward with the case, but that there isn't enough evidence.
And he can keep asserting it until the cows come home, it still doesn't make sense. Why would the Harris County convene the grand jury in the first place if they weren't prepared for them to come back with an indictment? Why waste everybody's time? I rather doubt Wisner or anyone else in Chuck Rosenthal's office will address that question.
Ryan said all 11 of his former jurors have said they want the Medina case to be investigated further. He said he would contact the Harris County Grand Jury bailiff to request to make a presentation to a newly impaneled grand jury in February."We would welcome the opportunity to present the new evidence in the Medina case," he said.
Citizens, prosecutors or sitting grand jurors can present information for investigations to grand juries.
"Our grand jury handed up indictments with probable case, but the district attorney said we did not have sufficient evidence," Ryan said. "We are going to provide enough evidence with another grand jury so he has sufficient evidence to proceed with the case."
"We believe strongly that the Medinas did something wrong or we wouldn't have indicted them," said Barbara Buck. "We believe it shouldn't go by the wayside. Another grand jury should look into it. I think it should hear our point of view if it is willing."
It's not clear to me how much effect Ryan and the original grand jury can have, given that they can't talk about the evidence they'd been presented. Obviously, any new grand jury can cover the same ground as they, but they'd need to figure out where to go without any input from the originals. I wish them all luck, if for no better reason than we need some kind of closure here, but I think Wisner is correct in saying that not much is likely to happen before 2009.
I confess, this is a bit of a surprise to me.
A company's bid to reinvent the Astrodome as a convention hotel suffered a major setback Wednesday when a county board refused to give it more time to negotiate a lease and finalize a loan.Entrepreneurs from Astrodome Redevelopment Co., aiming to transform the building once known as the Eighth Wonder of the World into a 1,300-room, $450 million hotel, say their quest isn't over.
But the decision made Wednesday by the Harris County Sports and Convention Corp.'s board drops the development company's exclusive right to strike a deal, allowing the county to entertain other proposals to find a second life for the venue.
"It's really up to them whether it is the death knell," said County Judge Ed Emmett, who made a rare appearance before the board to ask it not to give Astrodome Redevelopment more negotiating time. "They still can move forward."
The sports corporation's board refused to extend the negotiating period on a 4-0 vote. Board members declined to discuss the vote in detail, saying there are confidentiality provisions in the letter of intent that limit what they can divulge.
Vice chairman Charles "Sonny" Sowell said: "This (vote) is not to say that nobody is interested in what ARC is trying to do. If ARC has plans that they want to continue, it's their choice."
[...]
The sports corporation and Commissioners Court gave preliminary approval to Astrodome Redevelopment's proposal in summer 2006. A letter of intent signed by the sports corporation and the company spelled out that Astrodome Redevelopment had to work out deals with the Texans and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo -- Reliant Park's main tenants -- and secure financing.
The Texans and the rodeo have adamantly opposed the convention hotel, saying it would hurt their operations.
With the letter of intent set to expire Jan. 29, county attorney Mike Stafford notified Commissioners Court that it would be appropriate to grant a 90-day extension because county financial experts hadn't finished analyzing the deal.
Emmett, however, urged the board Wednesday to deny the extension.
"There is no financing package that has been presented to the county," he said. "We are in a circumstance that this has been going on for years. There comes a point at which you can't just keep granting extensions."
This sounds a lot like a vote of no confidence to me. Judge Emmett seems to doubt their claims about financing. Given that ARC says they have everything in order, and that it was County Attorney Mike Stafford who wanted the extension, the HCSC and Emmett must think they can do better. How and from whom after all this time is a mystery to me. One scenario I can imagine is Emmett using this as the excuse to start publicly investigating demolition options. He can say "we tried to save it, but no one had a viable plan, and we had to take the necessary steps to be fiscally responsible". We'll see.
Of course, that depends on whether there really is no one else out there with a plan that the powers that be like. That's not a sure thing.
There could be three or four groups prepared to present plans to transform the Dome.The Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo may be one contender, said Leroy Shafer, the rodeo's chief operating officer. The rodeo and partners are looking into whether the Dome could serve as a replacement facility for aging Reliant Arena.
I'm far from convinced that it makes sense to renovate the Dome solely for a three-week event - if that were a logical thing to do, you'd think someone would have pushed for it before now. Be that as it may, we'll see what other possibilities arise.
Note: This entry is part of a series of written Q&As with judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates.
1. Who are you and what are you running for?
My name is Sam Houston and I am running for the Supreme Court of Texas, Place 7.
2. What kind of cases does this court hear?
The Supreme Court of Texas is the highest court in the State for civil law matters. The court hears and decides legal issues that arise in cases such as personal injury, business litigation, and family law disputes -- in short, all cases other than criminal cases.
3. Why are you running for this particular bench?
I am a Democrat and a trial lawyer. It has been my impression and many others (including noted professors at the major law schools here in the state) that our Supreme Court frequently disregards jury verdicts and too often sides with defendants and corporations. I believe that it is time to balance our court, which will best happen by electing a trial lawyer with experience who is also a Democrat.
4. What are your qualifications for this job?
Since graduating from Baylor Law School (1987) after receiving my undergraduate degree from The University of Texas (1984), I have practiced civil trial law for twenty years in the Houston area. I have tried dozens of cases ranging from personal injury matters to complex commercial cases. I have handled appeals in the Courts of Appeals and in the Texas Supreme Court. I am board certified in personal injury trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. I first achieved board certification in 1995, and re-certified in 2000 and 2005. I have likewise received board certification in civil trial advocacy from the National Board of Trial Advocacy. I am a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates and am also rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest legal rating for the ethics and abilities. I have been named as one of Houston's Top Lawyers by H Houston Magazine and a "Super Lawyer" by Texas Monthly.
5. Why is this race important?
This race is important because the right to a trial by jury is the foundation of our civil justice system and, indeed, our democracy. Our forefathers developed this type of system to prevent the unfair distribution of power in the country. Our jury system evens up the odds for all citizens. It is vital that we elect judges who are committed to preserving this system of justice.
6. Why should people vote for you in the Democratic primary?
I have the qualifications to win the election this fall. I have more experience in handling trial matters than my opponent and the support of most of the well-established trial lawyers and Democrats in the state. My Steering Committee includes the top lawyers in the state from both sides and I am known and respected. I believe that if elected I could help bring balance to the court and bring about change.
My website is www.samhoustonforjustice.com
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Armando Walle, candidate for State Representative, District 140.
Carol Alvarado, candidate for State Representative, District 145.
Andres Pereira, candidate for the 190th District Court (Civil).
Ron Reynolds, candidate for State Representative, District 27.
I see that Justice Paul Green is trying to get a handle on the ethics complaint that has been filed against him.
Texas Supreme Court Justice Paul Green said Tuesday that he would try to locate records showing that 272 trips he made between the court and San Antonio over the past three years were for purposes allowed under state ethics laws."I want all this to be open and transparent," said Green.
Green responded to a complaint filed Tuesday with the Texas Ethics Commission alleging that he used political contributions illegally to travel to and from his home in San Antonio. A 1993 advisory commission from the commission said appellate judges cannot use their political funds to commute between their hometowns and the city where the court sits.
Campaign finance reports filed with the ethics commission show that Green paid himself $16,761 for mileage reimbursements. Green said the trips were for meetings and speaking engagements.
Green, who owns a home in San Antonio with his ex-wife, said he has had an apartment in Austin since March 2005 and does not commute from San Antonio.
The head of the group that filed the complaint said he would like to see Green's records. "If it turns out he can document these trips as being for legitimate political purposes, we are more than happy to pull our complaint down," said Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch.
I can picture what's happening with Justice Green: "Now let's see, I'm pretty sure I've got those receipts around here somewhere...gimme a minute here...dammit...let me check the other pants...I know I saw them just the other day..." I sympathize, man, I've been there myself.
UPDATE: Missed this story about Justice Green's colleague in campaign finance troubles:
Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht said Wednesday he charged his campaign account for frequent flights to Dallas but that he was working and meeting with supporters during those visits.Hecht denied that he was commuting to Austin from Carrollton, a Dallas suburb where he owns a home. He said he lives in Austin, where he considers a home he has owned for 20 years his primary residence.
"I'm allowed to fly up there for officeholder and campaign purposes," said Hecht. "Those were some of my purposes as well as to see friends, build support."
Hecht spent nearly $10,000 from his campaign funds on in-state flights last year, according to reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. That was more than any other justice on the nine-member court.
Texas Watch, a watchdog group, plans to file a complaint today at the Ethics Commission concerning Hecht's travel.
Hecht is the third member of the high court to come under scrutiny in the past week for alleged improper use of political donations.
[...]
Complaints filed by Texas Watch last year against Hecht led to investigations by the Ethics Commission and Travis County prosecutors. Those probes, which are pending, concern a discount Hecht received for personal legal services from the Jackson Walker law firm.
Hecht is accused of failing to report the lowered fees as an in-kind political contribution and that the discount exceeded the $30,000 limit on judicial donations from a law firm. The legal fees stem from Jackson Walker's successful defense of Hecht in a dispute with the Commission on Judicial Conduct over Hecht's promotion of his longtime friend Harriet Miers' short-lived nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.
Fun, fun. The Chron gives them all a good reprimand from its editorial page, with a dig thrown in at Sharon Keller, for good measure.
One last thing:
Justice Dale Wainwright, who faces Democrat Baltasar Cruz in November, spent more than $7,000 on in-state flights last year. But Winslow said there is no issue of a commute concerning Wainwright because the jurist doesn't own a home outside Austin.
Actually, Justice Wainwright will face the winner of the primary between Baltasar Cruz and Sam Houston. I realize the Chron doesn't usually bother covering this type of race, but is it too much to ask that they at least know who's running? Sheesh.
We knew it was coming, and now here it is: Farmers Branch passed another ordinance aimed at undocumented immigrants and rental housing.
City officials whose previous attempts to keep out illegal immigrants have been blocked by the courts took another shot Tuesday, adopting an ordinance that would not only ban them from renting apartments but also from renting houses.The City Council unanimously approved Ordinance 2952, which would require all renters to pay a $5 fee and claim U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status to obtain an occupancy license from the city.
Remember, the city will then have to verify the applicant's citizenship status, by checking with federal databases. Because that's a totally appropriate use of the city's resources.
I know it doesn't make sense to ask questions about a crazy person's motivations, but I can't help myself: Why just limit yourself to rentals? Why not make prospective house buyers undergo the same routine? Heck, why not make anyone who wants to buy anything in Farmers Branch acquire a citizen's license from the city first? That'll show 'em!
Ordinance 2952 won't go into effect until a federal judge rules on the constitutionality of Ordinance 2903, passed last January by the council and adopted by voters in May. Though nearly two-thirds of voters approved the ordinance, Judge Sam Lindsay issued a preliminary injunction halting the city from implementing it until a lawsuit is resolved.Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who has represented in court other cities that have tried to pass rental restrictions on illegal immigrants, helped draft the new ordinance.
He said Ordinance 2952 differs from 2903 in that the original sought to have landlords review documentation to determine whether someone was probably here legally.
Council member Tim O'Hare, the driving force behind the original efforts targeting illegal immigrants, said he believes Ordinance 2952 addresses the legal concerns raised in the lawsuits over Ordinance 2903 and will hold up in court.
But at least one lawyer said he plans to file legal action against the city and Ordinance 2952. William A. Brewer III of the Bickel & Brewer Storefront said the city continues to try to encroach on the federal government's exclusive authority to enforce immigration laws.
"It has even less of a chance ... of ever being enforced than did the ordinances that preceded it," he said.
And when that happens, one wonders what they'll try next.
At the other end of the spectrum, the city of Georgetown, TX, got a grip and rejected a proposed ordinance that would have required contractors hired by the city to offer proof that all their workers are US citizens. Elise Hu and Eye on Williamson have the details.
The Craddick Factor looms large in several primaries in the Fort Worth area.
As Tom Craddick spoke to area Republicans on Jan. 14, he was greeted by dozens of supporters wearing "Thanks, Tom!" stickers.Not everyone wanted a sticker. As critics within his party see it, Craddick should not be thanked for his work as speaker of the Texas House. Republicans have seen their once-substantial advantage over Democrats in the House trimmed to 79-71 under Craddick's leadership.
In May, Craddick headed off an attempt to replace him as speaker by asserting absolute control of the chamber and refusing requests for a vote.
During his stop in Fort Worth, Craddick said his actions were appropriate. He said the House would descend into "pure chaos" if members could overthrow their speaker whenever they wanted.
Craddick finished the legislative session as speaker, but the issue of his leadership has lingered. Local Craddick bashers, whose number and influence are hotly debated among political observers, are making the speaker an issue in local Republican primaries.
The question hanging over each race: Will a man from Midland affect how North Texas Republicans vote?
The story covers four races, two involving seats held by anti-Craddicks (including the now-Democratic HD97 where apparently no Republicans want to talk about Craddick) and two by pro-Craddicks. Harris County has five contested GOP primaries for State House that I can think of (HDs 127, 129, 130, 134, and 144), but I'm not currently aware of any obvious Craddick/not-Craddick theme in any of them as yet. Dan Patrick is a factor in one of them, but that's a different story.
UPDATE: Brandi Grissom reports on a bipartisan fundraiser for anti-Craddick Republican State Rep. Pat Haggerty in El Paso. I think it's safe to say that Tom Craddick is just about the only issue that matters in the contested State House primaries.
So the February issue of Texas Monthly is on the newsstands, and they've got a feature story called 35 People Who Will Shape Our Future, one of whom is their cover boy, Lance Armstrong. And one of whom, amazingly enough, is me.
It's quite humbling, and very flattering, to see my name along with people like Armstrong, Rafael Anchia, Cat Osterman, Will Harrell, and Chamillionaire. I wouldn't have included me, had I been the listmaker. But the good folks at Texas Monthly saw it differently, and I'm thrilled that they did. At the very least, the next time someone says to me "Your parents must be so proud", I can reply "As a matter of fact, they are". My sincere thanks to Texas Monthly for the honor.
As noted before, today was the day for the court hearing regarding SD10 candidate Wendy Davis' ballot eligibility. PoliTex has a nice liveblog of the proceedings, which to my layman's eyes look like they went favorably for Davis. It appears the court may have a ruling tomorrow, at which point we'll see if the firefighters take this back to the Supreme Court. Check it out.
UPDATE: As noted by blank in the comments, Davis won this ruling.
The Second Court of Appeals ruled that three Fort Worth firefighters had no standing to challenge Davis' eligibility to seek the Democratic Party's nomination.Firefighters Javier Cerda, Cullen Cox and Rickey Turner had asserted in their lawsuit that Davis is ineligible to run because her council term ended Jan. 8, six days after the deadline to file for the March 4 Democratic primary.
[...]
The ruling appeared to sidestep the legal question at the center of the suit: whether elected officials must relinquish their seat when running for public office or just announce their resignation and wait for a replacement to be sworn in.
Davis' campaign has asserted that the Fort Worth Firefighters Association filed the suit on behalf of Brimer. The association has endorsed Brimer. Brimer's campaign representative, Bryan Eppstein, has also been a consultant for the firefighters association.
Brimer's campaign spokesman Jared Cox said Brimer had no comment on the case or Davis' allegation. When asked twice Wednesday whether he advised the firefighters on this lawsuit, Eppstein gave the same response both times: "It's their initiative."
I will be very surprised if this is not appealed to the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.
I see that Chuck Knoblauch has been invited to talk to Congress.
Knoblauch, who played at Bellaire High School and Texas A&M, was asked to appear Thursday for the first of five depositions scheduled by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in advance of its Feb. 13 hearing."The committee has taken this step because Mr. Knoblauch failed to respond to the invitation to participate voluntarily in a deposition or transcribed interview and the Feb. 13 hearing," committee chairman Henry Waxman and ranking Republican Tom Davis said in a statement.
Whatever. I think that's all a sideshow, as you know, and frankly it's more than a little embarrassing that Congress doesn't have anything better to do with its time. But that's not why I'm blogging about this. No, it was this tidbit that caught my eye:
Brian McNamee, who accused [Roger] Clemens and [Andy] Pettitte of using performance-enhancing drugs in the Mitchell Report, is due to meet with committee staff Jan 31, with former New York Mets clubhouse employee Kirk Radomski asked to appear Feb. 1.[...]
Knoblauch, a four-time All-Star and 1991 American League Rookie of the Year with the Minnesota Twins, has kept a low-profile since his name appeared in the Mitchell Report on Dec. 13. In the report, McNamee alleges he acquired HGH from Radomski for Knoblauch in 2001.
Knoblauch also was among nine players accused of doping in a federal agent's affidavit citing former major league pitcher Jason Grimsley.
In 2001, Chuck Knoblauch, who had a lifetime AVG/OBP/SLG of 289/378/406, produced a 250/339/351 line in 137 games with the Yankees. The next year, playing for the Kansas City Royals, he batted 210/284/300 in 80 games, and was finished as a player. Now, I have no idea if McNamee and Grimsley are telling the truth about Knoblauch's usage or not, nor do I particularly care. What I do know is that whatever doping he may or may not have done in 2001 and beyond, it sure didn't enhance his performance very much. As always, just something to keep in mind.
I had wondered where we stood with the Astrodome convention center/hotel deal. Now we know.
The Harris County Sports and Convention Corp. expects to work out a proposed lease within two weeks with the company that wants to turn the Reliant Astrodome into a convention hotel, County Attorney Mike Stafford says.But the sports corporation's deadline for striking a deal with Astrodome Redevelopment Co. is six days away. The corporation could extend the deadline by 90 days so the lease can be worked out and the county could complete its financial analysis of the deal, Stafford said in a recent letter to Commissioners Court.
County Judge Ed Emmett and Commissioner Steve Radack oppose extending the deadline.
"There are still irresolvable issues. The financing was supposed to be in place," Emmett said. "At some point, you say enough. Either you have definite financing or you don't."
Emmett and other members of Commissioners Court have said they understand that the majority of county residents feel attached to the Astrodome -- the world's first domed stadium, dubbed the "Eighth Wonder of the World" when it opened in 1965 -- and would like to find a second life for the facility.
Radack has questioned whether reinventing the Dome as a 1,200-room upscale hotel is financially viable. He also has said he does not want the county forced into the hotel management business if Astrodome Redevelopment's $450 million investment falls through and it defaults on a loan.
Stafford said it would be appropriate to grant an extension because the county's management services department needs more time to analyze the deal.
The decision on whether to grant an extension rests with the sports corporation, which is scheduled to meet today.
"We probably would be inclined to take the advice of the county attorney, but it would be inappropriate to discuss the issue in detail," sports corporation vice chairman Charles "Sonny" Sowell said.
Astrodome Redevelopment chief executive John Clanton said his company should not be blamed for failing to meet the Jan. 29 deadline because the county requires more time.
"It's not Astrodome Redevelopment that's working on the next milestone, and it is realistic to give the county however much time they want to be confident in this," he said.
I don't quite understand Emmett's rationale for opposing an extension. It appears that Astrodome Redevelopment has its deal for financing in place, but it's Harris County that hasn't finished its due diligence yet. If that's the case, then what's the harm in letting them complete that task?
Be that as it may, my assumption is that this whole thing falls apart if the county and Astrodome Redevelopment fail to come to an agreement, which would be the outcome in the event the deadline doesn't get extended. So does that mean Emmett's opposition to the extension is a sign that he's given up on the whole Dome hotel concept, and wants to either try something else or start making the case for demolition? That's not clear to me, but if he's going to take a hard stance on the deadline, then he's pretty much forcing the issue. So if not this, then what? We'll see what happens.
Another attempt to override President Bush's veto of expanding S-CHIP is on the agenda for today.
The struggling economy gives Democratic lawmakers another weapon in their effort to expand a popular children's health insurance program. In the end, however, they appear to have made little headway in overcoming a presidential veto.In December, President Bush for a second time vetoed a bill that would more than double spending on the State Children's Health Program. Bush said the bill would encourage too many families to replace private insurance with government-subsidized health coverage. On Wednesday, the House was voting on whether to override that veto.
In recent days, Democratic lawmakers have stressed that more families will need to rely on SCHIP this year if unemployment increases.
"In a slowing economy, strengthening SCHIP and providing health care to 10 million children is sound policy, and overriding the president's veto is more critical than ever," said Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The bill's $35 billion spending increase for SCHIP over five years would extend health coverage to an additional 4 million children -- up from the 6 million children the program currently covers. Lawmakers sent the president a similar bill in October, which he vetoed. Democratic leaders fell 13 votes short in their previous override effort.
I discussed this issue in my interview with State Rep. Garnet Coleman, who explains how the federal action affects what happens in Texas. I don't expect this override attempt to go any differently than previous ones, but it's still a fight worth re-fighting. Daily Kos has more on this, while KUHF has a story on the statewide and local CHIP enrollment levels.
Note: This entry is part of a series of recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing written Q&As with judicial candidates.
Today's interviewee is Ron Reynolds, who is running for State Representative in House District 27, against incumbent Democrat Rep. Dora Olivo. This race is not like the others I've covered so far, in that support for Speaker Tom Craddick is not an issue (I did ask, of course), and I feel like I don't know enough about either of the two contenders at this point to make a call about whom I prefer. I hope to do an interview with Rep. Olivo as well later. For now I can say that Reynolds has a pretty impressive resume, a lot of institutional support, and has been making a case for himself for some time now. I came away with a good impression of him, and I think he'd do a fine job if elected. Hal did a series of posts with video embeds that show Reynolds speaking to Democrats in Fort Bend, where HD27 is:
I should also note that Vince raised a question about Reynolds concerning some disciplinary action taken against him by the Bar Association; I asked him about that in our conversation.
My interview with Ron Reynolds is here. As I said, I hope to interview Rep. Olivo as well.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Armando Walle, candidate for State Representative, District 140.
Carol Alvarado, candidate for State Representative, District 145.
Andres Pereira, candidate for 190th District Court (Civil).
I just have one question regarding this story about another proposed convention center hotel for downtown:
"The current convention center hotel is filling up, and Houston can attract more conventions if it had more hotel rooms in the Central Business District, and specifically, close to the George R. Brown Convention Center," Mayor Bill White said Monday.The plan is in its early stages, with input being collected from groups that include the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, the city's Convention & Entertainment Facilities Department and the Houston Convention Center Hotel Corp.
"We're trying to figure out what it would cost and how it would get financed," said Richard Campo, board chairman of the hotel corporation.
The nonprofit group developed the city-owned $316 million, 1,200-room Hilton Americas-Houston convention hotel.
A possible site for a hotel would be a parcel just north of the new Discovery Green park, bordered by Rusk, Crawford, Walker and Avenida De Las Americas. The hotel would essentially mirror the Hilton Americas.
White said other sites in the area would be considered, including city-owned property.
The project, White said, would be "one of the larger hotels in Houston," with a "first-class national flag."
So what if any impact would this have on the viability of the proposed Astrodome convention hotel? The Astrodome concept is both convention center and hotel wrapped into one, so it's basically a competitor to the George R. Brown. Would the existence of another big downtown hotel whose purpose is to serve the GRB make the Dome Convention Center less viable, or would it create a midsized niche that it could fill? Or is this all a sign that nobody thinks the Dome hotel is ever going to get off the ground?
Theoretically, Commissioners Court is supposed to vote sometime soon on the Dome Convention Center concept, so perhaps that will tell me what I need to know. So we'll see.
That's about the most succinct way I can think of to summarize this story about the court hearing next week in which Chuck Rosenthal has to explain his email deletions or risk facing contempt of court charges.
The hearing, which will take place Jan 31 in U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt's court, was sought by Lloyd Kelley, the attorney representing two brothers suing Harris County for wrongful arrest. Kelley filed a motion for sanctions against Rosenthal, alleging the district attorney deleted more than 2,500 e-mails after they had been subpoenaed and ordered produced by the court.In court papers filed Monday, Kelley gave a list of people he plans to call to the witness stand, including Rosenthal; prosecutor and Republican DA candidate Kelly Siegler; Siegler's husband, Dr. Sam Siegler; Rosenthal's executive assistant Kerry Stevens; his chief investigator John Ray Harrison; his political consultant Allen Blakemore; and prosecutor Mike Trent.
Kelly Siegler had informed Rosenthal's employees that the e-mails were improper and "possibly illegal," Kelley said, while Siegler's husband exchanged "racy" and off-color e-mails with Rosenthal.
Stevens was the recipient of romantic e-mails sent by the married Rosenthal through the county e-mail system.
Blakemore may be asked to testify on the use of county computers for election campaign purposes, while Trent may be asked in court about an e-mail he sent in 2003 that some have interpreted as racist -- an assertion that Trent denies.
Kelley also intends to summon as witnesses Sheriff Tommy Thomas, County Judge Ed Emmett, County Attorney Mike Stafford and Rosenthal's attorney, Ron Lewis.
Kelley said he hopes the Jan. 31 hearing will explore when and why Rosenthal deleted the e-mails; which e-mails were deleted; whether Rosenthal committed perjury about the e-mails; whether Rosenthal and his employees engaged in "illegal or unethical behavior" that motivated them to not comply with the court's order -- and what capabilities they had of recovering the deleted e-mails.
Kelley also hopes the hearing will explore whether Rosenthal and his staff "conspired to withhold documents" and to "hide the deletion of e-mails." He is asking the court what punishment should be imposed and what restitution or remedy should be awarded to his clients.
Oh, my, my. This has all kinds of potential for fun and chaos. It also has the potential to be a perjury trap for Rosenthal. I can't wait to see what comes out of it.
And it won't just be Lloyd Kelley bringing his rod and reel to the courtroom, either:
Lewis, in court papers, also said he intends to explore whether Kelley knowingly made confidential information in Rosenthal's e-mails public in violation of a Nov. 20, 2007 protective order. Lewis said he will call KHOU-TV reporter Jeremy Rogalski as a witness to testify whether he received "confidential documents" from Kelley on or about Jan. 8.Rogalski broke the story on Jan. 8 that Rosenthal's e-mails contained potentially racist and sexist content and sexually explicit bloopers.
Lewis also gave notice that he intends to call Kelley as a witness to testify about his compliance with the court's orders and his claims that his clients' legitimate discovery needs have been affected.
Is there any way we could get this thing televised? I'd totally TiVo it.
Here's a little tidbit from anti-planner Randall O'Toole's op-ed on Sunday that caught my eye:
Cities with strong planning authority, such as Portland, Ore., and San Jose, Calif., almost invariably have the least affordable housing, the fastest growing traffic congestion and growing taxes and/or declining urban services. In the long run, these problems tend to suppress urban growth and job creation.The national real estate firm Coldwell Banker reports that, in 2007, a Houston family could buy a four-bedroom, two-and-one-half bath, 2,200-square foot home for $170,000. The same house would cost more than twice that much in Portland and more than eight times as much in San Jose.
I didn't give his statistic much thought at the time, but then I read this story about the new hotness that is the East End, which had some interesting statistics of its own:
The greater East End, which stretches between downtown and the Port of Houston, has long been an ethnically diverse area most recently inhabited by working-class Hispanics.But a new crop of upwardly mobile homebuyers are coming in from other close-in parts of town where property values have spiked.
"In the Heights and Montrose, if you don't have $300,000, you're not looking at much of anything," said [Robert] Searcy, of Texas Real Estate & Co. "Eastwood has filled that niche for people seeking a house in town and want that urban experience."
[...]
The average sale price of a single-family home in Eastwood was $190,918 in 2007, up 31 percent from 2006 and 59 percent since 2002, said East End investor William McWhorter, citing data from the Houston Association of Realtors.
Bill England, a 24-year Eastwood resident who restores old homes in the neighborhood, said bargains are hard to find.
"It's virtually impossible to find a house for under $100,000, and if you do it needs everything in the world done to it," he said.
Prices in Idylwood, a more exclusive nearby community with gently sloping topography, are more stable, but a bit higher, averaging $204,118 in 2007.
"It's always had excellent curb appeal, forced deed restrictions and it's always been cocooned by institutions that surround it," Searcy said, referring to the Villa de Matel Convent and Gus Wortham Golf Course.
Which makes me think that O'Toole is playing a little fast and loose with his terminology here. I haven't seen the Coldwell Banker report that he references, so perhaps I'm about to make a fool of myself, but I'd bet that the $170,000 average price for a four-bedroom, two-and-one-half bath, 2,200-square foot home isn't for the city of Houston only. I'd bet it takes in a good chunk, if not all, of the eight-county greater Houston area, which needless to say is quite a different animal than the city of Houston. If so, this is not even close to an apples-to-apples comparison.
As such, if I'm right then O'Toole's argument pretty much falls apart. If we're not just talking about Houston here, but also Sugar Land and Pasadena and Spring and the Woodlands and Dickinson and Pearland and the vast stretches of unincorporated county lands, then we have to take into account the laws and regulations that those places have. Which, as David Crossley and Christof note, may be as strict or stricter than what Houston has, and may include both "planning" and "zoning". And yet the region continues to grow like gangbusters.
Now of course, Houston is the focus of the debate here, because Mayor White has, however gingerly, suggested that maybe we ought to give some thought to what we're doing in certain places, which has some fat cat developers' panties in a wad. The point we're making here is that this issue is a whole lot more complex and multi-faceted than just "planning" versus "not-planning", and I think it's a disservice for folks like O'Toole to characterize it that way.
UPDATE: For what it's worth, today's letters to the editor run strongly against O'Toole.
I saw an earlier version of this story and was all set to get indignant about it, but now I think I'll let the judge speak for me.
A judge criticized the Harris County District Attorney's Office today for not standing behind a grand jury's decision to indict a Texas Supreme Court Justice and his wife in connection the 2007 fire that destroyed the couple's Spring home."Why did they bring the case to the grand jury if they didn't want the grand jury to do its job?" state District Judge Jim Wallace asked. "At that point in time, you ought to stand by, and abide by, what the grand jury wishes to do."
The criticism came on the heels of Wallace's decision to disband the grand jury that indicted David Medina and his wife because of a procedural error by Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal's office, nullifying at least two months of work and maybe more, Wallace said.
He said the case should have been investigated further before dismissing the indictment.
"The unusual aspect of this case is that it was dismissed so quickly," he said. "It should have been allowed to run its course."
Wallace also said he was frustrated because procedural mistakes by the DA's office make it harder to find citizens to serve on grand juries.
"That's my concern, because I know how hard it is to impanel grand jurors," Wallace said. "They think 'Why waste our time?'"
I think that about covers all of the main points, with one exception:
In an open letter to the Houston Chronicle, Assistant District Attorney Vic Wisner defended his quick dismissal."Regardless of my personal belief in the merits of a case, I cannot ethically proceed forward if I believe the prosecution will not survive an instructed verdict of not guilty and be an exercise in futility. I do not, nor should any prosecutor, conduct show trials," Wisner said. "If I wanted to help the Medina's and bury the case I would never have bought it to a Grand Jury in the first place."
Wisner wrote that he has asked an "outside investigative agency to pursue the remaining investigative leads" in the Medina case. Reached this evening by phone, Wisner declined to identify that outside agency.
The disagreement over the Medina dismissal, however, was moot because prosecutors failed to file the proper paperwork to extend the grand jury's initial term, which expired Nov. 2, said Medina's attorney, Terry Yates.
Wallace agreed, ruling that the Medina indictments, plus more than 30 others in an unrelated mortgage fraud case, are now null and void.
[...]
Rosenthal on Tuesday denied that politcs played a role in the decision to dismiss the case.
"Absolutely not," Rosenthal said. "It's part of my oath that I don't prosecute people if I don't think there's enough evidence to do so."
Rosenthal said there isn't enough evidence to justify pursing an arson charge against Francisca Medina and an evidence tampering charge against the judge, but that his office continues investigating.
Rosenthal said he isn't aware of any similar procedural errors that could jeopardize indictments handed up by other grand juries.
He said the mistake occurred when the prosecutor who was handling the mortgage fraud case asked that the grand jury be held over, beyond their three-month term. Rosenthal said the prosecutor didn't file the correct paperwork.
He said the chief of his grand jury division retired about a year ago, and the new chief didn't catch the mistake.
He said he didn't think other grand juries have been held over for the past year, so there aren't any other cases that might suffer the same procedural snag.
This is old, familiar turf by now. Under other circumstances, the failure to file paperwork to extend the grand jury's term would be a simple screwup. With all that's gone on with the Rosenthal office, nothing is simple. Nobody trusts his motives or his judgment, so stuff like this takes on a life of its own. There's a simple answer to this, of course. You know the words, so sing along with me: Chuck Rosenthal should resign. That won't address all of the problems in the office, but it'd be a heck of a good start. Cory has more.
Add Paul Green to the list of State Supreme Court justices facing questions about campaign finances.
A judicial watchdog group said Monday it will pursue an ethics complaint against Texas Supreme Court Justice Paul Green over his use of political contributions for mileage reimbursement, despite Green's denial that the costs were for commuting.Green said the group Texas Watch is mistaken in assuming that his frequent travel between Austin and San Antonio were for commutes. He said he has lived in an Austin apartment since March 2005, and his travels to his former hometown were for meetings and speaking engagements.
The Texas Ethics Commission said in a 1993 advisory opinion that appellate judges cannot use their campaign funds to pay for commuting expenses between their hometowns and the city where the court sits. Judges are allowed to use their political funds for campaign travel and travel related to their jobs.
[...]
Green said he knew about the ban on using campaign funds for commuting expenses, and was surprised about the allegations by Texas Watch, a group that monitors the Texas Supreme Court and civil justice issues.
"I'm invited, as we all are, to go to various places to speak at seminars," said Green, who served on the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio before winning election to the Supreme Court in November 2004. He started his six-year term in January 2005.
"Coming from San Antonio, I get lots of requests from the local bar, young lawyers, law school, any number of school groups to come in and visit," he said.
Alex Winslow, executive director of Texas Watch, said the information from Green won't change his plans to file a complaint today with the ethics commission.
"That as an explanation does not allay my concern about the potential that Judge Green violated the ethics statute," Winslow said.
"The volume of trips between Austin and San Antonio, literally several times a week, raises doubts in my mind that he's going to speak to the Rotary Club," said Winslow. "I find that very hard to believe."
Winslow said Green paid himself $16,761 for 272 separate trips between Austin and San Antonio over the past three years.
Green said he still owns a house in San Antonio where his ex-wife lives. He said he is aware of the advisory opinion against charging commuting costs to his campaign.
Who knows? This is the TEC we're talking about, so the odds are it'll take a long time for not much of anything to happen one way or the other. But we'll see.
Meanwhile, Justice Medina is dealing with his financial questions:
Terry Yates said Medina relied on bad advice from an accountant that he could use his political fund for the commuting costs."It turns out that is not permissive. He's in the process of paying the campaign back that amount of money that was improperly deducted," said Yates.
Medina paid himself nearly $57,000 for mileage reimbursement over the past three years. As of his most recent campaign expense report, filed Jan. 15, he had paid back $2,000. Yates said he did not know how much Medina would return and said that amended campaign finance reports are being prepared.
[...]
Winslow said Texas Watch doesn't plan to file an ethics complaint over Medina's mileage reimbursements because it could not determine from his reports where the trips occurred. Medina claimed between $1,000 and $3,000 for unspecified mileage for most months in 2005, 2006 and the first half of 2007.
"We could not pinpoint which of the reimbursements were for commuting expenses," he said.
Medina's monthly mileage reimbursements stopped after his Spring home burned last June in what fire investigators later said was a suspicious fire.
I realize that our campaign finance laws and regulations here in Texas are a tad bit arcane, but you'd think that a Supreme Court justice might have a better grip on the ins and outs of it than the average candidate. Muse and John Coby have more on that, while Lisa Falkenberg reviews the bidding in the matter of Medina's now-you-see-it, now-you-don't indictment.
Not a campaign issue, but certainly problematic:
In addition to the questions raised about Green's and Medina's use of campaign funds, Justice Nathan Hecht is facing a criminal investigation by the Travis County District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit for accepting a discount on legal expenses arising out of his appeal of a State Judicial Conduct admonishment in 2005."There is a cloud of scandal hanging over the Texas Supreme Court," Winslow said.
That's fully one-third of the Supreme Court in some kind of a pickle. Shame none of them are up for re-election this year, but the way this is going, perhaps one or more of their colleagues who are will find themselves having to answer for the alleged misdeeds of their fellow jurists. There'd be a certain justice to that, I think.
I do have a fair amount of sympathy for the folks who are stuck working for Chuck Rosenthal.
"It's awful," said Luci Davidson, one of Rosenthal's division chiefs. "You never know when you wake up and turn on the news what they're going to be saying about us, globally. We're all clumped together on being unethical and racist and liars. It's very depressing, and it's hard to stay focused."A day after Davidson's comment, the office was in the news for rejecting a grand jury's attempt to indict Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife in connection with a fire that destroyed their home last year.
A veteran prosecutor, Davidson said the rest of the office soldiers on while Rosenthal is criticized.
"There are people who rely on us every day to go in there and fight for them, and that's what we're going to continue to do, even though the pink elephant is still in the room," she said.
Several county officials have called on Rosenthal to resign, and the Attorney General's Office has launched an investigation into Harris County's top prosecutor.
Rosenthal has yet to formally acknowledge, much less discuss, the scandal with the staff, Davidson said. His resolve to operate as though nothing out of the ordinary has happened is evident at weekly staff meetings he holds with division chiefs, she said.
"It's not much different," said Bert Graham, Rosenthal's first assistant. "We have so much business to do, that's what takes our time. That's what people report on during the meetings."
About 20 people attend the meetings and, according to all accounts, nothing has changed about how Rosenthal manages the office -- but the mood is different.
"We're uncomfortable. We're embarrassed. We're humiliated," Davidson said.
Her colleagues, Davidson said, continue to work hard.
"Crime isn't going to stop," she said. "We're still going to go to work every day."
Prosecutor Denise Bradley, who is slated to help Rosenthal pursue the death penalty in March for Juan Leonardo Quintero for the shooting death of HPD officer Rodney Johnson, said morale is low.
"There are over 200 fine, dedicated attorneys here who have worked for their entire careers in this office," Bradley said. "It's discouraging to think that your life's work is being judged by the actions of someone else."
Yes it is, and I do feel sympathy, but this isn't the first time people have been in this position. Ask someone who used to work for Enron, for example. Nonetheless, there's only one way for these folks to have the cloud over them lifted, and that's for Rosenthal to take the hint and take a hike. Unfortunately for his employees, he's not concerned enough about how his actions affect them to do that at this time.
Note: This entry is part of a series of written Q&As with judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates.
1. Who are you, and what are you running for?
My name is Andres Pereira. I am a Native Houstonian, trial lawyer, committed public citizen, and longtime Democratic activist. I am running for Judge of the 190th District Court (Civil).
2. What kind of cases does this court hear?
These courts have plenary, or full, jurisdiction, handling both state and federal matters. Generally, District Courts can hear all matters with certain minimum amounts in controversy unless the jurisdiction for that matter has been placed with another court. Specifically, examples of the types of cases this court might hear include commercial cases, contract disputes, premises liability or "slip and fall" cases, consumer and some class-action litigation, employment disputes, medical malpractice cases, and motor vehicle accidents. This court does not hear family, criminal, probate, or juvenile justice matters or specialized federal cases like bankruptcy.
3. Why are you running for this particular bench?
I chose to run for the office of judge because I believe in the power of the judiciary and the jury system--the ability of twelve ordinary citizens to resolve conflicts and find the truth in a civil and orderly way. I chose to run for District Court as opposed to Justice or County Court because the nature of the cases and the procedures are slightly more complex and most like the cases with which I have the most experience. The 190th was vacant at the time I decided to run.
4. What are your qualifications for this job?
I worked as an attorney for twelve years in a nationally known litigation firm handling complex multi-million dollar trial work for clients around the world. I have represented tens of thousands of plaintiffs against large corporate interests. I recently opened my own practice, primarily handling multi-district product liability litigation. I have represented individuals, businesses, and governments, have argued cases at the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts, and have argued cases before the Texas Supreme Court. I was recognized in law school for outstanding legal research and writing, and I clerked for Texas Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Doggett.
I was screened by a committee working with Democratic Party to recruit qualified candidates. I was determined to be a well-qualified candidate, and I have been endorsed by the head of the screening committee.
I am fluent in Spanish, which is an important communication skill in Harris County.
5. Why is this race important?
We are at a crossroads, and these races are critically important. The 2008 elections will determine the direction our courts will take, which will in turn determine how our laws are interpreted and applied for decades. Currently, all Harris County District Court seats and all of the appellate court seats in our district are occupied by Republicans. The result has been a highly politicized judiciary that in many cases favors special interests over the public interest, the erosion of individual rights, and a wholesale attack on the principle of trial by jury. I have spent my entire professional career providing a voice to individuals against large corporate interests, but I am concerned that those voices are becoming increasingly more difficult to hear. We need to change the direction that our entire legal system is headed before many of the rights we once took for granted are no longer available to us as citizens.
6. Why should people vote for you in the Democratic primary?
People should vote for me because I have ample pre-trial and trial litigation experience in the most complex kinds of cases, which has prepared me for the most complicated cases that may come before me.
As a judge, I will always elevate principles above divisive politics and partisanship, because real justice knows no political party. Personally, I am committed to serving every citizen of Harris County who appears in my court with the respect that s/he deserves from a public servant. I am thoughtful, intellectual, passionate about the law, respectful, courteous, and humble. Most importantly, I am genuinely dedicated to finding the best result in each case by carefully synthesizing all of the information provided to me by the counselors and litigants that appear in my courtroom. In short, I will be the kind of judge who will not just listen, but who will actually hear, not just with my ears, but with an open mind and an open heart.
The 2008 election is about change. I started working in Democratic politics almost twenty years ago under Billie Carr and Gov. Ann Richards, so I am firmly rooted in Democratic principles and have a strong foundation upon which to build. Today, I am committed to the future of this party and the integrity of the judiciary in which I have been fortunate enough to serve. It is imperative that we invest now in the leadership we hope to have in the coming decades. I have decided to make public service my highest priority. I have the ability and the passion to serve this community as an elected official for years to come, and I will do so in a manner worthy of the public trust.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Armando Walle, candidate for State Representative, District 140.
Carol Alvarado, candidate for State Representative, District 145.
Rad Sallee writes about the Dynamo Stadium situation:
Local bloggers pointed out last week that the site being considered for a soccer stadium on the east side of downtown may lie in the path of two planned light rail lines.
"Local bloggers" in this case means Christof. I linked to his post, but he's the one who brought it up. Like Cory, I'm a bit curious as to why Sallee didn't just say "Local blogger Christof Spieler" or something like that. But whatever.
Mayor Bill White's spokesman Frank Michel said that is no surprise to the city or Metropolitan Transit Authority, since both have been involved in stadium talks with the Houston Dynamo soccer team since last spring.Dynamo president Oliver Luck said Metro's East End and Southeast rail lines would be "a natural tie-in" to the stadium. The tracks would be a big convenience for fans, he said.
But the Metropolitan Transit Authority wasn't saying whether the two rail routes will need to be altered if a stadium deal goes through.
Yes, of course it's a natural tie-in. You absolutely want the stadium to be convenient to the rail line. Directly in the path of the rail line seems to me to be another story altogether.
"We are evaluating a number of options. Any proposed solutions will be part of the ongoing process with the FTA. We do not expect this to affect the timetable for construction," Metro spokeswoman Sandra Salazar said in a written reply to questions.The city and Dynamo have been just as vague about the stadium site, but the Houston Chronicle reported last week that the city is negotiating to buy parcels in a six-block area between Texas and Walker and between Hutchins and Dowling, near Minute Maid Park.
Maps from 2006 on Metro's Web site show the East End and Southeast lines entering downtown from the east on a single set of tracks on Capitol, which lies just south of Texas.
If the map holds true, a square more than 500 feet per side would remain for a stadium between Capitol and Walker, but there wouldn't be much space left over for a plaza, parking or sidewalks.
Salazar said maps of the two lines on the Web page (www.ridemetro.org) are being revised.
Well okay then. We'll see what they come up with. Seems like a lot to juggle without causing any delays in final delivery, but if that's their story, I hope they'll stick to it.
Did you miss Sunday's implosion of the old Montagu Hotel? Well, HouStoned and Houstonist have pictures, with the latter including video. As yet, no shadowy figures near a doorway have been spotted just prior to the kaboom, but it's early days yet. In the meantime, go watch and enjoy.
UPDATE: Oops! And Swamplot, whose post wasn't up when I first drafted this.
Still in shock over not seeing Brady versus Favre in the Super Bowl? There's nothing like a Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup to cure what ails you. Click on for the week's highlights.
WhosPlayin takes a look at a spoof website that has turned a Denton County Commissioner's race ugly.
John Coby cautions Houston City Council about Houstonians for Responsible Growth.
BossKitty at Bluebloggin points out how Dick Cheney show his loyalty toward the people who are suppose to take a bullet for him; Secret Service Takes The Fall - Cheney Not To Be Inconvenienced
A report of the SDEC meeting posted by PDiddie at Brains and Eggs drew a response from several quarters.
McBlogger looks at Rep Dawnna Dukes' conflict of interest in helping the film industry and wonders if she's truly non-committal in the Speaker's race.
On The Texas Blue, contributing writer David Gurney takes a look at the short-lived influence of the Baby Boomer era on politics in The Downhill Run.
Off the Kuff says it's time for C.O. Bradford to start speaking out about the various messes Chuck Rosenthal has created at the Harris County DA's office.
The Texas Cloverleaf informs everyone about the TTC Townhall 2.0 hearings have begun. If you care where TTC 69 is going, you best attend for your voice to be heard.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson points out that Democrat Diana Maldonado Out-Raises All Candidates In HD-52 and shows the problem with one-party government in ACLU Shames WCCC - Free Speech Under Attack.
Stace at Dos Centavos analyzes the Latino vote for Hillary in Nevada.
Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News still can't believe what has happened to what was once Houston's premiere radio news source. The new Republican Propaganda Radio Network had Rush Limbaugh calling a spade a spade with expertise with using hoes. Gary provides alternatives for your radio listening and a contact link to KTRH 740 AM.
CouldBeTrue from South Texas Chisme answers the question 'What does 'immigration' mean as an issue?'
Hal at Half Empty ventured forth to a meeting of The Dark Side. Here is his take on the 10-Candidate strong CD 22 GOP candidates' forum that took place last week.
As we know, the complaints by two grand jurors over DA Chuck Rosenthal's decision to dismiss the indictments that were returned in the Medina arson case have led to the Medinas' attorney asking the judge to sanction them for violating secrecy laws. Both the lawyer and the jurors are sniping at each other over this.
Attorney Terry Yates continued to accuse the two grand jurors, foreman Bob Ryan and assistant foreman Jeffrey Dorrell, of breaking the law by publicly discussing the case outside the grand jury. Among the accusations was the suggestion by Yates that Dorrell was a gay activist and may have been trying to use the case to embarrass conservatives like Medina and Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.Dorrell and Ryan headed the grand jury that handed up indictments last Thursday against Medina and his wife Francisca Medina in connection with a fire at the couple's Spring-area home last summer.
[...]
State District Judge Jim Wallace agreed to dismiss the charges Friday morning, and Yates asked Wallace to sanction Ryan and Dorrell for contempt for discussing the grand jury proceedings. Wallace said he would decide later this week if a hearing was needed to address the issue.
In a scathing letter sent to the Houston Chronicle Sunday, Ryan blasted Yates for calling him and Dorrell "runaway jurors" after they publicly criticized the district attorney's office.
Such comments, Ryan's letter states, "impugn the integrity of twelve citizens of Harris County who have given up considerable amounts of their time to insure justice is done."
Yates said Sunday he did not question the integrity of all the grand jurors, but believes Ryan and Dorrell illegally discussed in the media grand jury proceedings that by law are secret.
"I don't fault any of the other grand jurors," Yates said, "just these two fellows who violated the law." Yates said Ryan and Dorrell acted illegally when they told reporters Jan. 17 that Rosenthal's unwillingness to prosecute was politically motivated.
Ryan and Dorrell said they broke no laws and were careful not to mention anything discussed in secrecy.
Ryan also said that the grand jurors were "greatly insulted by Mr. (Dick) DeGuerin's statement that " 'they are nutty.' "
DeGuerin said he did not call the grand jurors nutty but had said that it was "nutty" for a grand jury to indict people when prosecutors have said insufficient evidence was available to support an indictment.
"I'm tickled to death to appear in court for a show-cause hearing," said Ryan, a Houston real estate broker.
"Whatever Judge Wallace wants to do with it, I'll respect and abide by," said Dorrell, a Houston civil lawyer.
Ryan's letter can be seen here. I want to highlight this bit:
As a former assistant district attorney, [Yates] well knows that grand juries hear cases brought on their own motion, from a competent citizen or from the district attorney. His client's case was received from the latter. He also knows that for a true bill to be handed up there must be a minimum of nine votes in the affirmative, not two "runaway jurors." Comments like his serve only to impugn the integrity of 12 citizens of Harris County who have given up considerable amounts of their time to ensure justice is done. These are not 12 hicks from Mayberry, U.S.A., who just rode into town on the turnip wagon.This case was brought to our grand jury last fall, well in advance of District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal's problems. We were asked to "hold over" to continue the case. Yates' allegations of a vendetta are reprehensible, and I am personally offended. His action of filing a motion for sanctions against [Jeffrey] Dorrell and me is laughable, as our comments clearly steer clear of violating our oath of secrecy of the proceedings. We are represented by counsel whom Yates knows and well respects.
Ryan's timeline, and his statement that the charges were brought by the DA, just adds to the mystery. Again, why bring the matter to a grand jury if, as ADA Vic Wisner said, the case is still under investigation? What was the rush, and why now the sudden change of direction? The least unpleasant conclusion I can think of is that the DA just didn't have its act together. Every other possibility has political implications.
I have no opinion on the question of whether or not Ryan and Dorrell violated the secrecy oath. The judge will let us know what he thinks soon enough. They seem to be prepared to accept any consequences of their actions, which is laudable. I'll be fine with whatever the judge decides.
This, however, is something I'm not fine with:
Yates said Dorrell is a gay activist who may have an agenda against conservatives like Rosenthal and Medina.Rosenthal, he added, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of the state's now-defunct sodomy law in 2003. That may have made him a target for Dorrell, a former Log-Cabin Republican president who, Yates said, led an effort to strike down the sodomy law.
"There is no doubt that his action comes from an agenda," Yates said.
Dorrell said he supports gay rights, but is not an activist and follows no agenda during his work as a grand juror. He said he had forgotten that Rosenthal had argued in defense of the old sodomy law. He also said he did not help any effort to strike down that law.
Regardless of his political leanings, Dorrell questioned how he could have swayed fellow grand jurors to indict the Medinas to embarrass Rosenthal.
I think Yates' speculation about motives does him no credit. The facts of the case give merit to his complaint about the secrecy oath. What he's doing here sounds like a smear attempt to me. He should stick to the facts and keep his conspiracy theories to himself.
Note: This entry is part of a series of recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing written Q&As with judicial candidates.
I've been a fan of Carol Alvarado for some time now - pretty much throughout her term in City Council, in fact. I generally like where she is on the issues, and I definitely like that she's not afraid to be out in front of those issues. From the new city smoking regulations, to term limits, to immigration matters, she's talked the talk and walked the walk. The Lege could use some more of that, and so I support her candidacy. She's clearly the best candidate running to fill Rick Noriega's shoes in HD145.
The one question about Alvarado's candidacy that has concerned some Democrats is expressed by Paul Burka: "Some Ds think Alvarado is 'squishy' in the speaker's race, due to conflicts with [Rep. Jessica] Farrar and [Rep. Ana] Hernandez." To that I can say two things: One, I don't think Rep. Garnet Coleman would be listed as an endorser if "squishiness" were a real concern. And two, well, listen to the interview. The issue gets discussed pretty early on.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Armando Walle, candidate for State Representative, District 140.
This Texas Observer story on the four candidates vying to replace retiring Travis County DA Ronnie Earle (all Democrats; no Republicans filed) is a must-read, especially if you live in Austin. Two points to highlight:
Candidate Rick Reed, an assistant district attorney, styles himself as the one in the race who will truly go after political corruption. He draws inspiration from his father, Dick Reed, a two-term state rep from Dallas who was a member of the famed "Dirty 30" reform group of the early 1970s. Rick Reed, 52, joined the Travis County DA's office nine years ago after an unsuccessful run for DA of Dallas County. Earle transferred him to the integrity unit in late 2003 to investigate allegations of campaign finance violations against DeLay and assorted political action committees. Reed is credited with building much of the case against DeLay.In an interview, Reed publicly revealed bitter dissention that seized Earle's office before the DeLay indictment. He says his colleagues, including [candidate Rosemary] Lehmberg, wilted at the prospect of seeking an indictment against one of the nation's most powerful politicians. "Everyone felt the pressure. Different people reacted differently to it," Reed said. "I was the only person pushing to present the case to the grand jury."
[...]
Reed said Lehmberg opposed seeking an indictment, as did several of the other prosecutors. He said he believes Lehmberg wouldn't have indicted DeLay had she been DA at the time. Reed said he convinced Earle through a series of conversations and memos, besting the three other veteran prosecutors.
Asked about her position on the DeLay indictment, Lehmberg said, "My job as Ronnie Earle's first assistant is to make sure that all sides of every issue are fully considered. It has been my role to participate with Ronnie at the highest level of decision-making. Rick was an important part of the team. He is really good at the legal work. He wrote outstanding briefs. He is passionate about public corruption cases, for sure. But there really was a big difference between Rick's role and mine. My role was to talk with Ronnie about all the pros and cons of the case." She added that she helped present the case to the grand jury.
Earle refused to comment about internal office discussions, but said that Reed's account was "not an accurate description."
It's interesting, because my view of this all along has been that the case against DeLay would be harder to make than the cases against Colyandro and Ellis. That's always been under the assumption that the never-mentioned Warren RoBold was not somewhere in a safe house, set to turn state's evidence against DeLay, in which case all bets are off. Reed claims the evidence was the same for all of them, and more or less calls his colleagues wimps for not being as gung-ho as he was. Let's just say that while I admire his enthusiasm here, it's the sort of thing that cuts both ways, and would not be an unalloyed asset in a DA.
At the other end of the spectrum:
Among the four candidates, none is as close to the Legislature as Mindy Montford. She served as general counsel for state Sen. Eddie Lucio, a Brownsville Democrat, from 1997 to 1999. Her father, John Montford, is a former state senator who's now head lobbyist for AT&T Inc.Mindy Montford, 37, worked in the Travis County DA's office for the past eight years, two of them in the Public Integrity Unit on the DeLay case. Though she helped investigate DeLay, Montford wasn't directly involved in the decision to seek an indictment. She asked for a transfer to the child abuse division in summer 2005.
"The reason [the integrity unit] is so important is because if we didn't have it, some of our public officials would be running rampant. Ultimately if you don't have faith in your leaders, you don't have faith in your government, and that really undermines democracy as a whole," Montford said. "Having said that, the average person on the street wants to feel safe and wants to know if there's a sex offender living next to them. You've got to have a balance."
Montford would like to build a closer relationship with state politicians than Earle has had. "We've got to educate the Legislature and the lobby that, 'Look you've got nothing to be afraid of if you're following the law.' We're not on a witch hunt here," she said. "I think you have to be visible and have constant meetings with people who could be before you as a witness or a suspect, and let them know how the unit operates. Then they will trust what you do, and they won't care what political party you are. It's going to the Capitol and meeting. You've got to be able to be welcomed down there. It obviously wouldn't be possible to meet with every elected official, but it wouldn't be bad to have a forum where we explain to them how the process works and ask them what improvements they want to see."
All due respect, but I see the lack of closeness between the DA and the politicians in Austin as a feature, not a bug. I think the Travis DA - heck, all DAs in this state - should be respectful and professional towards all officeholders, but should maintain some distance between them. I appreciate what Ms. Montford is saying here, but I think it's the wrong approach.
Anyway, like I said, good article. Check it out.
Well, I suppose this is one way to hold down the costs of litigation: Last Monday, the federal government sued the border city of Eagle Pass for access to municipal land to do surveying for the border fence. Turns out that that suit was also decided that day, with no one bothering to tell Eagle Pass beforehand that this was going on. From the first story:
U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum ordered the city of Eagle Pass to "surrender" the 233 acres of city-owned land by Tuesday. The Justice Department had sued for access to the land on Monday. Ludlum's ruling came the same day, before the city could muster a challenge.[...]
The judge's order, issued in the Texas Western District Court, Del Rio division, said the United States, the plaintiff, is entitled to possession or control of the property for 180 days.
"Well, that seems a little heavy handed," Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster said Wednesday.
Foster leads the Texas Border Coalition, a group of border mayors, city officials and business leaders who oppose Homeland Security's border fence plans and have complained that they haven't had enough input on the effects of the fence on their communities.
Foster said the city of about 25,000 was served with the lawsuit Tuesday but not told of the ruling that had occurred Monday.
Foster said he's confused by the "aggressive action" because his city attorneys have been drafting paperwork for an easement for federal officials to build a road and erect 15 light towers along the border on city land.
"Informing the city after the judge ruled that their land is already taken is not the Texan or American way of justice," said Monica Weisberg-Stewart, Texas Border Coalition committee chairwoman.
And from the second:
Foster and his city council colleagues thought Border Patrol was consulting in good faith over an alternative to the border fence plan that included clearing Carrizo cane from the banks of the Rio Grande so that Border Patrol agents had better line of sight to the river."What the government is doing, it's like a police state," said Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada. "They are dictating to the citizens. It's very anti-American."
On Monday, attorneys for the Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum in Del Rio for permission to access for 180 days 233 acres of city-owned land in Eagle Pass. Because Foster and his city's attorneys did not know about the hearing they could not challenge the lawsuit. "The ironic thing is that Judge Ludlum went to school in Eagle Pass," Foster said.
[...]
San Juan Mayor San Juanita Sanchez said that as an attorney she could not understand how the government could get a court ruling on such a major issue without the other party being made aware of the lawsuit.
"Giving the other side notice sounds pretty basic to me. The government is not even following what our justice system asks for," Sanchez said.
Asked what she would do if she were the mayor of Eagle Pass, Sanchez said, fight.
"I think one of the things you do as a leader of a community is to raise the awareness of everyone in your community. Gather them together and you can make a big difference," Sanchez said. "That's something we did when we had that toll bridge, we got the community together now we are happy to announce great development coming in."
Monica Weisberg-Stewart, co-chair of the TBC's immigration committee, issued a hard-hitting statement on Wednesday.
"Even in the most egregious eminent domain cases, the party whose land is being taken is given his or her day in court. The people of Texas should be outraged by the sneaky, underhanded methods used by the Department of Homeland Security," Weisberg-Stewart said.
"Informing the city after the judge ruled that their land is already taken is not the Texan or American way of justice. It demonstrates again that we are losing our liberties to a federal government that is without restraint and out of control."
It gets worse.
The Department of Homeland Security refused to grant the Texas Border Coalition additional consultation meetings, to which the coalition responded with a letter reiterating their proposal and calling for more local community input in the border fence construction process.Chad Foster, Texas Border Coalition chairman, said in the letter that he regrets that DHS has chosen to reject the consultation proposal made to assist DHS with the requirement of Section 564 of Public Law 110-161.
The provision, which was written into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-TX, and Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, requires DHS to consult with local governments and communities located near the sites where the border fence will be constructed.
The law also says that no funds will be released for Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology until DHS has complied with the provision.
Foster said the rejection of the proposal appears to be based on the department's fear that it will require delays to the border fence timeline and that the "department fears TBC will seek to have veto power over operational assessments."
"We seek no veto and wish to assure your fears that our efforts are in no way intended to delay the project," said Foster. "We would suggest that a consultation based on cooperation and intent on exploring more effective measures to accomplish the mutual purpose of border security would more swiftly accomplish the goals we share."
In DHS's letter announcing the refusal to grant consultation meetings to the coalition, David Pagan, Advisor to the Commissioner, said that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has gone through great lengths to obtain public input.
"As part of these public outreach efforts, CBP has contacted almost 600 different land owners and held 18 town hall meetings," said Pagan. "CBP has also engaged federal, state and local government partners and members of the public as part of our ongoing consultations through the environmental review process."
The letter also referred to the "open house" hearings DHS held in McAllen, Brownsville and Rio Grande City in December as part of the Environmental Impact Statement process.
Foster said DHS's rejection is also based on the claim that comprehensive consultation has taken place and that the coalition's proposal for another meeting is redundant.
"TBC is concerned about the repeated claim that CBP has conducted 18 public town hall meetings and contacted 600 landowners as part of its consultation process," said Foster. "TBC is unaware of any DHS or CBP public town hall meetings to consult with the people of the Texas-Mexico border prior to publication of maps and plans for the wall in recently released environmental review documents."
Next in the firing line is Cameron County:
The federal government has sued the Brownsville Public Utilities Board and several Cameron County landowners to get access to their property as officials work on the proposed Mexican border fence.The 12 land condemnation lawsuits filed Thursday state that the Homeland Security Department intends to seize the property under federal eminent domain laws and plans to compensate landowners, according to Harlingen television station KGBT-TV.
The filing followed a judge's order earlier this week that allowed federal seizure of 233 acres of city-owned land in the border community of Eagle Pass. City leaders were furious with the order, which came the same day federal prosecutors sued for access to the land.
Ninfa Rojas, one of the Cameron County landowners being sued, said her family bought a half-acre for its future home near the Rio Grande about three years ago after years of saving money.
"This is very unjust," Rojas told The Brownsville Herald in Saturday editions.
Sadly, the DHS does not appear to be interested in that. Links via South Texas Chisme.
So we went to Beavers Barbecue, the new Monica Pope place, the other night. As we drove down Sawyer towards Washington, I told Tiffany that the Mahatma Rice silos were going to close down, and that the owners were seeking to sell the property, quite possibly to residential developers. She then informed me that Johnny Franks Auto Parts on the other side of the street, whose owner was a college buddy of her uncle Al, sold his lot a few months ago, also to a residential developer. (Hey, Swamplot, did you know that?) And we both wondered: Why would anyone build residences there? Who would want to live there?
I mean, this little stretch of road has just about everything going against it from the perspective of being desireable for a residence that you could think of. Not one, but two active freight rail lines, which run at all hours with the horn blowing. Access via a surprisingly busy narrow street that serves as a cut-through to downtown for folks in the Heights. Oh, and the continued presence of other industrial/warehouse properties means that same street is also heavily used by 18-wheelers. It's ugly as sin, and will be that way till all the old properties have been razed and replaced. And other than being within walking distance of Beaver's and the new Chili's near the Target (assuming you'd be bold enough to walk anywhere - there is a sidewalk, but it's awfully narrow), there's just no amenities nearby. What, exactly, is the allure?
Well, it is close to downtown. And the land ought to be relatively cheap, though no one building condo/townhome developments like what is sure to arise there aims for the lower end of the market. And, and, and...beats the heck out of me. Seriously, I can't for the life of me see the attraction.
So help me out here. If you were in the market for a new condo/townhome near downtown, would you consider what's coming here? Leave a comment and tell me why if you do.
The discussion of DA Chuck Rosenthal moves to the Chron's op-ed pages today with a couple of articles. First is newly-elected City Council Member Jolanda Jones' scathing call for Rosenthal to resign.
As I enter my 10th year as a criminal defense attorney in Harris County, I am more concerned than ever that the Harris County District Attorney's Office is systemically flawed -- and that its leader, Chuck Rosenthal, has fostered a culture of inequality wherein which defendants are treated differently, not because of what they've done, but because of who they are.I know from personal experience that there are good assistant district attorneys who serve under Rosenthal. The problem is, they aren't allowed to pursue justice that is blind and fair; in some instances because of Rosenthal's policies.
When I did an interview with Jones during the campaign last year, the subject that animated her the most was criminal justice. It's good to see her take a leadership role in this.
Next is Patrick McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association.
For the first time in many years, the voters in Harris County will have real choices in the race for district attorney. Republicans will have a contested primary with experienced candidates, Jim Leitner and Kelly Seigler, as well as Houston police Capt. Doug Perry and former Judge Pat Lykos. The winner of that race will have to face former HPD Police Chief Clarence Bradford on the Democratic ticket. Perhaps now we can, or at least should, finally focus on the actual day-to-day policies of this office, rather than the personal lives of its recent occupant. Here are questions to ask these candidates to see if voters can support more of the same or real change.
They're good questions, some of which tie into items Jones mentions. Both pieces are worth reading.
Somewhat curiously, the Chron itself has not yet opined on the Rosenthal situation, at least not that I can recall. I know they usually take their time on matters like these before weighing in, but I'm beginning to wonder when they think it might be a good time. Maybe they're debating whether or not to call for his resignation. I would have thought by now that would be an easy enough thing to do - certainly not controversial at this point - but who knows what they're thinking. The least they could do is come up with a Chuck Rosenthal haiku.
The Senate election this year is likely to get the bulk of the attention here, barring the somewhat unlikely possibility that the Presidential candidates feel the need to contest the state, but there's an election for the Railroad Commission that's pretty important as well. You may not think a body called the Railroad Commission would have much impact on your life, but as this Chron story shows, it's closer to you than you might think.
Ann Patterson Smith was sleeping in her Missouri City home last Jan. 25 when shortly after midnight a natural gas explosion destroyed her house, throwing her into the backyard with the same force that drove a two-by-four through the brick wall of a home two doors down.Neighbors found her standing in the yard, legs burned, ribs broken and two vertebrae cracked. Gas had entered the house through a sewer line. The rubber gasket on what was left of her toilet was flaming blue like a burner on a stove.
"It was the chimney and I left standing," Smith, 70, said in an interview last week.
The cause of the gas leak was failure of an old compression coupling in the service line to Smith's house, a type of pipe connector that often was used in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Texas Railroad Commission in November ordered the state's gas providers to remove and replace such fittings but gave them two years to do it.
Critics have said that is too long. And now the three Democrats trying to unseat Republican Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams -- former San Antonio City Councilman Art Hall, 2006 nominee Dale Henry and Mark Thompson -- are using the problem, specifically fatal natural gas explosions in North Texas, as an issue against him.
Williams defends the commission's actions, saying Texas is the only state to have acted on the problem.
At least two fatal home explosions have occurred since 2006 in Texas because of coupling failure. Up to 100,000 homes in Texas may have similar connectors used on the pipes bringing gas to the house.
"My house is not the first, the only or the last this is going to happen to," Smith said.
[...]
The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates pipelines in Texas, last November ordered natural gas companies to remove and replace all old compression couplings.
But critics say the commission issued the order only after WFAA-TV in Dallas reported on the compression coupling problem.
The Democratic primary candidates contend the commission took too long to act and has given the gas companies too much time to fix a problem that could be an immediate threat to thousands of Texans.
"Several people have been killed because of pipeline safety standards that have not been sufficient," Hall said.
Hall said he also is concerned that gas companies will pass the cost of replacing the couplings on to consumers in the form of rate hikes.
Thompson said the issue shows the three Railroad commissioners are too close to the industry they regulate.
Since 2000, Williams has received $16,000 from North Texas gas supplier Atmos Energy and $12,500 from CenterPoint.
Henry's focus is on plugging abandoned oil wells that cause pollution, but he also is critical of the commission for not requiring faster action on replacing defective compression couplings in gas lines.
Read the whole thing, it does a good job of laying out the issue. I don't know if I'll get the opportunity to talk to any of the Railroad Commission candidates before the primary - I hope I will, because I'm not sure yet who I want to vote for, and that would surely help - but at least RG Ratcliffe has done so. The Texas Politics Railroad Commission archives have podcast interviews with Commissioner Williams, Art Hall, Mark Thompson, and Dale Henry. I'm going to give them a listen, and I encourage you to do so as well.
Everybody wants a piece of the action.
For a skinny and unglamorous tract of land sandwiched between railroad tracks, an abandoned freight rail right of way in northwest Houston has attracted a lot of interest.The city wants to extend a planned hike and bike trail along an old railbed from Shepherd Drive to Hempstead Highway.
The Texas Department of Transportation is planning a stormwater detention pond through much of it.
And the Metropolitan Transit Authority has looked into using the space for commuter rail to the northwest suburbs.
TxDOT's proposed V-shaped channel would run more than a mile between White Oak Bayou and a Union Pacific overpass on Hempstead Highway.
It also would use up 60 feet of the city's 100-foot right of way for the trail, and that has residents worried.
Two civic club officers said residents initially were told there would be a runoff pond 1,000 feet long. It was not until a Jan. 9 public meeting that they learned it would extend over a mile.
Tom Dornbusch, president of Woodcrest Neighborhood Civic Association, said the trail would be squeezed onto a 30-foot-wide maintenance berm between the water and railroad tracks. Linda Mercer of Cottage Grove Civic Club said her neighborhood to the south could be cut off from the trail.
Bayou Preservation Association president Kevin Shanley said the pond, if built, should be part of a linear park for bikers, walkers and wildlife, and TxDOT should remove oil or road debris before the runoff reaches the bayou.
In light of such concerns, the Houston-Galveston Area Council has extended a public comment period to 5 p.m. Thursday. H-GAC's Transportation Policy Council is scheduled to vote on the pond and two associated street projects Friday.
I'm not really sure what to make of this. If anyone who's been involved with this can leave a comment with some more information, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
This is one of the funniest things I've read in recent memory, and way too plausible for its own good. Go on and read it, and see if you don't agree. Link via Kevin Drum.
And the latest twist in the David Medina saga - his attorneys are asking that the grand jurors who spoke about his case be sanctioned for their actions.
Medina's attorney, Terry Yates, said grand jury foreman Robert Ryan and assistant foreman Jeffrey Dorrell acted illegally when they told reporters Thursday that Rosenthal's unwillingness to prosecute was politically motivated. Ryan said the two broke no laws and were careful not to mention anything discussed in secrecy."They've made a mockery of the entire process," Yates said. "This is crazy. This is mind-boggling, what this grand jury has done. This is more than a runaway grand jury. This is a grand jury speeding away in a Lamborghini."
Yates filed a motion asking state District Judge Jim Wallace to schedule a hearing to determine whether the two disclosed information about grand jury proceedings that by law should be considered secret. Wallace is expected to rule on whether to even have a hearing next week. If held in contempt, the two could face 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.
"They have violated the law, clearly," Yates said. "The law says proceedings that occur in a grand jury are secret. Period. And it doesn't just relate to testimony. It relates to any proceedings that occur."
Ryan said their comments were opinions and did not include the substance of anything discussed by or presented to the grand jury. He said they did not violate the secrecy oath.
"We have not talked about anything having to do with secrecy," Ryan said. "We talked about the district attorney."
I have some sympathy for Ryan's arguments, but I think Yates has the better of it from a legal perspective. I have a feeling they'll have a price to pay for taking the stand they did.
Yates' action came shortly after Assistant District Attorney Vic Wisner dismissed the Medina indictments, both of which were connected to a suspicious fire that destroyed their home last summer.Medina's wife, Francisca, was indicted on an arson charge. He was accused of tampering with or fabricating evidence pertaining to an investigation. Both are felonies.
"The only thing we've done this morning is decide to proceed with this case, on this date, with an investigation stage and not a prosecution stage," Wisner said. "Literally nothing more and nothing less. I think a little bit more has been read into this case than has actually occurred."
Wisner said there was not enough evidence to make a case that would hold up in court.
"I've never in my life had a case before where I had an indictment on one hand and even the investigator on the other hand saying, 'We can't go forward on this case -- we don't have enough,' " he said.
Wisner said the office would continue to investigate the couple in connection with the fire, which also damaged two adjacent homes and caused losses of almost $1 million.
"Nothing we've done this morning can be construed as clearing her, or saying in any way, shape or form that she will not be held criminally responsible for arson or a similar crime that she was indicted for," he said of Francisca Medina.
The print edition of the Chron had a little sidebar on the jump page in which four out of the five candidates for DA (three guesses which one was Number 5) gave their reactions to all this. I think Jim Leitner summed up my feelings pretty well when he asked what the point was of convening a grand jury if you were just going to ignore their recommendation. Saying that the case is still under investigation just underlines this point. If that's the situation, then why was a grand jury involved? Why did those people have their time and effort wasted? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Whatever the case, there was some bad news for Justice Medina as well today, as the Chron also reports that the Texas Ethics Commission is looking at some questionable ways that he's spent campaign funds. John Coby has more on that.
Following up on Sunday's extravaganza of stuff related to the new developers' PAC, here's some oppo research by David Crossley.
[Randall] O'Toole calls himself "The Antiplanner" and publishes a Cato Institute website by that name, "Dedicated to the sunset of government planning." He has said "it is likely that planners in our city governments will do far more harm to our personal and economic freedoms than communists in the State Department."O'Toole, whose background is in forestry, is most well known for his long assault on Portland, Oregon, his former home town. Although all of his claims about "failure" in Portland have been repeatedly rebutted by a variety of experts, O'Toole maintains his position.
The letter from Lanier, Weekley, and Linbeck refers to "Mr. O'Toole's fine book about the pitfalls and the opportunities of modern urban progress." The book warns against taking into account the public interest when planning road projects, charges that planners intentionally work to create traffic congestion and make roads more dangerous, and includes a chapter on "The Ideal Communist City."
[...]
The issue Mayor Lanier and the others are trying to address is sustainable prosperity for the City's future. We all want that, and need to spend a lot of civic time debating how to get there. But to base their arguments on the ideas of someone who has been discredited so many times seems ill-advised. Over the next few days and weeks we will post a series that explores a little more about O'Toole (and the few other writers who drive the road and sprawl agenda). In the process, we'll make some distinctions between planning and regulations, and also look at the issue of housing prices and home ownership in major cities.
And more from Crossley:
Road activist Wendell Cox is being brought into Houston next week to talk to Houston City Council members on behalf of the new anti-planning effort led by former Mayor Bob Lanier, developer Richard Weekley, and construction executive Leo Linbeck, Jr. The purpose of the group, called "Houstonians for Responsible Growth," is to stop what they call "more extensive planning and regulations" in the City of Houston.Cox has been involved on the anti-transit side of a number of transit referenda around the country. The San Antonio Express-News said, "On point after point, his paper on sprawl is incoherent or irrelevant, making it a perfect complement to his many papers on light rail." The Atlanta Journal Constitution calls him "A self-proclaimed (though untrained) transportation expert who makes his living writing propaganda for pro-road causes." About Houston's light rail line, he says "Its role is to consume money and to give the local 'railigious' an altar at which to burn incense." Former Metro chair Robert D. Miller said "Cox's arguments simply don't make sense."
Cox has been extensively linked to developer Michael Stevens, who led the effort to defeat the Metro Solutions plan referendum in 2003 and is a leading proponent, as chair of the Governor's Business Council Transportation Task Force, of a massive road-building effort in Houston and the State.
Tory has a summary of what's been said so far, and a recommendation going forward:
[T]ake advantage of the favorable political climate while we have a reasonable Mayor and city council, and while the well-respected 82-year-old Lanier is still healthy enough to engage. Come up with a comprehensive approach to how development should work here (as opposed to the current patchwork), including a set of principles and streamlined code on deed restrictions to make it easier for neighborhoods to enact consensus (i.e. super-majority) restrictions. In essence, find a free-market policy framework that makes 80% of the citizens happy and marginalizes the radical 10-20% anti-growth controllers, aesthetes, busybodies, and NIMBYs. Instead of duking it out between developers and planning advocates, find a "third-way" that acknowledges and addresses citizen concerns, but with a flexible free market approach instead of top-down comprehensive planning. Now that would be a fine and enduring legacy for Mayor White's final term in office...
While I agree with the idea, I think the anti-planning side has its share of radicals who could do with a bit of marginalization as well. Be that as it may, I think there's a fairly broad consensus that what we've got in place now needs an overhaul, and I think there's plenty of room for people who want to come up with a workable solution to get together and find one. It looks to me like there's no better time for that than now, so I hope to see it happen. Stay tuned.
You almost have to admire their perverse level of determination.
The Dallas suburb that jumped into the nationwide debate over immigration plans to take up another law to force out undocumented immigrants.The Farmers Branch City Council plans to consider a new ordinance Tuesday banning landlords from renting apartments and houses to illegal immigrants. It would require the city and federal government, not the landlords, to determine who is in the country legally, The Dallas Morning News reported on its Web site Thursday.
[...]
"I am confident this new proposal is consistent with the intent of Farmers Branch voters, and will withstand any legal challenges," Mayor Pro Tem Tim O'Hare, who led the city's original efforts against illegal immigrants, told The Associated Press in an e-mail.
The new proposal would require adults wanting to lease a house or apartment in Farmers Branch to obtain an occupancy license from the city. People seeking the license would have to provide information about their citizenship or legal status. The information would be checked against a federal database to determine if applicants are in the country legally.
If federal authorities can't confirm a person has permission to live in the country, the license holder and landlord would be notified. The renter would have 60 days to provide proof of legal status.
Violations of the ordinance could result in a fine of up to $500 per day.
Jeez. Why not demand a set of fingerprints and a DNA sample while you're at it? It just boggles my mind that someone who would surely call himself a "conservative" thinks it's a good idea to get the local and federal government involved in the process of renting an apartment. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.
But hey, you go right ahead, Farmers Branch. Go ahead and destroy your village in order to save it. Maybe something good will arise from the rubble some day.
No, no, nothing to do with politics. Another old hotel implosion.
Cherry Demolition crews have been chipping away at buildings on the block bounded by Main, Fannin, Rusk, and Walker since October, to make room for a 46-story pipe wrench. And everything is set for Dykon's implosion of the 11-story Montagu Hotel (originally the Hotel Cotton, built in 1913) at the corner of Main and Rusk at 7 a.m. on Sunday, January 20th.
If you take pictures or video of this, send them to Swamplot. As long as no one turns up with any grassy knoll stuff, it's all good.
It's funny, isn't it, how so many of our government agencies have decided that retaining email is a liability for themselves?
When he turned on his computer at the Harris County Jail this week, Sgt. Richard Newby was greeted with a flashing message announcing that all e-mail automatically would be deleted after 14 days.Items such as personnel rosters, employee work schedules and tasks from his commanders had been wiped clean from his e-mail account.
"It was a little unsettling. We had no warning," Newby said this week. "I was looking for stuff, and it was gone."
The new policy, which went into effect last weekend, is intended to help the sheriff's office ease a severe shortage of computer storage space, officials said.
The fact that the policy took effect amid an office e-mail scandal that forced District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal to abandon his re-election campaign is a coincidence, sheriff's Lt. John Martin said.
Ayup. I'll just say "What Grits said", and leave it at that.
Unsolicited junk e-mails and personal correspondence can be deleted and purged from a system immediately, said Tim Nolan, a records specialist at the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. By law, the commission sets minimum standards for record retention."Blanket deletion of all e-mails probably isn't a good idea because it probably wouldn't comply with our guidelines for retention of records," Nolan said.
Austin lawyer Bill Aleshire, a volunteer with the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said he has noticed more local and state entities are enacting e-mail destruction policies.
The policies, he said, violate portions of the Texas Government Code if officials are deleting e-mails that relate to official county business.
"People under the Texas Public Information Act have a right to access to public information," Aleshire said. "If government agencies are destroying that information, they're interfering with the rights under the public information act."
Gov. Rick Perry's office has begun deleting e-mails every seven days, and a number of school districts delete e-mails every two weeks. None of the policies has been challenged by lawsuits, Aleshire said.
He also expressed doubt about arguments that deleting e-mails is primarily done to save electronic storage space.
"You don't have enough storage capacity to keep all the records when the records retention policy says you should, then you should get a bigger computer," Aleshire said. "Storage on computers is amazingly cheap."
Indeed. Further, there are other ways of minimizing server space requirements, such as encouraging employees to archive some of their mail to CD or DVD. Disk space was an issue five years ago. It just isn't one now.
KTRK did a story on this on Thursday, noting as the Chron did that the County Attorney is now working with the Sheriff to determine the legality of their new policy. I know it's usually easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, but you'd think in the case of government records, the reverse would be true. Regardless, they've since obtained a restraining order forbidding the implementation of this policy at this time.
"We believe that the policy that was implemented on January 9 is contrary to the Texas Public Information Act, which is a vitally important statute which gives citizens the right to have access to public documents and we feel it is clearly contrary to state law," said KTRK attorney John Edwards.[...]
In the meantime, the temporary restraining order goes into effect immediately. There's a hearing coming up on January 25. We'll be there for that. But for now, the sheriff's department can no longer delete emails that are more than two weeks old.
It would be nice to get some clarity on this, wouldn't it? I guess it'll ultimately be the courts that sort it out, unless the Lege decides to take it up.
Finally, on a tangential note, here (Word doc) is an update from John Washburn on his ongoing battle with the Governor and that office's email retention policy. The more fronts on which this is fought, the better.
It's time to lighten the mood around here a bit, I think. So let's go with a third week of cover-related Random Ten goodness - see here and here for the first two installments.
1. "Your Horoscope For Today" - Lager Rhythms/Weird Al Yankovic. Do you think anyone has ever tried to parody a Weird Al song? He does a lot of originals, like this one. How would you parody Weird Al? That's a question that might keep me awake tonight.
2. "You Are My Sunshine" - Norman Blake/Ray Charles. Remember how I said earlier that I believe one mark of a truly good song is if it can be interpreted in completely different ways by different artists? That's as true of old-fashioned folk music as it is of pop. Norman Blake's version is from the "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" soundtrack. Ray Charles' version is pure Ray Charles. And they're both wonderful.
3. "Uncle John's Band" - Indigo Girls/Grateful Dead. I think I prefer just about every cover of a Grateful Dead song to the original I've ever heard - that's certainly true for what's on the "Deadicated" CD. Doesn't mean the originals aren't good, just that I think the covers are better.
4. "All Around My Hat" - Ceili's Muse/The Mollys. Another old folkie, and another big variation between the two versions. This time, it's lyrical and thematic as well as musical - the Mollys take the "waiting for my true love to return" idea, and add an ultimatum to it, which IMHO was sorely needed.
5. "Thin Line Between Love and Hate" - Annie Lennox/The Persuaders. Not really a whole lot of difference between these two.
6. "Rock This Town - Stray Cats/Brian Setzer Orchestra. Like Phil Collins covering Genesis' "Behind the Lines", Brian Setzer takes one of his old standards and runs with it. It's longer and jazzier, but not as starkly different from the original as Collins' effort was.
7. "Proud Mary" - Creedence Clearwater Revival/Ike & Tina Turner. Pro-CCR: Their version is in my singing range. Pro-Ike & Tina: The MOB arranged their version. Tough call, but I think the Turners win by a nose.
8. "Walkin' Blues" - Eric Clapton/Muddy Waters/Asylum Street Spankers. Some artists do covers. Some artists are covered. Muddy Waters is an example of the latter.
9. "Vincent" - Don McLean/Tufts Beelzebubs. And a capella groups are an example of the former. That's a feature, in case you were curious.
10. "Bad Moon Rising" - Creedence Clearwater Revival/Thea Gilmore. I wasn't going to include another CCR song in this set, but then I found this "Buffy"-themed video set to the Thea Gilmore version of the song, and I figured that meant I had to include it. Yeah, I know, I'm a huge geek.
I think I've just about exhausted this theme, at least as far as my own music collection goes. So tune in next week, when I come up with a variation on that theme.
Who needs diet and exercise when you have Photoshop?
The brochure that U.S. House candidate and former Sugar Land mayor Dean Hrbacek mailed to voters this week says, "Dean's record speaks for itself."But his physique does not. In a photo next to the words of praise, Hrbacek's body is spoken for by the torso of an appreciably slimmer man.
The picture, presented as a true image of the candidate, is actually a computerized composite of Hrbacek's face and someone else's figure, in suit and tie, from neck to knee caps. The give-away is a flawed fit of head and collar.
Hrbacek, a tax lawyer and accountant, did not return calls about the campaign literature Thursday. He is among 10 Republicans seeking the nomination to run against U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford.
But campaign manager Scott Broschart admitted the image is a fake.
Hrbacek has been so busy meeting voters in the 22nd Congressional District that he had no time for a photo session that would have produced a full-length, genuine photo for the political mailing, Broschart said.
So Hrbacek's campaign consultants at the Patriot Group in Austin -- whose clients have included congressmen, elected state officials and politically influential homebuilder Bob Perry -- put the headless body with the candidate's disembodied head.
"He may appreciate that we took a few pounds off him," Broschart said.
You know, when things are really getting serious and everyone's feeling uptight, it's good to know we can always count on the Fort Bend County Republican Party for a little comic relief. Stace, Juanita (who's all over this), and Cory have more.
The Chron front-pages their coverage of the Medina indictment, with an emphasis on Chuck Rosenthal's interference.
The Harris County District Attorney's office this morning dismissed the indictments returned Thursday against Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife in connection with the fire that destroyed their home in Spring last summer.A grand jury handed up the indictments despite objections from Rosenthal's office. Today, the district attorney's office said it would continue to investigate the fire in relationship to the Medinas but not in a prosecutorial mode.
In a rare move for a body that typically operates in secrecy, two grand jury members Thursday night publicly denounced Rosenthal's unwillingness to prosecute as politically motivated.
Rosenthal insisted there is not sufficient evidence to charge the Medinas with involvement in what arson investigators determined was a deliberately set fire. The blaze caused almost $1 million worth of damage to three homes in the Olde Oaks neighborhood in Spring.
Medina, the first Supreme Court justice indicted since Donald Yarbrough was charged with perjury and forgery in 1977, was indicted on a charge of fabricating evidence, specifically a letter he gave investigators about the incident. His wife, Francisca, is accused of setting the fire that destroyed their 5,000-square-foot home and damaged two nearby houses.
Bail was set at $20,000 for Francisca Medina and $5,000 for her husband. Both offenses are felonies. The arson charge carries a punishment of probation to 20 years in prison. Evidence tampering or fabrication would be punishable by probation to 10 years.
Grand jurors anticipated that Rosenthal would seek to have their indictments dismissed. Foreman Robert Ryan and assistant foreman Jeffrey Dorrell said that the district attorney's office made it clear, even before the grand jury started considering the case, that it was vigorously opposed to Medina being indicted.
Ryan said that about a month ago the assistant district attorney handling the case informed him that he had discussed it with Rosenthal, and neither thought charges were justified.
"This is ludicrous. This is not right. This is a miscarriage of justice," said Ryan, 63, a Republican who has been foreman on at least four grand juries. "If this was David Medina, comma, truck driver, comma, Baytown, Texas, he would have been indicted three months ago."
Dorrell and Ryan said that the grand jury is in session until February and that if the indictments are dismissed, the panel might reconvene and reindict.
"I've just never seen anything like the vigor with which these two defendants were defended by the Harris County District Attorney's Office," Dorrell said. "It was theater of the absurd. We knew before we handed the indictment down that the district attorney was going to refuse to prosecute, but we did it anyway."
[...]
It is possible that Rosenthal could seek criminal sanctions against grand jurors for speaking about a case while they are in session. His predecessor as district attorney, John B. Holmes, condemned grand jurors for their comments.
"It's not proper, not in accordance with the law," Holmes said.
No comment about how unusual it is for Rosenthal to actively seek to prevent a grand jury he convened from returning an indictment, John? How often did that happen when you were in charge?
That's really the key here. Again, I'm not saying that the Medinas are or even may be guilty of anything. I am saying that I think Chuck Rosenthal has prosecuted cases on lesser evidence than what he's got here. The Bradford case is again instructive, as it ended in a rare directed verdict for an acquittal, which is the judge's way of saying the DA had no case. Yet that didn't stop Rosenthal from pursuing it, against a man who would one day run for the office he now holds. His track record is clear: He's not judging these cases objectively, he's judging them politically. Lisa Falkenberg is thinking along the same lines. Perry also comments.
And given this, then how can we trust any judgment calls Rosenthal has made? Not just cases directly involving politics, where we can add this example to those of Steven Hotze, Jay Aiyer, Texans for True Mobility, and now possibly Borris Miles. How can we trust his judgment in ordinary criminal cases, when you add all that to his actions in the matters of Jesus Salazar, Josiah Sutton, and who knows who else? His judgment has always been subject to question. And now I say it's beyond that.
Finally, since I brought Bradford up again, I want to add a coda to my earlier post about the DA race in which I said:
[I]sn't it about time we heard what Bradford thinks about all this and what he'd do about it if elected? I don't know if he's not made himself available to the press on this issue, which was reasonable early on when there was a new revelation every five minutes about something stupid, atrocious, and/or potentially illegal that Rosenthal had been doing, or if they're not calling him. But now that this isn't a daily part of the news cycle, I think it's high time he and the newsies got together.
I have since received an email from Alan Bernstein, who wrote the article I'd blogged about, saying that he has tried several times to reach Bradford for comments, without success. I appreciate the information, which is, unfortunately, what I was afraid was the case. I have no idea at this point why Bradford doesn't want to get his perspective on all of these important matters out before the public. As Harris County Lawyer (not a fan of the Chief's) says, Bradford is the only one who we know will be on the ballot in November. If he's not talking about these things now, I don't know when he thinks the right time to do so would be. I admit this is about politics, but it's not completely about politics. I think we all agree that the DA's office stands at a crossroads, and that starting next year (if not sooner), it's going to change. How it changes, and by how much, is a debate we need to be having, and we need everyone who can affect that debate to be participating in it. Chief Bradford, you need to speak up.
According to the newish Star-Telegram politics blog, the writ of mandamus regarding Wendy Davis' ballot eligibility will be heard by the Second Court of Appeals on January 23. The court order setting the date for oral arguments is here (PDF).
In the case of LaRhonda Torry here in Houston, the First Court of Appeals has received a response to the original filing from respondent Gerry Birnbirg, but has not set a hearing date. You can follow that case here. We'll see what happens.
We'll see where this leads.
Grand jury subpoenas released Wednesday appear to signal the expansion of a years-long federal corruption probe to major construction projects from former Mayor Lee Brown's administration and the well-connected players who stood to benefit from them.The corruption investigation first touched Houston more than three years ago, when prosecutors snared two former Brown administration officials in a bribery probe. Prosecutors, who then promised to uncover any related corruption, now appear focused on the deals to construct the $53 million Houston Emergency Center and two Fire Department facilities.
In subpoenas served at City Hall Dec. 18, and released Wednesday, investigators requested numerous documents related to the planning, financing and construction of the three facilities.
Prosecutors are seeking records on the involvement of several people, including Mike Surface, who resigned his Harris County Sports and Convention Corp. post three days after the subpoenas were served; his business partner, Andrew Schatte; and the former boyfriend of a former Brown administration official who worked as a consultant for them, Garland Hardeman.
The city has until next Wednesday to turn over the records.
"Obviously, it involved conduct that occurred before this administration," Mayor Bill White said. "If anybody was involved in illegal behavior at the city of Houston, if I find out about it, they're no longer going to be employed in the city of Houston.
"And that's not all. We're going to give any information we can to prosecutors."
The federal investigation is an outgrowth of a bribery probe than began more than five years ago in a Cleveland suburb.
I'll skip the recap of what has gone on before; suffice it to say that a couple of people (Oliver Spellman and Monique McGilbra) who had been in the Brown administration wound up pleading guilty to accepting bribes from a consultant (Neil Gray, now serving 15 years). We heard some rumblings about this earlier this month, when my question about why Mike Surface resigned from the Harris County Sports Authority was answered.
Schatte's spokesman, Austin-based political consultant Bill Miller, said federal prosecutors have contacted his client and talked to his attorney.He said investigators' questions involve "trivial" matters related to McGilbra, and that the statute of limitations on the accusations is about to expire.
"They are looking into his activities," Miller said. "He hasn't done anything wrong."
[...]
The subpoenas also seek documents on the planning and construction of a training academy and downtown station for the Fire Department.
Hermes Architects, a firm also named in the subpoenas, contracted with the city to develop a master plan for the training academy in 2004, according to city records, but the company did not design any structures in detail.
In fact, neither the fire station nor fire academy structures were designed or built by the companies or people mentioned in the subpoenas, said Issa Dadoush, the city's general services director.
Bill Miller is just about the personification of the establishment Republican Party in Austin. For something that's supposedly a Lee Brown administration scandal, he's one of the last people whose names I'd have expected to pop up. There must be connections to Harris County in there as well, I'd guess. Anyway, we'll see where this takes us.
We knew this was coming, and now here it is.
The federal government sued Monday to get on land owned by a Texas city whose mayor has been highly critical of a planned U.S.-Mexico border fence.The lawsuit was filed by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton against the city of Eagle Pass, Justice Department spokesman Andrew Ames said.
The city's mayor, Chad Foster, serves as chairman of the Texas Border Coalition. The coalition consists of several border mayors, business officials and residents, and has been fighting the Homeland Security Department's border fence construction plans.
Members say the agency has failed to sufficiently consider concerns about the effects on environment, residents' property and the binational way of life along the border and ignored local officials' suggestions for alternatives.
The lawsuit against Eagle Pass is the first of 102 lawsuits expected to be filed in the fight over a border fence.
[...]
Homeland Security had warned private landowners in Texas, California and New Mexico last month that it would sue if not given access to property. The agency has said it needs the access to find the best places to build the fence or to set up other border security.
Some have granted access, but several landowners ignored the warning. Some have threatened their own legal action.
I have no idea how this will turn out, but I know who I'm rooting for. If nothing else, may there be enough delays and holdups to put this thing off until there's a change in the politics of the border. CNN and South Texas Chisme have more.
I know there's a lot of weird stuff going on these days, but this qualifies as a shock.
Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife have been indicted in connection with the arson fire that destroyed their Houston-area home last summer.David Medina's attorney, Terry Yates, confirmed to 11 News that the justice has been indicted on a charge of tampering with evidence.
Yates told 11 News reporter Lee McGuire the indictment was "shocking to us."
Yates said Medina was returning to Houston from Austin Thursday evening and plans to turn himself in and post bond on Friday.
Yates said Francisca Medina, the judge's wife, is charged with arson. She's hired famed defense attorney Dick DeGuerin to represent her, according to Yates.
The fire was ruled to have been intentionally set back in October. As Tom reminds us, Justice Medina was not considered a suspect by Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal at the time. It would appear that Rosenthal is still looking out for the Medinas:
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal told 11 News he will move to dismiss the indictments for lack of evidence."It is our collective feeling there is not enough evidence to pursue prosecution of the indictments and that the indictments be dismissed," said Rosenthal.
Rosenthal admitted such an action would be "fairly unusual," but denied that Medina's status on the Texas Supreme Court has anything to do with it.
"I don't know him, I've met him maybe once, I have paid close attention to the evidence in this case," insisted Rosenthal.
[...]
Nathan Green, the lead investigator on the case, said in October that a dog detected an accelerant at the fire scene.
It was the second such fire at the family's home in 10 years; both started in the garage.
Suspicion was fueled by a trail of financial troubles for the Medinas, including foreclosure proceedings and tax liens against the fire-ravaged home, according to court records and other documents.
A mortgage company filed to foreclose on the home in June 2006, according to public records. Medina and the mortgage company reached an agreement the following December, according to Green.
The foreclosure filing was a "very, very big red flag" for investigators, Green said.
The home was not covered by an insurance policy, which lapsed because the premiums weren't paid, Green said. The loan on the house was insured by the finance company, he said.
I have to say, even after all we've seen emanate from his office this month, I find Rosenthal's actions in seeking to dismiss the indictment that his own office secured to be incredible. The grand jury foreman, Jeffrey Dorrell, who spoke to the Quorum Report, thinks so as well.
"Rosenthal resisted these indictments with a vigor I have never seen or heard before. The DAs office called my office last week and said we should not meet, the case was not viable and we should not indict. Obviously, that came from the top."He continued, "Rosenthal went to the press (at the end of October) ... where he tried to sweep it under the rug. This really pisses me off. I am offended at his actions."
Dorrell said, "Our term ended on November 2 but our investigation of this issue had not been completed. We were held over for three months. This was the only case on our docket. Twelve citizens have put in countless hours on this issue. It is very irritating for someone who was not in the room with us decide not to prosecute.
"If this was a truck driver from Pasadena, he would have already been tried and convicted. Instead, there was a concerted effort by his office to protect this sitting elected Republican from the normal process of justice "
"It is an offense to justice", Dorrell said.
Remember, Rosenthal had no problems taking C.O. Bradford to court on flimsy evidence, and while he went out of his way to not prosecute onetime local GOP kingpin Steven Hotze on a drunk driving charge. He has an established history of questionable judgment, and it would seem that it's no better today.
Please note that I am not claiming that Justice Medina is guilty of anything. He very much gets and deserves the presumption of innocence that we all enjoy. My layman's view of the news stories, which I had not followed very closely before now, is that the state's case would be very circumstantial. It's quite possible that despite Mr. Dorrell's protests, Rosenthal is making the correct call to not pursue these charges. If Rosenthal's judgment were remotely trustworthy, there wouldn't be that much to say about this story. But his judgment is anything but trustworthy, and so I and I'm sure many other people are deeply suspicious of Rosenthal's actions here. That's corrosive to the justice system in general, and very unfair to the Medinas, who is owed a real chance to clear his name.
I don't know what's going to happen. Even with Rosenthal's issues, it would be a bad precedent for public opinion to put pressure on a DA to prosecute someone when that DA thinks the evidence is lacking. All that I can really conclude is that Rosenthal is well past his expiration date, and would be doing everybody a huge favor if he'd just get the hell out. That's the kind of public opinion pressure I can get behind.
Well, what would you expect them to say?
With Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal sure to be out of the job in 11 months or less, Republican candidates for the office pledged Wednesday to reform his agency well beyond the parts affected by the current e-mail scandal.Their recipes for change showed the differences in their viewpoints and backgrounds.
"Change is here, and unless you live under a rock, you've got to know it's coming one way or the other," said candidate Jim Leitner, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor.
In their first joint campaign appearance, none of the four candidates mentioned Republican Rosenthal's name. Candidate Pat Lykos, a former judge, referred to the district attorney's e-mail saga as "those recent events."
Instead, the contenders portrayed Rosenthal predecessor John B. Holmes Jr.'s administration as the good old days.
"Johnny Holmes left this office with the reputation that it was never about politics," said prosecutor and candidate Kelly Siegler.
Still, candidate and Houston police captain Doug Perry, who has accounting and law degrees, said it was not time to go backward.
"Some things have been done the same way for the last 26 years," Perry said, adding that the time police officers must take to file charges with prosecutors and obtain search warrants can be shortened, to the benefit of crime fighting.
The winner of the March 4 primary will face Democrat C.O. Bradford, the former Houston police chief, in the November general election.
I realize this story was generated by the candidates' appearance at a forum sponsored by the Houston Professional Republican Women, but isn't it about time we heard what Bradford thinks about all this and what he'd do about it if elected? I don't know if he's not made himself available to the press on this issue, which was reasonable early on when there was a new revelation every five minutes about something stupid, atrocious, and/or potentially illegal that Rosenthal had been doing, or if they're not calling him. But now that this isn't a daily part of the news cycle, I think it's high time he and the newsies got together. I mean, the GOP primary for DA is important, and it's going to have an effect on the November election, but there is an election in November, and so far we're only hearing about half of it. I hope to see that get rectified soon.
One reason why we need to hear from Bradford now is because some of these GOP hopefuls are saying things that could do with a little of his perspective.
Siegler said she would make the district attorney's office more transparent to defense lawyers and the public."It will not be an office with prosecutors that win at all cost," said the chief of Rosenthal's special crimes bureau.
Siegler also said she would first solicit reform ideas from fellow prosecutors. "We know what's wrong. We know what's broken. ... I am the only one who has worked there the last 21 years. I know how it it operates."
You know what's wrong, you know what's broken, and yet you're only just now talking about maybe fixing it? Would you be saying any of this if the naughty emails that forced Rosenthal off the ballot hadn't come to light in time to get him to withdraw? Somehow, I doubt it. This is a fine illustration of why Kelly Siegler is the wrong person for the job.
Leitner said he would work for the crime lab -- which as part of the Houston Police Department reported a series of false and sometimes fabricated results -- to operate independently and would make sure his conduct is transparent and beyond reproach.
That's a darned fine idea. It's also one that C.O. Bradford voiced back in September.
We must have a Crime Lab that is truly independent. We must have a Crime Lab that is independent of the police department, and that is independent of the District Attorney's Office. We must have a Crime Lab where professional scientists are allowed to do their jobs and the evidence speaks for itself.Evidence doesn't belong to the police, evidence doesn't belong to the defense, evidence doesn't belong to the District Attorney. Evidence belongs to no one, but means everything to everyone, and so it must be cared for by everyone. And without the proper examination and presentation of evidence, a system of keeping track of how many cases are won and pled takes the place of the TRUTH.
See what I mean? If we're not hearing from Bradford now, we're not getting the whole story.
One more thing, and again it's something for which Bradford's perspective would be crucial: Why is it that the DA's operations manual provision related to diversity and equal employment, which has been policy since 1993, is "pretty much ignored as far as our actual hiring practices are concerned"? Mark Bennett has a copy of the email, from the DA's general counsel, which raises that point. What are we going to do about that?
Yet another 2008 Legislative candidate is running into questions about his ballot eligibility.
The state Democratic Party wants a judge to settle questions over the eligibility of a Midland City Councilman to run for the legislative seat held by House Speaker Tom Craddick.Democratic officials filed a complaint in federal court Wednesday and asked a judge to declare Midland City Councilman Bill Dingus, a Democrat, eligible to run.
The Republican Party of Texas sent a written notice this week to the state Democratic Party suggesting Dingus couldn't challenge Craddick, a Midland Republican, because he didn't resign from the City Council before filing to run for the House.
State Republican Party officials say an article in the Texas Constitution states a person holding a lucrative office during the term for which he is elected or appointed is ineligible for the Legislature.
But Democrats counter with a 1996 federal court ruling that says a city council member may announce candidacy for any office and is considered to have automatically resigned the local post when sworn in to another office.
Dingus said in a story for Thursday's Midland Reporter-Telegram that conversations with officials at the Midland City Attorney's Office and other legal representatives led him to believe the law doesn't require him to resign from the council to seek the House seat.
Here's the MRT story:
Papers filed in Midland's U.S. District Court came two days after the Republican Party of Texas sent written notice to the state Democratic Party suggesting Dingus, a Democrat, may be ineligible to run against House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, because he did not resign his council post before seeking the representative seat."The way we took their letter was a request for (Democratic) Chairman (Boyd) Richie to determine Mr. Dingus ineligible," explained Chad Dunn, general counsel for the Texas Democratic Party.
[...]
Dingus told the Reporter-Telegram he talked with the Midland City Attorney's Office and other legal representives before making a decision on filing. Those conversations, he said, led him to believe the law does not require his resignation from the council in order to seek the House seat.
Regardless, Dingus said he would like to see a judicial decision on the matter.
"It just makes sense," Dingus said. "The Democratic Party is asking the judge to settle this once and for all.
"I just want to obey the law and serve my community and if I err, I want to err on the side of public service."
Between this, Wendy Davis, and Laura Ewing, it would be very nice if we could get a clear and consistent answer for this issue once and for all. I don't know if there's an extra bounty of City Council members running for legislative offices this year, or if the matter had just been benignly neglected before now, but either way, we need something clear that everyone understands.
I note again that there isn't a controversy over Adrian Garcia, nor was there one over Shelley Sekula Gibbs. Which is fine by me, I don't want there to be a problem with Adrian Garcia's candidacy. It looks like the difference in all cases is the difference between Houston's two-year terms and other cities' longer terms - from what I can tell, Fort Worth has three-year terms (see the history of Davis' Council district for evidence of that), and based on the exceedingly crappy information I can find for Midland city elections, it looks like they have three-year terms as well. I've seen various suggestions for modifying Houston's term limits law that include longer individual terms in office for Council members. This sort of thing might wind up as an unintended consequence if we ever go down that road.
Note: This entry is part of a series of recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing written Q&As with judicial candidates.
Today's interview is with Armando Walle, who is running in HD140 against the ineffective Craddick D Rep. Kevin Bailey. Walle is a lifelong resident of the district, and a former staffer for US Rep. Gene Green. He's also been endorsed by the TPA, and would represent a new direction for this district and for the Lege in general.
The interview is here, as always in MP3 form. I support Armando Walle, and especially if you live in HD140, I hope you will, too.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil).
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor.
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11.
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, District 147.
Hilzoy says:
A member of Andy Olmsted's family has just written me to say that if people want to do something in honor of him, they can send donations to a fund that has been set up for the four children of CPT Thomas Casey, who served under Andy and was killed while trying to help him. The address is here:Capt. Thomas Casey Children's fund
P.O. Box 1306
Chester, CA 96020Thanks so much.
The list of blog links to Major Olmsted's final words is amazingly long. What a stunning, poignant tribute.
Gary Farber has a report from Major Olmsted's funeral service. As before, if you click over - and you should - bring a box of tissues with you. The description of the "missing man" ceremony in particular really hit me hard.
I mentioned previously that the writ of mandamus filed on behalf of State Rep. Garnet Coleman's primary opponent to restore her to the ballot was rejected by the State Supreme Court and re-filed with the First Court of Appeals. The Court ruled on another mandamus petition Tuesday, affecting Democratic candidate for State Senate Wendy Davis.
The Texas Supreme Court rejected on procedural grounds an effort to keep Democrat Wendy Davis off the ballot in her challenge to GOP state Sen. Kim Brimer of Fort Worth.A writ filed in Austin on Friday alleged that Ms. Davis was technically still a member of the Fort Worth City Council when she filed for the Senate seat. The state Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the argument but instead ruled Monday that the writ must be filed first with the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth.
Rob Gibson, a spokesman for the three Fort Worth firefighters who filed the writ, said they went straight to the state Supreme Court to speed up the process. He said the goal is to get Ms. Davis off the ballot and give the Democrats a chance to select another candidate to face Mr. Brimer.
"These ... [firefighters] are record Democrats, and they don't believe that Wendy Davis is eligible," said Mr. Gibson, second vice president of the Fort Worth Professional Firefighters Association.
Matt Latham, campaign manager for Ms. Davis, said the Texas secretary of state's office has already deferred the decision on his client's eligibility to the county Democratic chairman. And the chairman, Art Brender, has ruled that Ms. Davis is eligible.
"This is another example of them not understanding the procedural issues," Mr. Latham said.
[...]
The writ was filed by Javier Cerda, Cullen Cox and Rickey Turner, all members of the firefighters association. The association has endorsed Mr. Brimer and was unhappy with Ms. Davis for her opposition to collective bargaining for firefighters.
Mr. Latham also noted that Republican political consultant Bryan Eppstein is working for Mr. Brimer's campaign and represented the firefighters in their successful collective bargaining campaign.
Pegasus News has some more background on the players involved.
One of the core arguments centers on when Joel Burns, Ms. Davis' successor on the council, was officially sworn into office. An existing officeholder isn't eligible to run for the Legislature until he or she has been officially replaced.The Fort Worth city charter says the "new Council shall meet at City Hall and take the oath of office" at the first meeting after the votes are canvassed.
Mr. Gibson said the meeting and swearing-in ceremony Jan. 8 was the one making Mr. Burns an official council member and freed Ms. Davis from her previous duties. The deadline for filing for the March primary was Jan. 2.
Ms. Davis' campaign said she beat the clock when Mr. Burns held a private swearing-in ceremony Jan. 1, a day before the filing deadline. Mr. Latham mentioned a portion of the city charter that says a winning candidate "shall be entitled to qualify immediately after the declaration of the council" after the votes are canvassed.
He said that allowed Ms. Davis to revise her election filing to make it effective that following day.
That brings up another dispute. Mr. Gibson said Ms. Davis was required to formally withdraw her previous filing because it was not valid. Mr. Latham said she was only required to revise her filing, which she did.
I don't know enough about the law to hazard an opinion as to the merits of this mandamus. We'll see what the lower court says.
I realize that we political junkies have no grounds to groan about an early start to a particular campaign, but I was kind of hoping to put off the 2009 Mayor's race until at least, oh, March or so. No can do, for as Miya tells us, it has officially begun with an announcement from Council Member Peter Brown. And with that, my Election 2009 category officially debuts as well. Carolyn Feibel, who is now a sole proprietor at the NewsWatch blog, has more.
Real estate investor David Mincberg raised $381,477 in contributions from lawyers, investors, developers and others. Added to his own money, he put a total of $631,477 in his treasury for the November general election for county judge, according to campaign finance reports filed Tuesday.[...]
County Judge Ed Emmett, who faces former district clerk Charles Bacarisse in the March 4 Republican primary, collected $546,403 in contributions, including $5,000 from engineer James Dannenbaum and $5,000 from the political action committee associated with the architectural firm of Leroy Hermes, both of whom do business with the county. He also received contributions from local law firms and utility companies.
[...]
Emmett also had $365,693 left from his fundraising in the first part of 2007.
Bacarisse raised $270,648 in the last six months of 2007 from lawyers and a wide variety of supporters, including $10,000 from Houston Astros owner Drayton McLane and $10,000 from the conservative R Club.
Bacarisse also had $315,485 left over from his campaigns for district clerk. He is allowed to spend that money on running for the higher office.
After expenses, Mincberg started the year with $543,614, Emmett with $582,828 and Bacarisse with $411,684.
Not a bad position for Mincberg to be in at all. Mincberg has a contested primary to deal with as well, but against a token candidate who isn't going to be a factor. I do hope he's active for the primary anyway, even if it's just mail, as the more awareness of his campaign he can raise, the better. But at least he should come out of March unbattered and with a decent amount of cash available. It's great to see him get off to such a strong start.
I did not know Joan Ehrlich, the longtime director of Houston's Equal Employment Opportunity office who passed away last week, though when I go I hope as many people say as many nice things about me as they have about her. I do know that a lot of people with whom I'm acquainted knew her, so at the request of Doug Miller, I'm posting the following about a memorial service for her, so that if you were one of her friends you can know to attend:
Saturday, January 26, 2008, at six o'clock in the evening, at The Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas (www.rothkochapel.org). The Rothko Chapel is located on Sul Ross, adjacent to the St. Thomas University Campus in the Montrose Section of Houston. To help us accommodate everyone, please contact Katie Hoener of HendlerLaw at 512-439-3209 or khoener@hendlerlaw.com if you plan to attend, or for further information.The family asks that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to one of the two organizations Joan Ehrlich cared a great deal about in recent years.
The National Women's Political Caucus Leadership Development, Education and
Research Fund (NWPC-LDERF)
P.O. Box 50476
Washington, DC 20091
202-785-1100
www.nwpc.orgThe NWPC-LDERF educates and trains young women and girls for leadership in public service. The NWPC-LDERF is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization and donations are tax deductible.
Or
The San Jose Family Shelter
c/o Family Supportive Housing, Inc.
1590 Las Plumas Avenue
San Jose, CA 95133-1667
(408) 926-8885
www.familysupportivehousing.orgFamily Supportive Housing, Inc is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization and
donations are tax deductible.If you choose to make a donation, please let the organization know that it is in
memory of Joan Ehrlich.
My sincere condolences to Joan Ehrlich's family, and to everyone who knew her.
I think it's fair to say that the Astros franchise, and GM Ed Wade, have had better days than yesterday.
Disappointed baseball couldn't solve its steroids problem earlier, Drayton McLane and several Astros withheld judgment after the House Oversight Committee asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether shortstop Miguel Tejada lied to federal investigators in 2005.Although area players Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch aren't due to testify at a House Oversight Committee hearing until next month, the hearings with former Senator George Mitchell, commissioner Bud Selig and union chief Don Fehr quickly had Houston importance when Tejada was mentioned in the opening statement by Congressman Henry Waxman.
The Astros acquired Tejada from the Baltimore Orioles on Dec. 12, a day before he and former Astros Clemens and Pettitte were among the three highest-profile players implicated in the use of performance-enhancing drugs when Mitchell released his report for baseball.
"It's disappointing that we couldn't have solved the problem a long time ago," McLane said via phone from his office in Temple. "We were not allowed to have testing by the union. That was something that they didn't want to bargain about for many years and, I feel, would have struck over it if we had tried to enforce it.
"It's just disappointing that this has occurred because of the confusion that it brings to the public about our great sport."
[...]
During congressional hearings held on March 17, 2005, Rafael Palmeiro testified and vehemently denied ever using steroids. Later that year, while playing with Tejada on the Orioles Palmeiro tested positive for using steroids, prompting the Committee to investigate whether he committed perjury at the hearings.
As you know, the whole so-called PED issue doesn't really strike a chord in me. But lying to the feds is generally not a good idea.
I don't know how hot the soup is that Tejada has landed in. I walked in on Tiffany watching the 6 PM news on Channel 11 last night, and caught some bits of a legal expert talking about how lying to Congress isn't technically perjury because of the way the perjury statutes are written (two words: Oliver North). You''ll note that Raffy Palmeiro is still walking around unindicted, for instance. But things don't look so good for Tejada right now.
On a side note, Grits points out that unless the feds actually intend to pursue charges against Tejada, we really shouldn't be hearing about any of this right now. Something to ponder when and if more names and/or more revelations come out.
As for Clemens, there's this:
Pressed to weigh in on the credibility of accusations against star pitcher Roger Clemens, independent baseball watchdog George Mitchell came down strongly on the side of Clemens accuser Brian McNamee."Mr. McNamee had an overwhelming incentive to tell the truth," said Mitchell, a former Senate Majority Leader.
Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner as baseball's best pitcher and a former Astros all-star, has repeatedly and heatedly denied accusations that he used any banned substance.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., asked Mitchell whether there was "too little corroboration" of McNamee's testimony.
"I carefully reviewed and considered all the information we received," Mitchell responded. He said he "tried to establish the truthfulness of the information before it was included in the report."
Mitchell said he gave Clemens an opportunity to respond "and he declined."
Mitchell pointed out that McNamee's agreement with federal prosecutors grants him immunity for truthful testimony but further sanctions for false statements. The former senator said he read the sections of his report to McNamee before they were released publicly and the witness said he was "completely comfortable" with them.
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., followed up to make sure Mitchell believed his star witness.
"We feel that the statements provided to us were truthful," Mitchell responded.
That may move the pieces around on the public relations board, but I don't think it changes what we already knew. Mitchell talked to McNamee, not Clemens (who, let's face it, would have been a fool to talk to him even if perjury didn't apply), he believed him enough to put his accusations in the report even though there was no corroborating evidence, and now he's standing by what he wrote. What else did you expect? Whether you believe Clemens is guilty of something or not still comes down to which one you think is more credible. Mitchell's reiteration of his own report doesn't, or at least shouldn't, affect that.
Along those lines, Derek Jacques addresses the matter of McNamee's statement and its credibility:
Technically, the agreement likely does stipulate that he gives evidence against Clemens--the way these documents work, usually, is they have a copy of the witness's statement attached, and the agreement basically says, "You agree that you gave this statement of your own free will, that it's all true, and that, if we ask you to, you would testify to it in court. We will not use your statement to prosecute you for any crimes, but if you go back on your story, we can use it against you, as well as prosecute you for perjury and whatever else we can think of." The statement--which in McNamee's case would include the things he said about Clemens and Pettitte, as well as any details he might have given about his supplier, Kirk Radomski--is typically given before the agreement is put on paper. So the question isn't what the agreement says, it's whether or not the agents made it clear to McNamee that he had to put something in that statement about Clemens or he'd go to jail, thereby possibly pressuring him to lie.
Something to add to the discussion here comes from King Kaufman, who watched the proceedings on C-SPAN so I didn't have to:
I don't know who let Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., in. Ninety-one minutes into the hearing, he asked the first really good question. He cited a newspaper article about a study that found no improved performance by those players who had tested positive."I'm wondering," he asked Mitchell, "whether, in the course of your investigation, you felt that we really knew enough about what these substances really did. Because in terms of providing education for our kids, if in fact there is no performance [enhancement], maybe the kids would be less prone to use them if we really found out that there wasn't any quantitative difference in their performance."
Mitchell, to his credit, gave a nuanced answer. "I believe the subject is very complicated," he said, "and as often happens in life, a phrase has entered into the universal vocabulary of our society: Performance-enhancing substances. If you look at and talk to the players who use them, you find that the motives, while they ultimately involve performance, don't always do so in an immediate sense. A lot of it is recovery time, recovery from injury, recovery from strenuous workouts, the ability to work out more often."
Mitchell also talked about the possible placebo effect. But he didn't really answer the question. Whether the intention is to immediately improve performance or to do so indirectly by recovering from injury more quickly or being able to work out harder, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Getting the word out on that might be a very smart front to open in the War on Drugs.
It's an article of faith that steroids and things like HGH have a direct, measurable, positive impact on a player's performance. Hell, the phrase "performance-enhancing drugs" spells it out for you right there. But medical research is far less clear on the point, and it may be that the main benefit is quicker recuperation time for injured players, something I daresay the public might consider a good thing. Maybe the best way to go here, instead of doing the War On Drugs writ small, is to really pursue the research, and if it turns out that the risks far outweigh the benefits (if there even are any), to push education of that at every level of competitive sports. Derek Jacques has similar thoughts.
I know, I know, that's crazy talk. Off with their heads! It's much easier, and so much more fun, that way.
Note: This entry is part of a series of recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing written Q&As with judicial candidates.
There's a lot I could say about State Rep. Garnet Coleman, who is the incumbent in HD147. He's a member of the House Democratic leadership; he chairs the bipartisan Legislative Study Group, which provides accurate and detailed bill evaluations for all of its members (as a recipient of their bill analyses, I can personally vouch for that); he's an outspoken leader on numerous progressive issues, from CHIP to reproductive rights to gay issues and more; and he's just an endlessly fascinating guy to talk to. I could have easily spent an hour or more interviewing him, but managed to restrain myself; the total time on this conversation is 20 minutes.
Rep. Coleman is one of the best we've got, which is why the Texas Progressive Alliance enthusiastically endorses him in his primary election. Needless to say, his opponent is being supported by Tom Craddick and his cronies.
Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, drew a last-minute challenger, LaRhonda Torry, in the Democratic primary, but a few days later Harris County Democratic Chairman Gerry Birnberg rejected Torry's application. Birnberg said he couldn't accept her filing fee because she had not yet designated a campaign treasurer.The Texas Secretary of State's Office disagreed with Birnberg but couldn't order the party to put Torry on the ballot.
Torry then retained lawyer and former state Rep. Ron Wilson, who late last week filed a petition with the Texas Supreme Court seeking an order to have Torry placed on the ballot.
Coleman contended that Wilson had recruited Torry, a legal secretary, to run against him because of Coleman's outspoken opposition to Speaker Tom Craddick. Wilson, you may recall, signed on as an assistant House parliamentarian to help Craddick beat back an assault on his speakership last spring.
Wilson denied recruiting Torry.
Doesn't matter what Ron Wilson says - the fact that he's representing Torry in this matter speaks for itself. According to the Quorum Report, the Supreme Court dismissed Torry's mandamus yesterday, but without prejudice. They ruled that there was still time before the ballots have to be printed for the First Court of Appeals to handle the question before they got involved. Far as I know, Torry and Wilson are still pursuing this with the lower court.
My interview with Rep. Coleman is here. More to come soon.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil)
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11
Baltasar D. Cruz, candidate for Texas Supreme Court, Position 7.
A few news briefs of interest...
State Rep. Juan Garcia, who won a close race to unseat longtime Republican Gene Seaman in 2006, will face a former Democrat in his re-election bid. In honor of his blast-from-the-past opponent and his equally old-time support staff, Garcia's campaign put together a little video salute to them. It's pretty darned funny, especially if you're a fan of cheesy 1980s pop culture (as if there's any other kind). See it here.
Over in CD10, Dan Grant is touting an endorsement from 2006 canididate Ted Ankrum:
"Dan is the only Democrat in the race who can beat Mike McCaul," Ankrum said. "He is uniquely qualified to redirect the tax dollars being squandered in Baghdad to our own communities in Brenham, Bastrop, and beyond. Simply put, he is the right choice for all of us in this year that promises dramatic change."Ankrum served three tours of duty with U.S. combat forces near the DMZ in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and Navy Commendation Medal among many other tributes during his distinguished military career. His fourth tour of duty in Vietnam was as a special advisor to the South Vietnamese military leadership in the Mekong Delta. In 2006, he ran an aggressive campaign against Mike McCaul, winning 42 percent of the vote despite being vastly outspent by the multi-millionaire incumbent.
"Dan has been on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he knows that the best way to honor our brave men and women there is to bring them back home to the families and communities where they belong," Ankrum said.
Ankrum said Grant's grasp of a wide range of issues makes him the right man at the right time as Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans search for candidates who want to change the culture of incompetence and corruption that have characterized Washington, D.C. during the incumbent's time there.
Ankrum's stronger-than-expected showing on a shoestring budget in a district that the Democrats avoided like the plague in 2004 earned him a lot of respect, so that's a nice endorsement to have.
Meanwhile, Grant's opponent in the CD10 primary, Larry Joe Doherty, has some pretty decent fourth quarter fundraising numbers to report. Given how many hot races there are out there, both for March and November, there's a lot of eagerly-awaited reports today.
Speaking of which, Joe Jaworski reports a total of $450,000 raised last year:
Proving that he will have the resources to make his case for independent leadership and positive change, Joe Jaworski today filed his latest campaign finance report, showing more than $450,000 raised to date in his Texas Senate race against a 20-year incumbent legislator known for his multiple votes in favor of term limits -- except for himself."I'm gratified by the overwhelming support coming from ordinary Texans who want change, not more of the same," Jaworski said. "Their willingness to invest in the new direction will pay off when they elect a new state senator who puts their concerns first and Austin politics last."
Jaworski's report for the period ending December 31 shows that he raised $204,660.51 during the second half of 2007. His total raised in the race to date is $454,922.74 from 795 donors, with an average contribution of $555.88 and including a $13,000 loan from the candidate. His fundraising has continued on pace during the first two weeks of the current year.
Not too shabby.
The Houston Business Journal takes a look at Michael Skelly in CD07. I particularly liked this bit:
Like most Republicans, Culberson favors a free-market approach to energy instead of heavy, inefficient government subsidies. He supports drilling in the Colorado Rockies, the North Slope of Alaska and any other proven reserve in the United States."The free market will take care of developing alternative energy sources far more quickly and far more efficiently than government regulation," he says. "No one needed to pass a law to tell Toyota to build the Prius."
Skelly actually agrees, noting that energy is not an either/or issue.
"We need all the energy that we can get," he says. "Our track record is that when we focus on an issue we're generally successful at solving it."
Skelly believes the primary energy plank in his campaign platform will appeal to, and attract contributions from, old-money oil and gas constituents.
"Houston, and the people who have done well in energy, understand energy in a way that other people don't," he says. "In renewable energy you have to understand conventional energy. It's not an accident that Houston is very successful in the renewable energy space -- it's because we understand energy."
Nice contrast. The full text of the article is here.
Phillip Martin is taking a look at the state of the State House races this year. He's got a look at unchallenged Republicans and unchallenged Democrats, with more to come soon. Check them out.
And finally, Texas Lawyer (subscription only) notes the following remarkable occurrence in Dallas County:
There was a time not long ago in Dallas County when a candidate had to be young, naive or just plain crazy to run for a state district court bench as a Democrat. But ever since November 2006, when a bunch of optimistic Democrats took the criminal and civil courthouses by surprise and swept more than 40 sitting Republican judges out of office, primary candidate slates have changed.Judging by the candidate filings, which closed on Jan. 2, the shoe is now squarely on the other foot, politically speaking. While the Democratic primary slate is littered with former judges, associate judges and incumbents (two of whom took office in 2004 before the landslide), the Republican slate has no incumbents trying to retain their jobs or defeated incumbents attempting to reclaim a bench.
Instead, the GOP slate includes first-time judicial candidates and unsuccessful 2006 candidates.
Note that this does not mean that there are no Republicans running for the bench in Dallas County, just none who are or once were judges themselves.
Fans of unadulterated political theater will likely be disappointed by this, but I think it's for the best.
A court challenge to the procedure that allowed embattled Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal to withdraw from the Republican primary now appears unlikely.The remaining candidates from both parties apparently will refrain from taking action for political, rather than legal, reasons.
Just minutes before the withdrawal deadline on Jan. 2, Harris County Republican Party officials received a letter in which Rosenthal asked to be taken off the March 4 ballot. The only other contenders at the time were Republican Jim Leitner and Democrat C.O. Bradford.
Under state law, the incumbent's departure from the campaign triggered a two-day extension for others to sign up to run as Republicans. Police Capt. Doug Perry, former judge Pat Lykos and prosecutor Kelly Siegler did so.
Local Democratic Party chairman and attorney Gerald Birnberg and others said, however, that Rosenthal's letter was void because it lacked notarization and asked that his "nomination" rather than his "name" be removed.
The primary determines who gets the nomination.
But now Leitner says he has decided against filing a lawsuit aimed at rewinding the process so that he and Rosenthal would be the only contenders. Bradford, after meeting with advisers about the issue, has taken no action and won't comment on the issue, according to a spokeswoman.
It's impossible to separate out the politics of this from the merits, so let's just go down the political path. Leitner had a pretty strong case for pursuing this. He seems to be an underdog in the current four-way GOP matchup, with Pat Lykos and Kelly Siegler (even with her own baggage) being favored over him. If he wanted to position himself as a candidate of change, he could justify the challenge to Rosenthal's withdrawal as an insistence on doing things right even when there's a cost. Candidates often face a backlash for trying to knock rivals off the ballot, but the objective argument for doing so is pretty straightforward - either "acknowledged" has a specific meaning or it doesn't - and given the GOP's desire to hold this office, I think bygones would have been bygones. I'd probably have advised him to file the suit if I were in a position to do so. Having said that, I respect his decision not to:
Leitner said he realized that filing and winning a lawsuit would make him the sole Republican challenger to Rosenthal, who has been politically wounded by the disclosure of sensational e-mails he sent and received on government computer equipment."Even though much of me wants to do just that, I cannot take that step," Leitner wrote to the news media. "I feel that the last thing voters need right now is to have the court decide who their candidate will be.
"This may be the way to turn a sure win into a possible loss, but I feel it is the right thing to do," he added.
I can't argue with that. It may not be a winning decision, but it's an honorable one.
As for Bradford, I think the case for not intervening is equally clear. A Leitner candidacy, which I think we'd have wound up with had Bradford pursued this, would make it harder for him to be tha candidate of change. The self-interest of wanting to run against Rosenthal enough to force him back on the ballot after he tried to drop out undercuts the message of wanting to clean up the office by getting rid of Rosenthal. You might still get the matchup you want, but now you look cynical. I think the downside is too high, and I think the decision to let sleeping dogs lie was the right one.
One last thing:
Birnberg said political strategy prevents Bradford or any other Democrat from going to court against the Republicans' acceptance of Rosenthal's letter as a legally binding document."We will (probably) let the Republicans disobey the law," Birnberg said. "We will explain to the public they are not following the law, they want to put in a DA who does not want to follow the law -- and let the voters decide."
GOP officials said, however, that before they accepted Rosenthal's withdrawal they were assured it was legal by the Texas Secretary of State's office and the Harris County Attorney's Office.
While the decision whether or not to pursue a legal remedy to Rosenthal's faulty withdrawal was political, so too was the ruling by the Republican Secretary of State and County Attorney that that withdrawal was just fine as it was. Things might be very different today if the paperwork had been handed to an impartial authority for processing.
According to Nancy Sarnoff, the high rise development on Kirby must be going well, because the developers there are looking to expand it even before it's finished.
The West Ave development that's going up on five acres at the southwest corner of Kirby and Westheimer will have 180,000 square feet of retail space and 380 apartments when it opens in 2009.But future phases are being pondered that would expand the project significantly.
The developers are looking at nearby tracts for what could lead to a hotel, office space, condo tower and more shopping space.
West Ave is well under way, and the developers project an August 2009 opening.
The complex will have five stories of apartments atop two levels of retail space and a small section of office space, where one of the developers, Urban Partners of Dallas, will have offices.
On a recent tour of the property, president Robert Bagwell wouldn't get specific about the tenants but said he has 18 signed commitments -- representing about 30 percent of the retail space -- that are in the process of being converted to leases.
He said West Ave will have an "organic" feel with primarily local and regional tenants, including clothing stores and restaurants.
"We're not trying to do a Rodeo Drive," Bagwell said.
Restaurants will take up about 45,000 square feet of the retail space.
Fine by me. If you're going to build high rises in Houston, this is a pretty decent place for them. It will even be pretty accessible to the Universities line. I've measured it by my car's odometer out of curiosity, and it's a smidge less than a half mile from the West Ave site to Richmond, which is to say it's about a ten-minute walk. Not ideal, but certainly doable.
There are a lot of contested Democratic primaries this year, more than most of us can remember there being in a long time. For the most part, this is a good thing, as many of these contests indicate a greater interest in running as a Democrat, especially statewide. But not all primaries, and certainly not all primary candidates, are created equal. Some of them feature one candidate that is clearly superior, and some feature candidates who would represent a step backwards if they were to win. My blogging colleagues and I in the Texas Progressive Alliance are evaluating all of the contested legislative, Congressional, and statewide races with the intent of highlighting some of those where the choice is especially clear. We have identified the following candidates as those we support unanimously:
Rick Noriega, United States Senate
Joe Jaworski, State Senate, District 11
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, State House, District 147.
State Rep. Jessica Farrar, State House, District 148.
State Rep. Paul Moreno, State House, District 77
Armando Walle, State House, District 140
Brian Thompson, State House, District 46
I've included some more info about these candidates beneath the fold, but one thing to note is that each of the State House candidates has a Craddick-backed opponent. I know it feels like the defeat of House Speaker Tom Craddick is just a matter of time, but he isn't going down without a hell of a fight. And that's a fight we can't afford to lose, because any step backwards would be devastating.
I trust everyone is familiar with Rick Noriega. I have interviews scheduled, or in Jaworski's case already published, with several other endorsed candidates, so if you want to hear them talk about issues you can. For more on Rep. Moreno, see Vince, who has a long list of El Paso officeholders who have endorsed him; for more on Brian Thompson, see his recent BOR diary. And if you want to help in a tangible way, there's our ActBlue page for them.
One last item to note is that this is not a final list. There are other races to consider, and I expect we will make some more endorsements shortly. Further, the lack of an endorsement in a given race is not an expression of negativity towards any candidate in that race. As I said, we have many races that offer more than one good choice.
Rick Noriega, United States Senate. On March 4, Texas Democrats have a clear choice for their nominee for U.S. Senate: Rick Noriega. Noriega has the experience necessary to serve as a United States Senator and to take on Bush lap-dog U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in the fall. Faced with three token primary opponents, only one of whom is even running what could be called a "legitimate campaign," Noriega is the clear choice not only because he is right on important issues such as the war and CHIP, but because he is a true progressive who has a proven record of accomplishment for the people of Texas.Joe Jaworski, State Senate, District 11. Joe Jaworski (D-Galveston), a former Galveston City Councilman, has taken a very strong stance on environmental issues which are especially important in Senate District 11 and statewide. Jaworski faces token primary opposition and will likely face State Sen. Mike Jackson (R-LaPorte) in the 2008 General Election. Jackson has one of the worst environmental records of any legislator in the entire Texas Legislature and has failed for several sessions to make any meaningful legislative headway on issues important to his constituents.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, State House, District 147. Coleman (D-Houston), is one of the leading progressives in the Texas House of Representatives, and has been at the forefront of important progressive issues including the Children's Health Insurance Program, reproductive freedom, and gay rights. A member of the House Democratic Leadership, re-electing Coleman is key to ensuring that the 81st Session of the Texas Legislature has a strong, progressive voice. Coleman faces a primary opponent.
State Rep. Jessica Farrar, State House, District 148. Farrar (D-Houston), is another strong progressive voice in the Texas House. Farrar was a leading voice in the 80th Texas Legislature on issues including the HPV vaccine, stem cell research, and against Governor Rick Perry's arrogant Homeland Security power-grab. Farrar is one of a handful of Democrats who voted against Craddick in 2005 and, as a result, was relegated to the Agriculture Committee for taking her stand. Farrar faces a former staffer from her office who is believed to be supported by anti-progressive forces in Austin. Farrar is a progressive leader and Texans across the state need her back in the Texas House in 2009.
State Rep. Paul Moreno, State House, District 77. Moreno (D-El Paso), is the Dean of the Texas House of Representatives and one of the House's strongest voices on civil rights issues. Moreno, a seasoned veteran of many progressive struggles, faces an unknown opponent with no experience in government. Moreno deserves re-election, and Texas needs Moreno's leadership on civil rights and progressive issues in the 81st Session of the Texas Legislature.
Armando Walle, State House, District 140. Walle (D-Houston), is seeking to unseat Rep. Kevin Bailey (D-Houston), who has been ineffective for his district on progressive issues. Unseating Bailey is a necessary step toward a new Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. Walle has worked for Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Congressman Gene Green, and has strong ties to his district and, we believe, will be a better voice for District 140 than its existing representation.
Brian Thompson, State House, District 46. Thompson (D-Houston), faces State Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin) who has cast a number of votes which are against the interest of her district. A win in this district is yet another step toward electing a new Speaker of the Texas House in 2009. Thompson, an attorney, has strong ties to his district and will be a much needed progressive voice in a district which, for too long, has been governed by a member who consistently votes against the interests of her constituents.
Interesting analysis of the career of Chuck Rosenthal and how his judgment, which he claims was at fault for all the recent unpleasantness, has been an issue for quite some time.
Attorney Jim Leitner, who ran against Rosenthal in 2000 upon the retirement of local legend Johnny Holmes, tried to seize on his personality in that first primary campaign."How can we expect someone to set the example for all law enforcement agencies of Harris County if they do not possess good judgment?" Leitner said eight years ago.
Given the content of some of Rosenthal's recently publicized e-mails -- which included questionable campaign communications that are being investigated by the Texas attorney general, repeated love notes to his secretary, racial jokes and images, and sexually explicit video clips -- the question is more pertinent than ever.
Rosenthal declined to comment for this story, but over the past few weeks he has said he was sorry for causing pain to others with his personal e-mails and that he regretted some of what he had said. But he insisted he had not done anything that should cost him his job or his shot at re-election.
His actions were not illegal, Rosenthal has said, acknowledging only his own "stupidity." County Judge Ed Emmett, referring to a conversation with him, said Rosenthal owned up to "great errors in judgment."
The J-word. It has dogged him for decades. People who have praised him sometimes had a hard time understanding things he has done. Why, for instance, could he not see how bad it looked to take a $2,500 campaign contribution from the owner of a construction company that was being prosecuted by his office for environmental crimes? And why did it take two weeks and several news articles before he was willing to return the donation?
Sometimes his behavior seemed mere foolishness. There was the oft-cited instance when he set off firecrackers in an office stairwell that some workers feared was gunfire. There was his less-publicized and highly personal judicial "voters guide" that he shared with other prosecutors. He offered opinions on candidates, including sitting judges, in language that often lapsed into the vulgar.
There were other instances over the years when Rosenthal's conduct has had more serious connotations. In 1986, for example, his tactics as a prosecutor were questioned when he was accused of sending two undercover police officers posing as defense lawyers into the city jail to talk with a defendant there on cocaine charges. The alleged trick was an attempt to learn more about a reported kidnapping. Even Holmes questioned whether his assistant, one of two prosecutors assigned to the case, had pushed the envelope.
The defendant's attorney, Dan Gerson, was incensed when it happened, and his opinion did not lessen over time.
"I thought it showed a willingness to cross the ethical line, and that Rosenthal believes that the end justifies the means," Gerson recalled in 2003.
[...]
In the trial of Robert Coulson for the murder of his family, he presented photos of an incriminating envelope positioned prominently on a desk, only later acknowledging in an appeals proceeding that the envelope was not there the night of the crime and shouldn't have been shown to the jury.
And in the prosecution of accused murderer Anibal Sanchez, weapons testing that likely would have undermined the state's case was never given to defense attorneys, as required by law. Sanchez was sent to death row, where he died of natural causes. When the unseen police ballistics report became a major point of an appeal years later, he dismissed the failure to disclose it as an oversight. But his co-counsel later became suspicious.
"I wonder whether I was just a shill," said lead prosecutor Lorraine Parker, who moved to Denver to practice civil law and became active in a local anti-death penalty organization.
"He was a lot tighter with the cops than I ever was. His judgment as a prosecutor often came into question. I cannot understand why Johnny Holmes anointed him as a successor," Parker said.
That last bit sounds like the basis of a plotline from Law and Order, doesn't it? Put all this stuff together and it's pretty damning. It's also a pretty strong argument for a complete overhaul of the office.
In fairness, the defense bar's complaints over his judgment during the last eight years have centered more on matters of policy: pursuing the death penalty against Andrea Yates or failing to bring in outside scrutiny for cases that may have been compromised by the troubled Houston Police Department crime lab.But this latest scandal shows Rosenthal's conduct has veered too far off track to be ignored, said Pat McCann, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association.
McCann finds himself in the odd position of advocating on behalf of his usual adversaries on the other side of the aisle and the institution they represent.
"I think what's most important, Chuck is doing dishonor to the people who have served him and whom he cares about," McCann said.
"If he could step aside and ask for forgiveness, that would be the best way to honor them. Right now, he's going to wind up destroying what he worked to build."
Mark Bennett delves into the question of how much those people (one in particular) who have served Rosenthal should now be held accountable for his actions:
[I]s it fair for voters to hold Kelly Siegler's close professional relationship with Chuck Rosenthal, as well as her positions of rank, respect, and power in the Office, against her when considering her qualifications as a candidate for District Attorney? Or does the buck somehow bypass Kelly on its way to stopping at Chuck?Why or why not?
A commenter there makes the case for why not; go take a look and see what you think. I'll just say that fair or not, it's a question people are going to want answered. Lisa Falkenberg, meanwhile, explores the "screwballs" issue to raise questions about Siegler's judgment. Check them out.
Short notice and all, but those of you with a little spare time during lunch might check this out.
Got a question for Metropolitan Transit Authority president and CEO Frank Wilson?If so, get to a computer at noon Tuesday, log onto www.ridemetro.org , then click on "chat" to take part in an hour-long once-a-month online chat room.
Metro spokeswoman Raequel Roberts said in a statement Monday that Transit Chat "will give our customers an opportunity to ask Metro's top executives questions about Metro's programs and services, from the Q Card to the new light rail lines we're building."
"It will be live, but we do ask participants to exercise the same principles of politeness mandated on our blog," Roberts said. "Our guidelines: Be respectful, no name-calling, stay on topic."
If they're smart, they'll provide a transcript of the chat afterwards, so folks who can't attend can at least see what was talked about.
In related news, and with more lead time, Christof brings word of the Richmond Avenue Workshop:
It's not enough to put a rail line in the right street; it has to be done right, too. That involves a lot of "little" decisions that add up to a big deal: station designs, crosswalk locations, left turn lanes, sidewalk widths, street trees. If you do that right, you end up with a street that works well for drivers, transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, businesses, and residents.[...]
That's the idea behind the Richmond Avenue Workshop, organized by Richmondrail.org and co-sponsored by Neartown Association, Museum District Business Alliance, The Menil Collection, The University of St. Thomas, Friends of Mandell Park, and the Gulf Coast Institute as well as CTC. It's a chance for you to learn about those decisions, to learn which agencies are making those decisions (it's not just METRO) and to learn how to have input in those decisions.
At the streetscape table David Crossley can tell you the difference between walking on a 3 foot sidewalk and a 5 foot sidewalk, at the traffic table Joe Webb will be able to explain how left turn lanes can work with the tracks, and at the trains and stations table I'll explain why you might want a staggered side platform station instead of a split center platform station. Then, when you walk into the city's University Line Urban Corridor Planning Workshop at the end of this month (pdf), or a METRO open house later this year, you'll know what to ask, and what to ask for.
Details here:
Saturday, January 19, 2008, 10am to noonUniversity of St. Thomas
Crooker Building (building 29 on this map)
Park free in the Moran Center garage at Alabama and Graustark, or ride METRO bus 78 Alabama or 25 Richmond.
Should be interesting. Drop by if you can.
Note: This entry is part of a series of written Q&As with judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates.
1. Who are you, and what are you running for?
My name is Baltasar D. Cruz, and I am running for Texas Supreme Court, Place 7. I am an Eagle Scout and a graduate of Harvard University (A.B., 1987), where I majored in Government, and of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D., 1990). I have been practicing law (doing civil litigation) in Dallas County, Texas, since March of 1991. I have represented individuals and companies as plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of cases, including personal injury, construction, insurance, and other disputes. I have tried cases, written and responded to countless motions, prepared appellate briefs, and participated in hearings in Dallas and other counties throughout Texas. I have served as a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem for minors on eleven cases in Dallas County, to review proposed settlements and/or negotiate (as a fiduciary for the minors) the apportionment of settlement proceeds between adult and minor plaintiffs. (Of the firms for which I have worked, the most prominent is Susman Godfrey LLP.) I have also served on the national staff at the 1985, 1997 and 2005 National Boy Scout Jamborees, am a member of the Order of the Arrow, and played football all four years I was at Harvard.
2. What kind of cases does this court hear?
The Texas Supreme Court is the state's highest appellate court for civil cases. The Texas Supreme Court also has the authority to amend the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and periodically does so.
3. Why are you running for this particular bench?
I am running for a seat (place 7) on the Texas Supreme Court in 2008 because I have numerous significant ideas to substantially reform the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and I believe it is time to break the Republican stranglehold on the Texas Supreme Court, which in recent years has pursued an unchecked activist agenda of doing away with individual rights and legal remedies in the Texas courts.
I want to substantially revise the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, all of which are promulgated and amended by order of the Texas Supreme Court and govern legal proceedings in all Texas civil courts, to reduce litigation costs, make the courts more accessible to the public, and prohibit unethical judicial practices, which are currently permitted and undermine the integrity of the Texas Courts.
Once I am elected to the Texas Supreme Court, I will use my position to encourage trial courts throughout the state of Texas to change the way in which they operate and will seek to amend the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct in the following particulars.
Trial courts should implement a submission docket whereby most motions are decided by submission (without hearings) unless a hearing is requested, as is currently done in Collin County -- which will save litigants substantial sums of money and help to expedite the determination of all motions (since there will be far fewer hearings). Under this procedure, responding parties are notified of a submission deadline by which time they must submit any desired response to a motion, after which the trial judge reads the motion and any response and then issues an order. (This will also create a greater incentive for judges to actually read the motions and the responses on which they are ruling -- which it sometimes appears at hearings that a judge has not done.)
Trial judges should be required to read all timely filed motions and responses before ruling on same. (Incredibly, there are judges who do not do this.)
Out of town attorneys should be permitted to appear at non-evidentiary hearings by speaker phone in the courtroom (where the hearing can be heard by everyone) in order to save parties unnecessary travel and litigation expenses.
Mediation should not be automatically ordered in cases in which the pleadings indicate that the amount in controversy is equal to or less than $5,000.00. (Mediation should not be compulsory in such cases because the mediation fees and attorneys' fees imposed by such orders constitute a burden which is disproportionate to the relief sought for litigants in such cases and parties should not be faced with the choice they are currently given in many courts of incurring the cost of preparing an objection to a mediation order and attending a hearing on their objection -- which might be overruled anyway -- or just going ahead and paying a mediator and their attorneys for conducting a mediation. Although mediation orders in such cases do coerce litigants to enter into settlements merely out of a desire to avoid escalating litigation costs, I do not believe it is the role of the Courts to impose litigation costs on parties that are so disproportionate to the relief sought as to coerce settlements. I think it is more important for a judge to reduce the costs of access to the courts than to impose expenses upon litigants which coerce them into settlements.)
When mediation orders are entered in other cases (i.e., cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000.00) the orders should not designate a mediator nor a mediation deadline, unless the parties have agreed to same. Rather, all parties should be given an opportunity to agree upon a mediator and a mediation deadline in a rule 11 agreement to be filed with the Court or inform the Court if no agreement can be reached. Only then should trial courts be able to appoint a mediator and order a mediation deadline. (Since most experienced attorneys have mediators they prefer to use and file motions for substitution of the mediator when one is appointed by a trial court, this should also save judicial resources since a rule 11 agreement does not have to be reviewed or signed by a judge and the mediation deadline can then be extended by a subsequent rule 11 agreement between the parties without requiring another court order.)
Judges should automatically recuse themselves from all cases in which they are asked to recuse themselves by attorneys who have publicly supported any of their opponents (or who have run against them) if asked to do so by them in a motion for recusal in order to allay any appearance of impropriety or concerns about possible retaliation.
Preference in trial settings should be given to similarly aged cases in which both sides are ready to go to trial, unless a special trial setting has been given to an older case.
The position of cases on every week's trial docket should no longer be kept secret until parties announce "ready" or "not ready" for trial (contrary to the prevailing practice of only disclosing docket positions when parties make their trial announcements the Thursday or Friday before trial) so that attorneys and parties can reasonably anticipate when they will be called to trial and parties are not forced to incur substantial expenses in preparing for trial settings to which they will not be called. (This information should be posted on each Court's website.)
Each side in every case should be permitted one automatic trial continuance, if it is requested.
Cases in which both sides announce "not ready" should not be called to trial unless there are no other cases in which one or both sides have announced "ready".
Agreed Motions for Continuance which comply with all Local Rules (e.g., signed by the clients if the cases are over a year old in Dallas County) should be automatically granted.
Judges should appoint guardians ad litem who will not automatically approve all proposed settlements on behalf of children and incompetent persons but who will do meaningful investigations and reviews of proposed settlements on behalf of children and incompetent persons (i.e., their "wards") and who will reject settlements if they are not in the best interests of their wards.
Rule 173 Tex.R.Civ.Pro. (concerning the role of guardians ad litem) should be revised to clarify that guardians ad litem appointed to review proposed settlements on behalf of injured minors and incompetent persons are authorized to: (a) consult medical experts if they believe this is necessary to evaluate an injured minor's or incompetent person's damages; and (b) fire and replace Plaintiff's attorneys who have not adequately represented the interests of their minor or incompetent clients. Until this is done, I will encourage trial judges to expressly give this authorization to guardians ad litem in their orders appointing guardians ad litem.
Rule 173 Tex.R.Civ.Pro. (concerning the role of guardians ad litem) should further be amended to permit a guardian ad litem to participate in discovery, trial, or any other part of the litigation to the extent necessary to protect his/her ward's interest without a written order justifying same (as is currently required) because a guardian ad litem cannot anticipate when it will be necessary for him/her to intervene to protect the interests of his/her ward and request a court order permitting same. For example, as a guardian ad litem I once attended a deposition at which the Plaintiff's attorney failed to ask a medical expert the questions necessary to qualify him as an expert and to ask him if his opinions were being given to a reasonable medical probability (the standard of proof required for such testimony) even after we took a break and I told him he needed to do so! A guardian ad litem must have authority under these circumstances to intervene and ask questions in a mediation, evidentiary hearing, or trial as necessary to protect the interests of his/her ward without obtaining an order authorizing him/her to do so and should be permitted compensation for his/her work when he is required to intervene in this manner (which is not currently permitted).
Rule 173 Tex.R.Civ.Pro. (concerning the role of guardians ad litem) should further be amended to permit a guardian ad litem to conduct discovery in order to evaluate his/her ward's damages because a guardian ad litem cannot always rely on the adequacy of discovery conducted by a Plaintiff's attorney prior to settlement -- indeed, it is not unusual for cases to settle before any discovery has been done -- and Defendants sometimes refuse to provide documents or information to a guardian ad litem which the Plaintiff's attorney has not previously requested in discovery. (As a guardian ad litem, I have faced precisely this situation, where a Plaintiff's attorney had done no discovery before settling a case and the Defendant's counsel refused to provide me copies of any relevant records necessary to evaluate my ward's claims because the Plaintiff''s attorney had not previously requested them through discovery!)
Trial judges should automatically conduct Batson hearings (to determine whether jurors have been excluded for an improper reason, such as the juror's race or ethnicity) whenever it appears to the trial judge that one or more jurors may have been excluded for an improper reason.
When Batson hearings (to determine whether jurors have been improperly excluded because of their race or ethnicity) are conducted, special procedural rules should be adopted so that all persons who participated in jury selection for the party whose motivations are in question, other than the lead attorney for that party, should not be given the opportunity to overhear the testimony of their lead attorney and of witnesses who have not yet testified as to the reasons why a juror was excluded. In other words, "the rule" should equally apply to all witnesses in the context of Batson hearings.
Parties should be permitted to submit jury questionnaires (previously submitted to the Court and to which opposing counsel has had an opportunity to object) to jury panels for use in voir dire (in addition to oral voir dire) in cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.00.
Parties should not be permitted to agree to excuse attorneys or others from jury duty "for cause" who have not disqualified themselves by their answers in voir dire (i.e., jury selection). (For example, parties may not simply agree to exclude all attorneys from a jury.)
Jurors should not be permitted to ask questions of witnesses (which at least one current judge in Dallas County permits) because jurors should be listening attentively to the evidence and not thinking about what questions they may want to ask or wondering why they have not been permitted to ask certain questions.
Video and audio feeds should be installed in all courtrooms (including the Texas Supreme Court) so that the public has meaningful access to the courts. Only bench conferences, voir dires (i.e., jury selections), witnesses whose identities would normally be protected, and jurors themselves should generally not be shown.
Judges should be required to disclose on their court websites all political contributions they have received in excess of $50.00. (These donations must already be reported on judges' public Campaign Finance Reports which are filed with the Texas Ethics Commission and/or their local county clerks' offices, but this information cannot easily be accessed by persons who are unfamiliar with the judicial campaign finance filing system and requirements.)
Judges should be prohibited from soliciting or accepting political contributions from parties or attorneys who have cases pending in their courts. (Incredibly, some judges actively solicit campaign contributions from attorneys who have cases pending in their courts!)
In addition, I believe the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure should be changed to require all appellate court decisions to be published because the current practice of permitting appellate courts to issue unpublished opinions (which may not be cited as precedent) is inconsistent with common law principles and the concept of stare decisis. Appellate courts should simply not be permitted to issue opinions which they are unwilling to have cited as precedent.
Appellate courts should also be required to make all of their opinions available on their websites. (Most opinions can be found on their respective Texas appellate court websites but, inexplicably, some cannot.)
The search engines on the Texas appellate court websites should make all cases they have reviewed searchable by reference to the trial courts and judges whose decisions they have reviewed, as this information is not readily available to the public, all state court judges in Texas are elected, and some judges actively misrepresent the number of decisions they have had reversed.
4. What are your qualifications for this job?
I graduated from Harvard University, where I majored in Government, in 1987 and obtained my law degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1990. I have been practicing civil litigation in Texas since March of 1990 and have extensive experience in all aspects of litigation on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants of a wide variety of statutory and common law causes of action including personal injury, breach of contract, fraud, DTPA, residential and commercial construction disputes, insurance coverage litigation from examinations under oath (EUOs) in investigation of suspicious claims through final disposition at trial, third-party insurance defense litigation (including products liability and premises liability cases), insurance subrogation litigation, declaratory judgment actions, complex litigation involving Constitutional and conflict of law issues, and appeals. I have also been appointed as a guardian ad litem for minors in 11 personal injury cases in Texas civil courts.
5. Why is this race important?
The Texas Supreme Court in recent years has pursued an unchecked activist agenda of doing away with individual rights and legal remedies which will continue until the current composition of the Texas Supreme Court is substantially altered. In addition, I have many specific ideas to reform the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to reduce litigation costs, make the courts more accessible to the public, and prohibit unethical judicial practices which are currently permitted and undermine the integrity of the Texas Courts.
6. Why should people vote for you in the Democratic primary?
I have a wealth of experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of cases and have also served as a court appointed guardian ad litem for minors in 11 personal injury cases. As a result, I have stood in the shoes of a wider variety of litigants than any other candidate for Place 7 on the Texas Supreme Court and am better able to appreciate the distinct concerns and perspectives of plaintiffs, defendants and guardians ad litem in civil cases in Texas courts. Also, I have proposed specific changes to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Texas Code of Judicial Conduct which will substantially reduce litigation costs for litigants in most civil cases, make the courts more accessible to the public, and prohibit unethical judicial practices which are currently permitted and undermine the integrity of the Texas Courts.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil)
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for Supreme Court, Place 8
Joe Jaworski, candidate for State Senate, District 11
It's a known scientific fact that any article about science-y things that starts off with a quote from This Is Spinal Tap is worth reading.
A scientist at Rice University has created the darkest material known to man, a carpet of carbon nanotubes that reflects only 0.045 percent of all light shined upon it. That's four times darker than the previously darkest known substance, and more than 100 times darker than the paint on a black Corvette."The final numbers, when we measured how dark this material was, were more dramatic than we thought," said Pulickel M. Ajayan, a professor of engineering at Rice University who led the team that developed the substance.
The work was published last week in the journal Nano Letters.
[...]
Ajayan said his team has applied to Guiness World Records. Developing a dark material is an easier way to gain admittance to the book than, say, eating 36 cockroaches in a minute, which Ken Edwards of England did in the year 2001.
"For me, yes," Ajayan said. "But I can't speak for every person."
The new material has some potential applications.
As it absorbs nearly all light, Ajayan said it could be useful in the collection and storage of solar energy.
Also, as it minimizes the scatter of stray light, it could improve optical instruments such as telescopes.
But for Ajayan, the aim is purely one of scientific discovery.
"There's a fundamental joy in such a fascinating study," he said.
Awesome, dude.
You may need to sit down for this one: Those fifty-dollar scratch-off games that the Texas Lottery pushes on the public in the hope of luring richer people to play, are instead mostly bought by not so rich folks.
The Chronicle looked at each of the state's ZIP codes with at least 1,000 adult residents, dividing them into groups based on their median household income in the 2000 census.The analysis found that sales of the $50 Spectacular surged across middle-income ZIP codes, seeing strong per-capita sales in areas both with incomes of just more than $30,000 and in those with earnings upwards of $50,000 and $60,000.
Sales figures dropped off in both rich and poor areas, although the state's poorest ZIP codes -- those with median incomes of $20,000 or less -- saw stronger per-capita sales than the richest, with incomes of $90,000 or more.
While the analysis is imperfect because it does not account for people who may buy lottery tickets in a ZIP code where they don't live, and whose incomes may differ from the median there, it bolsters numerous other studies indicating that lottery games tend to be most popular among the non-affluent.
If you're thinking you've heard this story before, you have. Nothing much has changed since then.
"The $50 ticket salvaged our entire fiscal year last year," said Robert Tirloni, projects manager for the Texas Lottery Commission, bringing $137 million to state coffers since the game's debut in May and helping the commission close a $93 million gap in revenue between 2006 and 2007.Texas lottery commission spokesman Robert Heith said the games are voluntary and are designed to entertain. He added that his agency has one overriding mission: to generate revenue for Texas public schools. Last year, more than $1 billion of the $3.8 billion raised from lottery sales went to public education.
The $50 scratch-off game did so well in Texas that the state, without fanfare, launched in November a second $50 game called $130 Million Payout Bonanza. Together, the two games have generated $158 million in revenue.
[...]
The state has pondered introducing a $100 ticket and last year ordered up a study to determine whether enough Texans would embrace it. Tirloni called a $100 ticket "the next step, though we're not there yet."
He added, "Whenever we put out a (higher-priced ticket), it's been successful."
Okay then. Why not take this to the logical extreme? Introduce a $1000 lottery ticket, to be sold only in high-end retail outlets. If the goal is to increase revenues without doing it on the backs of the poor, let's be direct about it. Something tells me that will never happen.
We may not know who our Presidential nominees may be just yet, but we know that if it's Tuesday, it's time for another Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup. Click on for more.
Muse found the potties at the Harris County D.A.'s office - right next to Chuck Rosenthal's office - thereby making her qualified to be District Attorney (according to D.A. candidate Kelly Siegler). Muse 2012: Qualified and Potty Location Trained.
Hide the silver! Off the Kuff says Tom DeLay is back in town.
CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme notes that Kay 'Bye Bye' Bailey Hutchison is getting grief from the knuckle draggers in her own party for the recently passed fence amendment. Apparently, even a little bit of sanity must be stamped out by the Republican base.
Early Voting, Hal at Half Empty says, may just be something ALL Democrats need to consider this time, in order to avoid confusion at the polls when polling sites at schools are moved this coming March 4th.
The FairTax (Mike Huckabee's 30% national sales tax scheme), Texans for (Tort) Reform, and Houstonians for (Ir)Responsible Growth all have one billionaire in common: Leo Linbeck Jr. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs provides the 411 on his various conservative-populist activist fronts.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson points to an Inane AAS Editorial On AG's Health Care Gambit.
Harry Balczak at McBlogger found and interesting take on the candidates in the Presidential election.
Jaye at Winding Road notes that these are the times that try Democratic souls.
Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News wants Obama or Clinton to pay the $2,000 and and establish a precedent of auditing and hand-counting machine counted ballots. The complete series of the New Hampshire results and reasons it why may be a good idea to audit is here.
Vince at Capitol Annex notes that Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott is testing the waters for his 2010 run for Lt. Governor with his asinine child insurance program.
BossKitty at BlueBloggin reviews the History Of US Backed Dictators - Redux. A historical look at the US setting up and backing corrupt dictators to serve our agenda.
Stace at DosCentavos bids a fond farewell to the history-making candidacy of Bill`Richardson. His thoughts and feelings on supporting the first Latino presidential candidate.
John Coby at Bay Area Houston wonders why State Representative John Davis in HD129 was a no show in the local paper write up concerning the race. State Rep John Davis a no show in Clear Lake news.
This story about the city's letter of intent to buy land east of downtown on which a future Dynamo Stadium will be built raises a lot of questions.
The city could spend up to $20 million to buy six downtown blocks for a Dynamo soccer stadium, and it remains unclear if the team would reimburse the costs.The blocks that officials are eyeing -- just east of U.S. 59 in the warehouse district -- have a total appraised value of about $5.1 million, according to the Harris County Appraisal District, or HCAD.
But local property owners who want to sell have been asking for triple or even quadruple the appraised values, as the area is seen as "hot" for development.
"I do not believe the appraisal value reflects even half of the market value," said Dan Nip, chairman of the East Downtown Redevelopment Authority. HCAD has appraised properties in the six-block area at $12.50 per square foot.
But asking prices by nearby owners have been $30 or more per square foot, Nip said. "If you have the whole square block, you can get as high as $40-$50."
City officials have not said how they would pay for the property. Mayor Bill White said he doesn't want public funds used for the actual stadium construction.
I'm going to start by going off on a familiar tangent, namely why exactly it is that land with a market value of $20 million is taxed as if it were worth $5 million. Wouldn't it be nice if your $200,000 house were taxed as though it were only worth $50,000? Well, nice up to the point where the city, county, school district, hospital district, community college district, and state all declare bankruptcy. All I'm saying is that I just don't understand the disparity here.
All right, Mayor White has said all along no public funds for building the stadium. That's fine, and I agree with that, but as we see it does allow for quite a few other possibilities. Infrastructure improvements - street repaving, storm drainage repairs, that sort of thing - I'm down with. Buying the land, I'm not so sure. Is this a loan? A gift? A deal where the city becomes the Dynamo's landlord? Are public funds in play for this, or is there some trickery up the Mayor's sleeve? Tell me more, please.
I realize some of these things may be under negotiation right now. And given the Dynamo ownership issue, things could take awhile to shake out and be presented to the public. But at this point, I have no idea what to think. I'm just hoping we don't get bait-and-switched.
Since 2003, five MLS teams have built soccer-specific stadiums, and all have used partnerships of some sort involving either city, county, state or another public entity.Five of those teams -- the Los Angeles Galaxy, Colorado Rapids, FC Dallas, Chicago Fire and Toronto FC -- manage the stadiums, although only two, the Galaxy and the Crew, actually own the stadiums.
Two more teams, Real Salt Lake and the New York Red Bulls, have begun construction.
Deals vary. The Galaxy's $150 million Home Depot Center and sports complex in Carson, Calif., was developed in its entirety by team operator AEG on land owned by Cal State-Dominguez Hills.
Dallas got its 20,000-seat Pizza Hut Park and soccer complex thanks to multi-million dollar investments by the city of Frisco, Frisco ISD, Collin County and team owner Hunt Sports Group.
The majority of MLS teams still lose money. But the league argues the loss gap is narrowing with recently signed TV deals, new stadiums and increased exposure, which brings in advertising dollars.
Nip said he would like the Dynamo stadium to be privately owned, rather than the city owning the stadium and leasing it back to the team.
Private ownership would generate property tax revenue for the city, or for the East Downtown Redevelopment Authority, which is a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. TIRZs capture and reinvest tax revenues from recent land improvements.
So in the context of what we know now, would the city buying the land and leasing it to the Dynamo, where they play in a stadium they built, count as private ownership? Or do the Dynamo have to own the land as well? I'm ready for some answers here.
I support this effort.
Harris County has sued a homebuilder over advertising signs placed along public rights of way, the first time the county has tried to enforce the state's new bandit sign law.Espree Homes and Royce Builders, owned by Hammersmith Group, placed two large permanent signs and 10 smaller signs on public rights of way on Grant Road and Grants Trace Trail in northwest Harris County, County Attorney Mike Stafford said last week.
"These types of signs are everywhere. If you head out in more suburban areas, you'll see 50 subdivision signs in a row," he said. "The new law is a beautification measure. And we're happy to enforce it."
Royce Builders and Espree Homes did not return repeated calls last week.
It is illegal to place signs in public rights of way. A law passed by the Texas Legislature last year gives counties the authority to assess a civil penalty ranging from $500 to $1,000 per violation. Counties can sue to collect the fines.
Margaret Lloyd, policy director of Houston-based Scenic Texas, a nonprofit that works to protect the visual landscape, said her group sought the legislative change because companies paid no consequences for hiring others to erect signs.
"It doesn't need to look like the Yellow Pages when you are driving down the road," she said. "What happens is, if businesses do it, everybody else thinks they can do it. People put up signs for garage sales. It's a spiraling effect."
[...]
Bandit signs long have been a problem in the city, as well. The city has workers who regularly drive Houston's streets, pulling up and taking down illegally placed signs.
"We've seen an increase in bandit signs over the years and don't see any signs of it getting better," Department of Public Works spokesman Wes Johnson said.
From July 1 through Dec. 31 of last year, the city removed more than 66,000 bandit signs from its rights of way, he said. During the same period, the city issued 126 citations to sign owners, seeking fines of $300 to $500.
Good for the county, and shame on the builders for engaging in this activity. Frankly, given the prevalence of low-rent, fly-by-night types who advertise in this fashion - the "make money from home" and "lose weight now" types - I'm a little surprised that any legit business would want to be associated with that. Maybe this will embarrass them enough to get them to stop. And it would be fine by me if the city got a little tougher with the violators they catch, too.
Note: This entry is part of a series of recorded interviews with non-judicial candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I am also doing written Q&As with judicial candidates.
There's been a lot of focus lately among Democrats on winning back seats in the State House, in Congress, and in county government in places like Dallas and Harris. One place you don't hear a lot about is the State Senate, mostly because there haven't been a whole lot of opportunities. This year is different, as Wendy Davis in Fort Worth and Joe Jaworski in SD11 have presented themselves as serious candidates in districts that can be won. Jaworski is from a famous Texas family, he just finished three terms in Galveston's City Council where he also served as Mayor Pro Tem, and he's running against the mostly-inert but still polluter-friendly Toxic Mike Jackson, whose removal from the Senate would be a great public service. He also has a primary opponent, which is why I'm presenting this interview now, so that those of you who live in SD11 can hear from this excellent candidate, whom I endorse for March and beyond.
Here's the interview, in MP3 format as always. I plan to revisit folks like Jaworski later on after the primaries as well. In the meantime, please let me know what you think.
PREVIOUSLY:
Jim Wrotenbery, candidate for 125th District Court (Civil)
Diane Trautman, candidate for Harris County Tax Assessor
Judge Susan Criss, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Position 8.
Hard to believe since I know it feels like it's been under construction forever, but the Katy Freeway widening project is coming to an end this year, at least if things go as planned. A couple of thoughts from the story:
Officials of Memorial City Mall and Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center, both at Gessner and the freeway, said the construction has been a challenge for their clients and employees.They also said the Texas Department of Transportation has kept them informed about closures and detours and, in some instances, been able to address their concerns.
The end result will be "much easier, more convenient access for everyone," mall spokeswoman Sherry Burton-Fowler said.
Jeff Nowlin, the hospital's chief operating officer, said TxDOT helped keep access open for ambulances and patients.
"One time they wanted to take the feeder road down to one lane," Nowlin said. "We asked them to limit the number of lanes they close, and they agreed to that."
However, he also said the number of emergency room patients is down, and some ambulance personnel have reported difficulties reaching the hospital. "But we can't tie the two together," Nowlin said.
Raquelle Lewis, spokeswoman for the project, said TxDOT has honored its pledge to keep the same number of main lanes open during the work as before it began.
I don't know if their experiences are representative of all those along the freeway, but if these are the strongest critiques being made by people like that, then TxDOT did a pretty good job of ameliorating the pain. I hope Metro can look back in 2012 and hear similar things from the light rail construction sites.
Construction began in June 2003 and initially was expected to take at least 10 years, but $500 million from the Harris County Toll Road Authority helped cut the schedule in half, [Rep. John] Culberson said.Although the sum is small compared with the total estimated cost of $2.8 billion, it was crucial in plugging funding gaps. Without the toll dollars, Lewis said, TxDOT would have had to delay other projects or spread the freeway work over a longer time.
For its contribution, HCTRA will operate two EZ Tag lanes in each direction down the middle of the freeway, from Texas 6 to the West Loop.
Although toll fees have not been announced, Lewis said all vehicles in the high occupancy-toll lanes will be tolled, except for Metro buses and carpools with three or more occupants from 6 to 11 a.m. eastbound and from 2 to 8 p.m. westbound.
Let's play Guess The Toll here. The maximum cost for a roundtrip on the Westpark Toll Road appears to be $5.70 after the 25 cent per transaction increase. I'm going to say that a normal daily commute from the far end to the West Loop and back again will lighten your wallet by $7, modulo any fancy congestion pricing schemes. What do you think? Leave your guesses, and I'll check back after the official word comes down.
All of the 442 parcels of land needed for the expansion have been acquired. A majority of those were on the freeway's north side, and the largest concentration was 119 parcels in a three-mile segment roughly from the Sam Houston Tollway to east of Campbell.Among the businesses that closed are Ciro's Italian Grill and a Fiesta Mart, both at Blalock and the freeway. Fiesta lost one-third of its parking lot and is in court with TxDOT over compensation. Ciro's has relocated across the freeway near Memorial City Mall.
There was an entire strip center at Campbell that went bye-bye. I figure a few businesses that weren't condemned went under during the construction, but I don't know that for a fact. Again, just something to keep in mind when the Metro construction begins.
Now that he's back in Texas, you may be wondering what the current status is of the DeLay prosecution. The Observer's Cody Garrett has a nice summary:
The case is on the docket for March 7, but that may be just for show, since the trial judge is suggesting an appeal by Colyandro and Ellis will need to be disposed of before the case can move forward. According to Judge Pat Priest's homepage, Colyandro and Ellis filed their appeal based on rulings by Judge Bob Perkins, who was replaced by Judge Priest after they objected to donations made by Perkins to Democrats. The appeal is pending in the Third Court of Appeals:Certain indictments, you may remember, were thrown out by Judge Priest, including conspiracy to violate the election code. That decision was appealed all the way to Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals, where prosecutors lost, but there were some strongly worded dissents. Based upon these, a motion for rehearing was filed by Earle's office and denied by the top criminal court.
The indictments that are still alive and well include money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. For the background about where all these charges come from, it's always worthwhile to consult the Observer's repository on the DeLay/Abramoff 'Money Machine' scandal here.
Once the Third Court rules on the merits of the appeal by Colyandro and Ellis, sources within the DA's office suggest that decision will be appealed -- by whatever party loses. That issue would then be resolved by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Then the drama moves back to Priest's courtroom, assuming DeLay's attorney Dick DeGuerin is not in the middle of a case elsewhere.
Once action resumes in Austin, at least two motions need to be resolved, including an allegation by the defendants of prosecutorial misconduct on Earle's part -- focusing on a documentary called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. The documentary allegedly features Earle giving the filmmakers lots of access while the case against DeLay and company was being put together. The defendants argue Earle was wrong to participate. The other motion is a request by the defendants for a change of venue -- arguing that an Austin jury may well have preconceived notions about DeLay, Colyandro, and Ellis. Surely after these several years, even Austinites, who were roundly disenfranchised by DeLay's efforts during redistricting, may have allowed their tempers to cool enough to give these fellows a fair trial, but, hey, there's a reason I'm not a lawyer.
Presumably, after all these things have come to pass, then, finally, the case against DeLay will begin to move. The question is, will that happen this year? It's hard to say, but probably not, which means, really, that Earle will watch this one from the comfort of his retirement. It seems justice isn't all that swift after all.
In other words, don't hold your breath. It's still a long ways off.
Now that's what I call a backlash.
The owner of a small German computer company has fired three non-smoking workers because they were threatening to disturb the peace after they requested a smoke-free environment.The manager of the 10-person IT company in Buesum, named Thomas J., told the Hamburger Morgenpost newspaper he had fired the trio because their non-smoking was causing disruptions.
Germany introduced non-smoking rules in pubs and restaurants on January 1, but Germans working in small offices are still allowed to smoke.
"I can't be bothered with trouble-makers," Thomas was quoted saying. "We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge. I'm only going to hire smokers from now on."
Apparently, the revolution has begun. You have been warned.
This article, about the new developers' PAC in Houston, is fascinating on many levels.
Over lunch with Mayor Bill White on Monday, former Mayor Bob Lanier laid out his concerns that new regulations on real estate development threaten the city's favorable business climate and low housing prices. White insisted his administration is simply taking modest steps in response to changing local development patterns.As the two men chatted over their meals, real estate interests backed by Lanier were working behind the scenes to push back against perceived threats to Houston's unconstrained growth model -- by persuading local officials or electing new ones.
"Occasionally, we need to remind ourselves that our favorable regulatory environment is worth keeping," said Kendall Miller, a shopping-center owner and one of the organizers of Houstonians for Responsible Growth.
Last week, the organization registered its political action committee with the Texas Ethics Commission, empowering it to spend money on local or state campaigns.
It previously had raised about $800,000 for organizational costs but hasn't started serious political fundraising yet, said Ken Hoagland, a consultant working with the group.
With the support of Lanier, construction executive Leo Linbeck Jr. and other influential business leaders, the group is distributing literature and bringing in speakers to spread its message that government land-use planning is an exercise in folly.
Its leaders are horrified by visions of a Houston where a bloated planning bureaucracy raises development costs so much that middle-class families can't afford to buy a house.
But neighborhood groups and others pushing for more regulation are similarly horrified by their vision of a city where unfettered development strangles quiet neighborhoods with traffic congestion, obliterates historic properties and green space and aggravates flooding.
Both sides need to calm down a bit, White said last week.
As central Houston grows denser, the mayor said, it's not surprising to see increased tension between neighborhood and development interests.
"We try to strike a fair balance in this administration," White said.
"We need to strive for the right mix of continuity and change."
[...]
"I think they're worried about what happens when White's gone," said Jon Taylor, a political science professor at the University of St. Thomas. "Who is the establishment candidate for '09?"
Taylor and Richard Murray, a University of Houston political scientist, noted that two officials considering running for mayor in 2009 are Councilman Peter Brown and City Controller Annise Parker. Both are strong neighborhood advocates who might go further than White in limiting the impact of new development on established communities.
[...]
Murray, the UH political scientist, said he believes a referendum on zoning -- the last such election failed in 1993 -- would pass in Houston today.
The emergence of Houstonians for Responsible Growth, Murray said, may indicate developers realize they can no longer assume, as they did during Lanier's era, that their views will prevail at City Hall.
"The middle-class reaction against unfettered development is pretty strong," Murray said. "These guys (developers) aren't going to have the playing field to themselves any more."
Rick Casey echoed that theme of the good ol' days being over for these guys in his column. A more comprehensive summary of the neighborhood associations' viewpoint is in this op-ed by Sheila Sorvari and Mark Sterling. From where I sit, the main source of the conflict here is that a fair number of us folks who live in the urban core - broadly speaking, inside Loop 610, but that's expanding outwards these days - want an urban core that looks and feels urban. We don't want the suburbs imported into the city, especially as an opportunistic response to increasing property values.
What do I mean by that? I see three aspects to it.
1. We want development that's appropriate for its area. That means density with density, which is why the Midtown CVS caused a fuss when it was built with a suburban-style parking lot. That means proper scale, which is not only the issue with the Ashby Tower, but also with a lot of three-story townhomes being plopped down next to 1200-square-foot bungalows. Developers don't care about this kind of thing, but neighborhoods do. Moreover, the neighborhoods that are fighting back are now largely populated with middle class and up folks who own their homes and intend to stay where they are. Twenty years ago, there was a lot more rental housing, and a lot of these same neighborhoods were on a downward slope. It really shouldn't be a surprise that the good old days are gone for the developers.
2. We value our uniqueness, and we aim to preserve it. What is it that an old neighborhood has that a new development cannot replicate? In a word, history. We like our older buildings. We like our little local retail outlets and eateries. We like pointing them out to visitors and saying that's why we live where we do. Put simply, if we'd wanted to live in a master planned development of same-style houses and franchise-and-chain strip centers, we'd have bought our houses in one of those places instead. We didn't, and we get a little touchy about that kind of thing coming to where we did choose to live.
This doesn't mean that we reject national chains or franchised food. Most of us are still happy to have and to patronize those places. We're even happy to have them in our neighborhoods, as long as they're not being built on the ashes of someplace unique and irreplaceable. We want them as additional options to what we have, not as replacements for them. Again, I don't think this is too hard to understand, but again, it's something developers just don't care about.
3. We don't want to be adversely affected by new development. We don't want to wake up one day to find out that we can't park in front of our own homes any more. We worry that the construction of 20 townhomes on what used to be 10 lots will be too great a burden for the storm drains. We care about green space, especially those of us with kids who need something cheap to do with them on weekends. Need I mention again that developers, at least those who are building in the urban core, don't care about any of this? They're more than happy to have the government build roads for them out in undeveloped areas where they can speculate, but they squeal like stuck pigs when it's suggested that maybe they need to contribute to infrastructure upkeep in established areas.
Does this make sense? It's not just that there's more people living in the inner core, it's that there's more people there who have a real stake in it, both financial and personal. These developers and their astroturf group have a bigger fight on their hands than they may think.
One more thing:
Even without the development controversy, Murray said, most leaders of Houstonians for Responsible Growth are conservative Republicans unlikely to support White, a former state Democratic Party chairman, in a partisan campaign for governor or the Senate. City elections are officially nonpartisan.But White could pay a political price for a continued public disagreement with Lanier, Taylor said.
"Bill White has got to be careful, going up against a guy who's just as popular as he is," Taylor said.
At the risk of disrespecting our former Mayor, I don't think the name Bob Lanier carries quite the weight Murray is assigning it. Lanier hasn't been Mayor for over a decade now. I'd venture to guess there's an awful lot of people here now who have little to no memory of his time in office, either because they were too young or because they weren't here for it. (Going by Census data, there's something like a half-million more people here now than were here when Lanier was elected Mayor in 1991.) And even for those of us who do remember him, the reason he was broadly popular is that he pursued policies that were broadly popular. If he starts speaking out for things that people don't like, I don't think his 1997-vintage approval ratings will help him much. I say Mayor White has nothing to fear as long as he's on the right side of this issue.
To wrap up, and to illustrate my points here, I note that the letters to the editor today contained five missives regarding the "Houstonians for Responsible Growth" story. Not a single one favored the developers. Perhaps the Chron is just running a delayed point/counterpoint (we'll know tomorrow), but I'd bet that's more in line with actual public opinion than not. And if so, these developers better start thinking about Plan B.
I almost feel sorry for KBH.
In an uncharacteristic display of public frustration with party colleagues, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on Friday sharply criticized two Republican congressmen who had accused her of a stealth effort to derail the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.Conservative blogs and pundits have attacked Hutchison ever since Reps. Peter King of New York and Duncan Hunter of California accused the Texas Republican of essentially repealing Congress' mandate to build 700 miles of fencing.
"This was a midnight massacre," King said of an amendment Hutchison shepherded into law last month. "It was absolutely disgraceful."
After being labeled "Panderer to the Criminal Invader" and called a traitor to border security, Hutchison fought back Friday.
"There is misinformation, and I think the congressmen who should know better exactly what has happened have been a little loose with the facts," she said in an interview.
"I am a little frustrated that Rep. King and I guess Rep. Hunter are feigning surprise," Hutchison said, noting that both men were notified as far back as September 2006 that she intended to amend the law ordering 700 miles of double-layer fencing.
It's because of stuff like this that I've never been fully convinced that Hutchison would win a contested primary for Governor. Rick Perry, and now David Dewhurst, have spent a lot of time and effort tending to the GOP base. Hutchison's relative moderation, which makes her more broadly appealing, is exactly where she'll be attacked in such a fight. And it's not just immigration where she's less than a hardass, either - abortion and CHIP come to mind as well. The point is that there'd be plenty of material for attack ads on her. It's not clear to me how this plays out for her in a primary.
On the other hand, on immigration at least, the story so far in the Republican Presidential primary is that the hardliners - Mitt Romney, as well as the twin Congressional terrors of Tancredo and Hunter - aren't doing so well, while the candidates with more moderate positions - Huckabee and McCain - are doing better than anyone thought. It's early days, and Michigan may provide the Mittster with a much-needed boost, but perhaps not being the farthest of the far out isn't necessarily a handicap for KBH. Who knows? South Texas Chisme has more.
A project to mobilize faith-based voters to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage may have illegally served Gov. Rick Perry's re-election campaign, according to a complaint filed Thursday with the Internal Revenue Service.The Texas Freedom Network, a religious watchdog group, asked the IRS to investigate a Houston-based foundation that allegedly violated its tax-exempt status by mobilizing Christian voters to support Perry.
The group says that several of Perry's top contributors funneled money through the Niemoller Foundation to the Texas Restoration Project, a group of 2,000 socially conservative pastors.
The Restoration Project held six "policy briefings" in 2005 centered on voter turnout for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Perry spoke at those meetings.
The complaint alleges the foundation operated outside laws that give tax-exempt status only to groups that do not participate in political campaigns.
"The Texas Restoration Project appears to have served as a partisan voter-mobilization tool for the Perry re-election campaign, with affiliated pastors encouraged to use their churches as partisan, political extensions of that campaign," TFN President Kathy Miller said in a letter to Linda Stiff, IRS acting commissioner.
[...]
The tax records show the foundation spent about $1.26 million to fund the Texas Restoration Project.
The closed-door policy briefings occurred at a time when U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and state Comptroller Carole Strayhorn were considering challenging Perry in the March 2006 GOP primary.
Although neither Hutchison nor Strayhorn challenged Perry in the primary, Strayhorn ran as one of two independent candidates, along with Democratic nominee Chris Bell, in the November general election.
"That the governor of Texas was able to speak at each of six briefings -- including two on one day in Fort Worth and Dallas and two on one day in San Antonio and Houston -- clearly suggests careful co- ordination between Texas Restoration Project organizers and Gov. Perry's office and campaign," Miller said in the complaint.
Quinn said the governor's campaign and supporters sent out communications and had conference calls with pastors on the Restoration Project's list. The pastors were invited to Perry's inauguration in last year.
I've no idea what if any action the IRS will take on this. Between this and the Chris Bell lawsuit, Perry's going to have his hands full for awhile. Good thing for him he may not be too busy with the Presidential election much longer, given how things are going for his preferred candidate. BOR has more.
Saw a copy of the Bellaire Examiner at my in-laws' house the other day, and this article about the CD07 race caught my eye, as it gave some background as to why 2006 Democratic candidate Jim Henley decided to run elsewhere this year.
The Democratic primary threatened to become interesting just a few weeks ago, around Thanksgiving, when Henley told the Examiner he was ready to enter the District 7 race after learning that former radio talk show host John Truitt intended to run.
"I had planned to run," Henley said. "We have a wonderful group of volunteers who were prepared to work their hearts out in a second campaign."Within a few days, though, Truitt decided the Democratic Party was not a good fit for him and declared himself an independent candidate, the [Michael] Skelly candidacy was firmed up and Henley's direction changed.
One Democratic activist told the Examiner, off the record, that Skelly's deep pockets made him appealing to a party leadership that thinks Culberson may be increasingly vulnerable.
"Culberson had his worse showing ever against Henley two years ago, and Henley spent just a little more than $100,000," she said. "With stronger financing and a politically astute guy like Skelly, the seat could be attainable."
Henley garnered 41 percent of the vote to Culberson's 59 percent in 2006, spending $122,000.The activist said Skelly is prepared to spend "over a million" in his campaign for the seat, which represents an area ranging from the Texas Medical Center through southwest Houston communities into the Memorial area and up into northwest Harris County.
As for Henley, he told the Examiner he will seek an at-large position on the Board of Trustees of the Harris County Department of Education, which is responsible for programs such as Head Start, special education and alternative schools.
Very interesting. I'll have to ask Henley more about this the next time I see him. In the end, I think this was a win-win, as both Skelly for CD07 and Henley for County School Trustee are excellent fits and make the overall ballot stronger. Nice when things work out that way, isn't it?
The Harris County District Attorney's Office is investigating a complaint that state Rep. Borris Miles, D-Houston, made threats and brandished a gun at a holiday party last month.According to witnesses, Miles entered a St. Regis Hotel ballroom uninvited, confronting guests, displaying a pistol and forcibly kissing another man's wife.
David Harris, who threw the party for his property management company, said he believes Miles, an insurance agent, was angry at him for investing in a rival business.
"He was saying things such as, 'I told you to get out of the insurance business. There ain't room in this town for the two of us. I'm going to come after you and take you down,' " Harris said.
The District Attorney's Office received a written complaint about the incident and is investigating, but officials declined to comment further.
Messages left at Miles' government and insurance offices were not returned Friday.
Rumors about the incident have swirled for weeks in both Houston and Austin. Harris agreed to speak publicly about it last month only after being contacted by the Houston Chronicle. It was not until Friday, however, that the District Attorney's Office confirmed the investigation.
Well, whatever else you may say about this, the timing is certainly fortuitous for the District Attorney's office. Nothing distracts from a scandal like another scandal.
According to witnesses to the December incident, Miles walked into the ballroom carrying a wine bottle and a glass.During their confrontation, Harris said Miles proclaimed himself a "gangster" and "thug," before kissing Harris on both cheeks and then the mouth. Miles then pulled out a gun and placed it in Harris' hand, witnesses said.
"He was acting as if there was some sort of symbolic power struggle, grabbing him by the face," said Nathaniel Rido, who attended the party.
Rido said Miles also kissed his wife, Krysynthia, before leaving, an act that still angers him.
"A public official, acting like that -- I was disturbed," he said.
Miles also said at the party that he would "take down" U.S. Congressman Al Green, former local NAACP leader Howard Jefferson and Ben Hall, the city attorney under Mayor Bob Lanier. Hall is representing Harris.
''He disrespected me, he disrespected my guests," Harris said. "This is totally unacceptable."
If the allegations are true, then it is unacceptable. I certainly hope they're not true, and I hope Rep. Miles can clear his name. I respect the work he's done as State Representative, and I don't regret for a minute supporting him over the useless Craddick-enabling embarrassment Al Edwards (here's a reminder of Edwards' greatest hit from his last term in office), but if he's found guilty of doing what he's been accused of doing, then he needs to step down. Politically speaking, if it comes to that, the least damage would be caused if it happened after he won the primary. As that would leave no major party candidate running for HD146, then both the Democrats and the Republicans (if they care) could field someone new for November. This is similar to what happened when former State Rep. Vilma Luna decided to retire after the 2006 primaries. The lack of a Republican opponent distinguishes this from the DeLay situation that year - had the Rs fielded a candidate, the best the Dems could do in the event of a Miles resignation would be a write-in. But since the slot can't be left blank (and no, a Libertarian doesn't count, at least according to state law), both sides would get a do-over.
The best outcome, of course, is for the DA to conclude that there's no merit to the charges, and Miles goes on to finish off Edwards' career once and for all. That's what I'm hoping for. We'll see what happens.
UPDATE: Greg has the official statement from Miles.
Rep. Borris L Miles disagrees with the reported accounts of this alleged event. We are unaware of any investigation by the Harris County District Attorney's Office.At the request of counsel, there will be no further comments on this matter. In the meantime and in light of this being a new year, Rep Miles continues to handle the business of his district which remains his utmost priority.
Cornel A. Williams
Attorney for Representative Miles
We'll see what happens next.
Well, the good news for the local GOP is that there don't seem to be any new bombshells in L'Affaire Rosenthal today, just a routine request for a leave of absence by Kelly Siegler so she can campaign. The bad news is that this is on the air instead.
Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas faces tough questions from 13 Undercover about his ranch house in the country and who helped design it.[...]
The 80 acre Thomas Ranch, according to county tax records, is worth $1.1 million. A brand new, nearly 3,500 square foot stone house with an expensive metal roof sits in the shade of live oak trees valued at more than half a million dollars.
[...]
You know who helped with the design of some the sheriff's ranch house? It was Leroy Hermes. The architecture firm he founded now has the contract to design the new 1,100 bed county jail off Atascosita Road. A jail project the sheriff plays a role in approving.
"I'm sure I agreed to it, but I don't recall whether I signed off on it, I just don't recall," he said.
Thomas says Hermes volunteered to help redesign the sheriffs house plans to avoid removing huge live oak trees on the property."He doesn't design houses, he designs buildings," Thomas said. "It's a hobby and he said he'd be honored if he could help, I said ok."
I asked how much that would cost in the private sector.
"I have no idea," he responded.
The sheriff says the offer was made from one good friend to another, not because of the county business Hermes' firm would eventually solicit.
"This has nothing to do with any contracts with Harris County," Thomas said.
Thomas says he's been friends with Hermes 15 years.
"Leroy is a good friend, he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart, I don't think there was anything more to it than that," Thomas told us.
[...]
Last year Hermes architects got the new jail job.
I told him to tell the voters why they don't have a right know how much he paid on the house.
"That's something that's private between Leroy and I," Thomas said.
But Thomas claims he did pay.
"This was thousands, right," I asked.
"Yeah," Thomas responded.
"You paid him thousands of dollars?" I asked.
"Yeah," he said again.
"But you won't tell us how much," I asked.
"No," he responded.
"So it's possible you got a better deal than Joe Six Pack would have gotten," I asked.
"Possible," he said.
The new jail had to get the ok of the commissioner of Precinct 4, Jerry Eversole.
What a small world. Plans show Leroy Hermes stamp on the design plans for Eversole's new home in the Heights. The commissioner won't tell the public how much he paid either.
Now it's questions about the sheriff's house.
"Do you see this is as much a problem," I asked Thomas.
He said no.
Sweet. There's video there as well, or you can go to Greg's place if you want to avoid the annoying popups. And remember, as I've said before, Rosenthal's problems stem from a lawsuit in which he is accused of helping Sheriff Thomas cover up some malfeasance. We're in for a long cycle of this stuff, and I daresay we haven't seen the full casualty list yet. Stay tuned.
Add Round Rock to the list of cities with red light cameras.
The city of Round Rock is still in the process of getting its red-light cameras in place after unanimously approving their use in September.Assistant Police Chief Tim Ryle - who initially hoped to have the program up and running by the first of the year - said the city is still working on selecting a vendor to implement the program.
"We haven't quite gotten there yet," Ryle said. "We are hoping to award a contract during a city council meeting this month.
"Hopefully the vendor will be able to get to work on it in February. That's the kind of time frame we're working with right now."
[...]
After the initial approval of the ordinance in September, Ryle said he considers the implementation of a red-light camera program a force multiplier and more efficient than having police officers patrolling problem intersections.
"This is a great example of how improvements in technology bring improvements to the police department," Ryle said. "Because officers will not need to be patrolling those intersections, it will free them up to address other issues."
That's a point that doesn't get as much discussion as perhaps it should. There's a decent argument to be made that the cameras can help cities spend their traffic-enforcement dollars more wisely. Certainly, it's cheaper to have the cameras than a patrol car or two staked out. As with so many other aspects of the red light camera debate, it's not something I've seen the cameras' opponents talk about. Eye on Williamson has more.
You may recall that a group of swingers in the city of Duncanville filed suit against the city to overturn a new law they passed that would ban sex clubs such as theirs. Well, the city has responded by saying "You sue me? I sue you!"
The city of Duncanville wants a judge to declare the Cherry Pit swingers club a public nuisance and close it down.Jim Trulock, who runs the club in his home, sued the city Dec. 12 over a new ordinance that bans sex clubs. Duncanville filed its answer Monday and countersued Mr. Trulock.
[...]
Mr. Trulock's "use of the premises as a sex club is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city of Duncanville," the city's filing says. Mr. Trulock "does not have any policy or measures in place to safeguard against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and thus the activities at the premises pose a risk to the public health."
Mr. Trulock's attorney, Ed Klein, said the city is trying to regulate private acts in a private home. The ordinance violates his client's privacy and due process rights, he said.
Mr. Klein also contends that the ordinance is so broad and vague that it could criminalize the sexual behavior of almost everyone in Duncanville.
The city's countersuit asks that the court order the Cherry Pit to close and fine Mr. Trulock $1,000 a day if he refuses. A judge has not set a hearing on the request.
Let me just say now that I can't wait for each side to start taking depositions in this case. I just know there's gonna be some fun reading in there.
Look who's back in town:
That disturbance you felt in the Force recently? Now you know what caused it. Guess the whole Virginia thing didn't work out so well.
Earlier this year, I resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives and became a resident of the State of Virginia to establish my new business, and where I now legally reside, pay taxes and vote.This decision was and is irrevocable, which I made clear from Day One.
Those were the days, huh? Thanks to Juanita for the catch.
Kelly Siegler, earlier this week, on why she's uniquely qualified to be the next District Attorney:
"To put it real bluntly, Mr. Bradford, Judge Lykos, Mr. Lietner, they don't know where the bathrooms are."
Maybe they don't, but thankfully Muse does, and she's got the photos to prove it. Go see for yourself. I'm so glad we were able to clear that up. On to the next mystery.
Continuing with last week's theme, here's ten more songs for which I have multiple versions in iTunes.
1. "A Fool In Love" - Ike & Tina Turner/Marcia Ball, Lou Ann Barton, Angela Strehli. I know I've said there's only one Tina Turner, but sometimes three divas are better than one. I like the Texas blueswomen's collaborative effort here, which as they say in the liner lines was the first time singing backup for any of them. By the way, the song's lyrics, about being so madly in love with your man that you want to do anything for him even though he maybe doesn't treat you as well as he could, is an interesting window into the Turners' relationship.
2. "Groove Me" - Blues Brothers/King Floyd. A bit outside the box for the Blues Brothers. It's still good, but I prefer the original.
3. "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" - Amy Grant/Frank Sinatra/The Pretenders. That's quite the stylistic span, isn't it? Christmas music can do that.
4. "I'm Beginning To See The Light" - Count Basie & Joe Williams/Duke Ellington/Bobby Darin/Tufts Beelzebubs. You want to know what the definition of a "standard" is? Anything that gets covered by the likes of Basie & Williams, Ellington, Bobby Darin, and university a capella groups.
5. "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" - Marvin Gaye/Creedence Clearwater Revival. Hey, kids, you're not going to believe this, but back in the old days, when radio DJs were responsible for selecting and actually playing tunes on the station's record player (go ask your parents what that is), the CCR version of this song and its eleven-minutes-plus length was a popular choice when they needed a potty break, as it gave them enough time to get back and get a new song ready to go. Boy, the things we all had to endure back then.
6. "I Will Survive" - CAKE/Gloria Gaynor. The disco classic and girl-power karaoke favorite meets...well, I'm not sure exactly how to describe CAKE's version. But I like it. See for yourself.
7. "If I Had A Boat" - Eddie From Ohio/Lyle Lovett. Words can't express how much I love this song. As EFO's Robbie Schaefer says after he does their cover of it, it's one of those songs you wish you'd written. Here, have another video.
8. "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)" - Lager Rhythms/They Might Be Giants. Every time I hear someone say "Istanbul", I have to quash the urge to say "Not Constantinople". Please tell me I'm not the only person who does this.
9. "Kodachrome" - Paul Simon/Tufts Beelzebubs. Seeing all these a capella versions on today's list reminds me that I need to go buy some CDs by The Bobs. I just don't have enough a capella music in my collection.
10. "Linus and Lucy" - Asylum Street Spankers/Vince Guaraldi. Also known as the Snoopy Dance Song, it sounds very different when done without a piano. But that's one of the joys of covers, isn't it? Getting to hear an old favorite in a new and unexpected way. I think it's axiomatic that the best songs out there are the ones that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I can't say I've found a counterexample yet.
I hope you've enjoyed this little exercise, because I haven't exhausted it yet. I'll be back next week with more.
This article, on the opening of Metro's new North Corridor community office tomorrow, is more interesting for the update it gives on the FTA approval process for the newly re-christened light rail lines.
The North Line was one of Metro's corridors that was originally scheduled to be Bus Rapid Transit, but Metro approved switching it to light rail.The FTA, however, asked Metro to submit further information and hold additional public meetings for the North Corridor because of the change.
Wes Irvin, administrator of communications and congressional affairs for the FTA in Washington, D.C., which helps fund Metro's expansion projects, said the FTA and Metro have been working together to get requested paperwork filed and reviewed so the North Corridor will be built on time.
"From the FTA's point of view, this line is very meritorious and we are working well with Houston Metro," Irvin said. "We are committed."
He said that because of the change to light rail, Metro's original proposal was not ready for approval without being vetted through another process to get the grant agreement signed that allows the FTA to commit money.
That process, Irvin said, appears to be going smoothly.
"We've been given good information from them in the last couple of weeks," Irvin said. "We're getting everything from them that they need and we're working expeditiously from our end. In everything we have asked them for, they have been very responsive.
"Our goal is to keep these projects moving forward."
Nice to hear after all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurred after the FTA's missive to Metro requesting that updated information. Let's hope it stays that way.
By the way, for those interested in the opening of the new Metro office, here's the info:
The community open house is from 1-4 p.m. Saturday at Metro Solutions' newest office, or "store" near three of the five proposed rail lines the Metro board approved last October.The ribbon-cutting ceremony is at 2 p.m. at the North Corridor Office, 2613 Fulton St. There also will be informational activities, refreshments and goody bags for guests.
The event is part of the liaison effort between Metro and ridership of the proposed 5.4-mile North Corridor.
There you have it.
Today's Chron story provides a little more info about Attorney General Greg Abbott's impending investigation of DA Chuck Rosenthal.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott launched an investigation Thursday into whether Harris County's top prosecutor, Chuck Rosenthal, violated state laws by using a government computer for campaign activities.Abbott's office declined to discuss the investigation, which could lead to Rosenthal's ouster, referring questions to a short letter sent to the county's top civil attorney, Mike Stafford, who requested the inquiry.
"You asked the Office of the Attorney General to investigate allegations involving the Harris County District Attorney," wrote Deputy Attorney General Eric Nichols. "Pursuant to your request, this letter confirms that the Office of the Attorney General will open an investigation into this matter."
County commissioners last month set aside $50,000 for a private attorney to defend Rosenthal and two top assistants in their attempt to keep Rosenthal's e-mails private and defend Rosenthal against allegations that he illegally deleted e-mails. It wasn't clear Thursday whether county taxpayers might also pay for lawyers to defend Rosenthal in the attorney general's inquiry.
The new investigation, possible under a provision in state law that allows the removal of a district attorney for "official misconduct," is the latest development in an unfolding scandal over Rosenthal's e-mails, which included campaign fundraising invitations and discussions of his one-time political opponent, former Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford.
Asked Thursday whether he would comment on the controversy, Rosenthal replied, "No, sir. Thank you."
[...]
It was unclear Thursday how the state investigation might proceed. The law sets out a procedure in which the attorney general's office would have to determine whether to file a petition for removal. That would require a finding of "official misconduct," which includes unlawful behavior.
It's generally unlawful for public officials to use government resources for campaign activity, but prosecutors have discretion based on the degree of the activity and the intent of the official.
We've covered that ground before. It may well be that there's insufficient evidence of a crime, and certainly Rosenthal gets the benefit of the presumption of innocence until such time that a jury convicts him of something, if it ever comes to that. But it would be nice to get the procedural question answered quickly.
AG Abbott's letter is here (PDF). Meanwhile, Mark Bennett gives a view of what life is going to be like for some of Rosenthal's employees as long as he's still in charge:
Other unresolved questions: will the Assistant DAs continue to proudly declare in voir dire that they "work for the elected DA, Chuck Rosenthal"? No, probably not; more likely, we'll have to help them make that point. And will they tell our potential jurors who attend Lakewood Church (all 30 thousand of them) that the view of the DA's office is that members of that church are screwballs and nuts? No, we may have to handle that part of jury selection too. And the part where we discuss racist "jokes" and sexist videos making light of violence against women. And the part where we discuss hardcore pornography sent or received at taxpayer expense. You know, just to make sure they won't hold it against the State in this particular case.How long will it take Harris County juries to forget the glimpse they've had of the hidden sleaze of the Harris County DA's office? Kelly Siegler is a hell of a trial lawyer. As I've written before, she stands out as a prosecutor in part because she exhibits the kind of creativity in the courtroom that defenders use every day. (Of course, prosecutors aren't necessarily ethically permitted to exhibit the kind of creativity in the courtroom that defenders use every day, but that's what the voters like to see.)
And here's more on Siegler's Lakewood troubles.
Lakewood has a weekend attendance of about 45,000 members, led by Pastor Osteen.Don Iloff, a spokesman for the church, said "Lakewood's members are very forgiving. They probably won't vote for her, but they will forgive her."
[...]
Her opponents for the GOP nomination had guarded comments -- or none at all -- about her Lakewood remarks.
"I don't want to be hasty," former state District Judge Pat Lykos said. "I don't want to comment until I see her statements, and it may not be appropriate to comment even then."
After reading Siegler's courtroom comments and her later explanation of them, former prosecutor and GOP rival Jim Leitner said, "Obviously Kelly didn't like that juror and she was scrambling for reasons" to justify striking him.
Houston police Capt. Doug Perry said he felt Siegler was "only doing her job" and trying to select an effective jury, "but I also want voters to know that, if elected, I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind."
Thursday afternoon the 300-member Houston Area Pastor Council called for Rosenthal's resignation and blasted Siegler's Lakewood comments.
"The bottom line for us," said Dave Welch, the group's executive director, "is this is a matter of public trust in an office of critical authority that has great bearing on people's lives. The actions by the district attorney and apparently some of his staff are beyond troubling," said Dave Welch, the group's executive director. "They raise doubt about the character and ethics and law within the office."
While the ministers' group stopped short of demanding Siegler resign or withdraw from the race, Welch said, "She is part of that culture in the district attorney's office that needs to be cleansed."
I think that last bit is something that hasn't quite sunk in yet, but Rosenthal's and now Siegler's actions really have cast a cloud over the entire DA's office, at least for the seven years that Rosenthal was in charge. Given what we know about their attitudes towards a whole lot of people, especially women and minorities, how much faith can we have in the work they've done - the charges they've brought, the penalties they've pursued, and so on? It's a huge deal, and I think it all does need to be cleansed, to use Welch's word. We can do a little bit of that now, but it's going to take a real change at the head of the office for the task to be fully realized.
Paul Burka gives an exhaustive rundown of the 89 contested House races that we will see this year. There's a boo-boo or two in there - as I noted in the comments, Democrat Kevin Murphy is running in HD29, and I have no idea where he got the name "Fred Roberts" for HD144 (the Democrat is Joel Redmond), but I didn't see that one till after I'd left my comment. All told, 39 Republicans and 32 Democrats (including open seats) have major-party opponents.
One general and two specific points to make:
The Republicans came out of filing deadline with an advantage. There are two main reasons for this. The Democrats' success since Craddick became speaker means that they have to defend a lot of seats in which they won close races. This is a problem, to be sure, but it is a problem that any political party would be happy to have. Republicans are contesting every seat that the Democrats have picked up in those years: the Talmadge Heflin, Jack Stick, and Ken Mercer seats in 2004; and the Todd Baxter, Terry Keel, Bill Keffer, Toby Goodman, Gene Seaman, and Martha Wong seats in 2006.What's more, the Republicans recruited some very strong candidates in key races: Todd Hunter against Juan Garcia and Donna Keel against Valinda Bolton, to name a couple. Craddick nemeses Pat Haggerty and Charlie Geren have difficult Republican primary races. Many of the races are hard to evaluate, because the chances of success depend upon how much money Republican candidates will have available for candidates like Raul Torres, who is running against Solomon Ortiz. We'll know more after the January 15 reports come in.
The problem for Democrats is that they have already picked most of the low-hanging Republican fruit. A few Rs are vulnerable if the national mood is good for Democrats -- Tony Goolsby, Linda Harper-Brown, Robert Talton, Bill Zedler, Tuffy Hamilton -- but many more Democrats have precarious holds on their seats.
"If" the national mood is good for Democrats? Last I checked right track/wrong track numbers were something like 2-1 for wrong track. Given the way the economy is roiling right now, it's hard to see that get any better, and the current unpleasantness for Republicans in Harris County isn't helping the GOP any, either. I'd bet the mood is more favorable to Dems here in Texas in 2008 than it was in 2006. If nothing else, I recall what Rick Perry's strategist Ted Delisi said at a 2006 election postmortem (at which Burka was also a speaker) about Texas being two years behind the rest of the country in terms of political trends. Put it all together, and I think the Dems will have the wind more at their backs than in their faces. Standard disclaimers about November being a long way off inserted here.
This is not to say that I expect the Dems to run the table and not lose any seats as they did in 2006. There are some tough holds in there, and every extra seat the Dems win is one more place they'll have to play defense. All I can say is that the mood I feel, and that just about everyone on the Democratic side that I know of feels, is much brighter about the prospects for the House than what Burka portrays here. We optimists were right in 2006, when Burka thought Dems would do well to break even. We'll see if we're right again this year. EOW has more on this.
Dwayne Bohac (R) -- For some reason, Democrats think they can win this seat, even though Bohac polled 63% of the vote in 04 and 06. I don't get it. Virginia Stogner McDavid is the Democratic challenger.
Simple reason why Dems think they can win this seat: Downballot candidates did pretty well here. The average countywide Democrat got nearly 43% (almost 3 percentage points better than 06 candidate Mark McDavid, using two-party comparisons), with Jim Sharp topping out at 46.3%; Bill Moody got 45.1%. And for the record, Bohac got only 58.4% against McDavid, after getting 63.8% against Fred Ashmead in 2004.
Hubert Vo (D) -- HISD school board member Greg Myers is the Republican challenger. Vo won 54+% in 06, which is too close for comfort.
That was 54% after his 50.01% win in 2004, so it was a hell of a lot more comfortable this time around. I've expressed concern about Vo and his first post-Talmadge Heflin election to numerous people, including several inclined towards pessimism, and so far none have told me that they're worried about this race. Myers' school board district has only a small overlap with HD149. I'm told he's positioning himself for a future race, perhaps another shot at the Lege after the 2011 redistricting. Take all this scuttlebutt with as much salt as you deem necessary, but I don't think my sources are any less informed than Burka's on this one.
Finally, on a related note, State Rep. Lon Burnam has endorsed three challengers to Craddick Ds in the primaries: Brian Thompson (against Rep. Dawnna Dukes), Armando Walle (against Rep. Kevin Bailey), and Sandra Rodriguez (against Rep. Kino Flores). I'm glad to see that. Karen Brooks has more.
Chron soccer writer Bernardo Fallas looks at the state of the stadium negotiations, and sees the reason why it's taken this long.
Just six weeks ago both sides seemed poised to shake hands and come out of City Hall victorious. Those were the good ol' days, when the gap that separated them was narrow and closing.The city wanted to facilitate the land and have the Dynamo's parent company, the Anschutz Entertainment Group, pay for a 22,000-seat, open-air stadium. AEG wanted some help to offset the estimated $70 million to $80 million cost but was willing to endure the brunt of it. Nothing a little negotiating couldn't resolve, it seemed.
Things have grown comp-licated since, and AEG -- and by association the Dynamo -- has no one to blame but itself.
That's because, parallel to its negotiations with the city about a stadium, AEG felt the need to put the Dynamo on the selling block to concentrate on its MLS gold mine that is the Los Angeles Galaxy.
Has it caused the city to take a step back and wait until the dust settles? You bet. You would, too, if you were about to invest a small fortune and your soon-to-be partner suddenly wanted out. Does he want out because a better opportunity has come along, or because he has little or no confidence on the investment?
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, there are plenty of ways for the city to guard its investment, and that might very well not be a concern these days.
Interference from the potential buyer might be, though. A group of investors that includes boxer Oscar De La Hoya and his Golden Boy Promotions business partner Gabriel Brener has shown strong interest in acquiring the Dynamo. De La Hoya and Co. have studied the deal being worked on by AEG and the city and they are bound to have opinions, suggestions and even demands.
What if, for example, De La Hoya wants White to pony up more dough for the stadium? After all, plenty of public money (read: hundreds of millions of dollars) was used to build such sports palaces as Reliant Stadium, Toyota Center and Minute Maid Park.
You almost have to feel for Dynamo president Oliver Luck, who has worked his tail off trying to get a deal done only to have his bosses throw him a curveball.
Note his minor correction here. Meanwhile, Christof observes that that stadium will require more than one city block, and that may put it in the path of the Harrisburg and Southeast rail lines. Oops. Check out Christof's map and see for yourself.
What with all the Rosenthal stuff going on, let's not forget about John Washburn's efforts to keep Governor Perry's office from routinely wiping out emails after seven days. (You have to admit, that policy is looking pretty shrewd for him about now.) The Observer blog has more on the current status of Washburn and his quest. Check it out.
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal will face a state investigation into whether campaign-related e-mails on his government computer warrant removal from office, officials said today.Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office informed county officials today that it would try to determine whether Rosenthal's actions were "official misconduct.'' The process could lead to Rosenthal's removal, and even criminal charges.
Glad to hear it. For those who are interested, the story has links for the relevant state law (PDF). This would seem to answer my question about the process:
Sec.A87.018. TRIAL.(a) Officers may be removed only following a trial by jury.
(b) The trial for removal of an officer and the proceedings connected with the trial shall be conducted as much as possible in accordance with the rules and practice of the court in other civil cases, in the name of the State of Texas, and on the relation of the person filing the petition.
(c) In a removal case, the judge may not submit special issues to the jury. Under a proper charge applicable to the facts of the case, the judge shall instruct the jury to find from the evidence whether the grounds for removal alleged in the petition are true. If the petition alleges more than one ground for removal, the jury shall indicate in the verdict which grounds are sustained by the evidence and which are not sustained.
(d) The county attorney shall represent the state in a proceeding for the removal of an officer except as otherwise provided by Subsection (e) or (f).
Subsections (e) and (f) cover what happens when the county attorney is involved. Now I'm really interested to see how this plays out.
And just when you thought things couldn't get any weirder, consider this.
Republican district attorney candidate Kelly Siegler told a judge last year that members of Houston's Lakewood Church are "screwballs and nuts" and that she works to keep them off of juries.Siegler made the comment while defending herself from a defense attorney's suggestion that she struck a man from the jury pool in a capital murder case because he is black. It wasn't the man's race that prompted Siegler to eliminate the man from the jury pool, she said. It was the fact that he attends Joel Osteen's megachurch.
"To start with, he's a member of Lakewood Church. And we have had a running agreement, my partner Luci Davidson and I have, since we started, that people who go to Lakewood are screwballs and nuts," Siegler said, according to the court transcript. "I'm very familiar with that church. We try our hardest not to put anybody who goes to Lakewood regularly on any jury, he's a pretty devout member of Lakewood Church. That's one reason that scared me about the man."
Siegler went on to give other reasons why she didn't want him to be on the jury including his membership in the NAACP, a group that opposes the death penalty.
Siegler confirmed today that she complained about Lakewood attendees on the record, but said the comment was taken out of context.
"I was talking to a juror who, in my opinion, was very weak on the death penalty," Siegler said. She said she was obligated to give her reasons for striking the juror, "weak or strong, good or bad," which indicated that he would be weak on the death penalty.
Siegler also said she had never been to Lakewood, and was talking about things she heard about the church.
"I understand that it probably hurt people's feelings but I said it in the context of trying to do my job," she said.
She added that she has purchased and read all of Joel Osteen's books.
"He's about as genuine a pastor as I've ever heard," Siegler said. "A lot of people of faith believe it's a great place to go."
Siegler attends Chapelwood Methodist church.
It is against the law to strike a juror because of skin color, and Siegler was challenged because of the strike, said Tyrone Moncriffe. Moncriffe was a defense attorney in the case against Howard Paul Guidry.
Another attorney in the case, Loretta Johnson Muldrow called the Lakewood argument "a move out of desperation," speculating that Siegler may have found it more acceptable than arguing that the potential juror was "too black."
"It's kind of like being caught in a vise. Which do you choose? Either way, it's ugly," Muldrow said.
Isiah Carey had this earlier. We're truly in uncharted waters of strangeness here, between the potty comments and this. I can't wait to see what tomorrow brings.
Two items from today's story about political fallout for the local GOP from the Rosenthal mess:
Two GOP candidates for district attorney said Wednesday the disclosures of racist, sexist and sexually explicit items on Rosenthal's government computer, along with correspondence about his now-defunct Republican re-election campaign, strengthens the argument that the next district attorney should come from outside his staff.The remarks came from former state District Judge Pat Lykos and defense attorney and former prosecutor Jim Leitner, whose other opponents include star prosecutor Kelly Siegler. Her husband, physician Sam Siegler, sent Rosenthal several e-mails, including a video showing an unidentified man publicly pulling away clothing from the bodies of unwitting women.
"The voters are going to want to know if the next district attorney obviously is the kind of person who would have put up with that," Leitner said,
Lykos said the video was degrading to women, "and to humiliate them and use it for vile humor is disgusting."
Kelly Siegler said she is being blamed unfairly for the video and e-mails on Rosenthal's work computer, and that in fact she suggested several months ago that technicians on Rosenthal's staff randomly check computers for such abuses by any employee.
Sorry, Kelly. Your response to this has been sadly inadequate. You made the office's reputation a point in your favor, and now it's clear that it isn't. Nobody cares where the potties are. What everybody cares about now is who's going to fix the mess, and as someone who's been surrounded by it (I'll be charitable and not say "someone who's been a part of it"), you own it whether you like it or not.
Siegler isn't the only one with ownership issues:
In the March 4 GOP primary for county judge, challenger and former District Clerk Charles Bacarisse called Wednesday for Rosenthal to resign and, when asked repeatedly by reporters, said there should be an independent investigation of his actions. A campaign aide said calling for Rosenthal's resignation was more significant because an investigation was inevitable.In contrast, incumbent County Judge Ed Emmett announced the county's request for an independent investigation by the state attorney general and, when asked repeatedly, said Rosenthal should resign.
"That's fairly stout. That says, look, this is more than just calling and saying, 'Gee, why don't you resign,' " Emmett said. "This is saying, 'We are starting a process that, if the facts turn out ... we will remove you from office.' "
Both strove to be portrayed as distant from longtime county government practices.
"The voters in general are sick of politics as usual," Bacarisse said.
And Emmett said: "I had no connection to county government before I became county judge (in 2007). I clearly am the outsider and the newcomer to all of this."
Sucks to be a part of the status quo when there's a change election coming, doesn't it? I'll say it again, the rest of the Republicans here have done a decent job so far of not making this any worse, but this is going to stick to them, and I'm not sorry for that. If this crystallizes in voters' minds the need for a wholesale changing of the guard in Harris County, that's a good thing. Muse, Stace, Isiah Carey, Greg, and Gary have more on this.
Meanwhile, here's some more on those calls f