Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

February, 2009:

They paid their taxes, too

Feb 28th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

I really don’t understand the objection to using stimulus funds to expand unemployment insurance to help the larger number of people who are now out of work, and especially those who have the extra misfortune of not being eligible because they’ve been laid off more than once recently. What is the economic rationale – never mind the compassionate one – for letting folks like this struggle and accumulate debt?

For people like Henry Kight, 59, of Austin, Tex., the possibility that the money might be turned down is a deeply personal issue.

Mr. Kight, who worked for more than three decades as an engineering technician, discovered in September that because of complex state rules, he was not eligible for unemployment insurance after losing a job at a major electronics manufacturer he had landed at the beginning of the year.

Unable to draw jobless benefits, he and his wife have taken on thousands of dollars in credit-card debt to help make ends meet.

It is precisely these kind of regulations, involving such matters as the length of a person’s work history or reason for leaving a job, that the federal government is trying to get the states to change. Such a move could extend benefits to an estimated half-million more people, according to the National Employment Law Project, a liberal group in New York that supports the changes.

Mr. Kight and other unemployed workers said they were incensed to learn they were living in one of a handful of states — many of them among the poorest in the nation — that might not provide the expanded benefits.

“It just seems unreasonable,” Mr. Kight said, “that when people probably need the help the most, that because of partisan activity, or partisan feelings, against the current new administration, that Perry is willing to sacrifice the lives of so many Texans that have been out of work in the last year.”

He was referring to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who has said he may decline the extra money rather than change state policy.

“I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama last week.

The governors contend that once the federal money ran out, they would have to continue providing the new benefits, which they say would force them to raise taxes on businesses. The federal money will end in two or three years in some states, or much later in others, depending on the size of the state allocation.

Proponents say that nothing would prevent states from changing the laws back at that time.

That’s the part of the objection I really don’t understand. This is a temporary situation; at least, we sure as heck hope it is. There’s no reason we can’t put some kind of sunset provision in whatever legislation we pass to address it. It’s not like there’s some big, powerful unemployed persons lobby out there that will be fighting to keep this expansion in place if things have improved in two years’ time. In the meantime, isn’t it in our best interests to ensure that the people who are living through this now don’t fall too far behind? It’s not like there won’t be any societal costs otherwise.

In Mr. Kight’s case, he was unemployed for the second half of 2007, after losing an earlier job he had at a different electronics manufacturer in a downsizing. As a result, when he applied for unemployment benefits, he did not have enough immediate work history to qualify.

“I have worked for so many years, a total of probably 30 years, contributing to the support system that helps people when they get in a tough spot like I’m in,” Mr. Kight said. “I haven’t needed it too much in the past, but I sure could use it right now.”

Tell it to Governor Perry. Patricia Kilday Hart has more.

They paid their taxes, too

Feb 28th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
2 comments

I really don’t understand the objection to using stimulus funds to expand unemployment insurance to help the larger number of people who are now out of work, and especially those who have the extra misfortune of not being eligible because they’ve been laid off more than once recently. What is the economic rationale – never mind the compassionate one – for letting folks like this struggle and accumulate debt?

For people like Henry Kight, 59, of Austin, Tex., the possibility that the money might be turned down is a deeply personal issue.

Mr. Kight, who worked for more than three decades as an engineering technician, discovered in September that because of complex state rules, he was not eligible for unemployment insurance after losing a job at a major electronics manufacturer he had landed at the beginning of the year.

Unable to draw jobless benefits, he and his wife have taken on thousands of dollars in credit-card debt to help make ends meet.

It is precisely these kind of regulations, involving such matters as the length of a person’s work history or reason for leaving a job, that the federal government is trying to get the states to change. Such a move could extend benefits to an estimated half-million more people, according to the National Employment Law Project, a liberal group in New York that supports the changes.

Mr. Kight and other unemployed workers said they were incensed to learn they were living in one of a handful of states — many of them among the poorest in the nation — that might not provide the expanded benefits.

“It just seems unreasonable,” Mr. Kight said, “that when people probably need the help the most, that because of partisan activity, or partisan feelings, against the current new administration, that Perry is willing to sacrifice the lives of so many Texans that have been out of work in the last year.”

He was referring to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who has said he may decline the extra money rather than change state policy.

“I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama last week.

The governors contend that once the federal money ran out, they would have to continue providing the new benefits, which they say would force them to raise taxes on businesses. The federal money will end in two or three years in some states, or much later in others, depending on the size of the state allocation.

Proponents say that nothing would prevent states from changing the laws back at that time.

That’s the part of the objection I really don’t understand. This is a temporary situation; at least, we sure as heck hope it is. There’s no reason we can’t put some kind of sunset provision in whatever legislation we pass to address it. It’s not like there’s some big, powerful unemployed persons lobby out there that will be fighting to keep this expansion in place if things have improved in two years’ time. In the meantime, isn’t it in our best interests to ensure that the people who are living through this now don’t fall too far behind? It’s not like there won’t be any societal costs otherwise.

In Mr. Kight’s case, he was unemployed for the second half of 2007, after losing an earlier job he had at a different electronics manufacturer in a downsizing. As a result, when he applied for unemployment benefits, he did not have enough immediate work history to qualify.

“I have worked for so many years, a total of probably 30 years, contributing to the support system that helps people when they get in a tough spot like I’m in,” Mr. Kight said. “I haven’t needed it too much in the past, but I sure could use it right now.”

Tell it to Governor Perry. Patricia Kilday Hart has more.

Downtown post office for sale

Feb 28th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

We know that the Postal Service is looking to sell some of its properties around town. Now they have announced that the downtown location on Franklin Street is one of them.

Real estate experts and downtown boosters envision the property being redeveloped into a number of uses. They include a public park that would reduce floodwater impact on the bayous and downtown; an outdoor amphitheater for festivals and performances; and a mixed-use development with housing, a hotel and entertainment venues.

It would be iconic for the city,” said Mark Cover, an executive vice president with Houston-based Hines, a real estate firm.

But the process by which the postal service is marketing the site comes with conditions.

The downtown operation at 401 Franklin processes all incoming and outgoing mail for the city of Houston.

Whoever buys the property would have to provide the postal service with another processing, distribution and administrative facility within the boundaries of the city.

The buyer also would have to provide a replacement retail and post office box location near the downtown site where consumers can mail packages and buy stamps.

“This is a project that, at its heart, is about improving efficiencies and having a more attractive retail location for our lobby customers,” said regional spokesman Dave Lewin.

[…]

The agency’s Southwest Area Facilities Service Office, which announced the plan, said it has not put a price tag on the property. And if it doesn’t receive an offer that meets its requirements, it will continue to occupy the site indefinitely, Lewin said.

“We’ve had several unsolicited offers for the property, so we know that there’s interest,” he said.

I remain concerned about them selling while at the bottom of the market, but I can believe there’d be interest in this location. I don’t know how realistic any of the visions for that site are given current conditions, but you never know. Of course, this being Houston, there’s another concern.

And any move to tear down the building could rattle preservationists who say Houston has lost too many of its historical or architecturally significant buildings.

Stephen Fox, a Houston architectural historian and fellow of the Anchorage Foundation of Texas, called the downtown post office a “distinguished work of 1960s modern architecture by an important Houston architecture firm.”

That firm, Wilson, Morris, Crain & Anderson, designed or had a hand in downtown skyscrapers, the former Houston Post building on the Southwest Freeway and even the Astrodome. The post office was one of the firm’s first big public commissions in Houston, Fox said.

When it was built in 1962, it replaced the Southern Pacific railroad’s main passenger station, an art deco building that opened in 1934, according to Fox. It replaced a station that dated back to 1886.

So in other words, it’s a historic building that replaced two earlier buildings that would now be even more historic had they not been torn down first. That’s our city in a nutshell, isn’t it?

Downtown post office for sale

Feb 28th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
3 comments

We know that the Postal Service is looking to sell some of its properties around town. Now they have announced that the downtown location on Franklin Street is one of them.

Real estate experts and downtown boosters envision the property being redeveloped into a number of uses. They include a public park that would reduce floodwater impact on the bayous and downtown; an outdoor amphitheater for festivals and performances; and a mixed-use development with housing, a hotel and entertainment venues.

It would be iconic for the city,” said Mark Cover, an executive vice president with Houston-based Hines, a real estate firm.

But the process by which the postal service is marketing the site comes with conditions.

The downtown operation at 401 Franklin processes all incoming and outgoing mail for the city of Houston.

Whoever buys the property would have to provide the postal service with another processing, distribution and administrative facility within the boundaries of the city.

The buyer also would have to provide a replacement retail and post office box location near the downtown site where consumers can mail packages and buy stamps.

“This is a project that, at its heart, is about improving efficiencies and having a more attractive retail location for our lobby customers,” said regional spokesman Dave Lewin.

[…]

The agency’s Southwest Area Facilities Service Office, which announced the plan, said it has not put a price tag on the property. And if it doesn’t receive an offer that meets its requirements, it will continue to occupy the site indefinitely, Lewin said.

“We’ve had several unsolicited offers for the property, so we know that there’s interest,” he said.

I remain concerned about them selling while at the bottom of the market, but I can believe there’d be interest in this location. I don’t know how realistic any of the visions for that site are given current conditions, but you never know. Of course, this being Houston, there’s another concern.

And any move to tear down the building could rattle preservationists who say Houston has lost too many of its historical or architecturally significant buildings.

Stephen Fox, a Houston architectural historian and fellow of the Anchorage Foundation of Texas, called the downtown post office a “distinguished work of 1960s modern architecture by an important Houston architecture firm.”

That firm, Wilson, Morris, Crain & Anderson, designed or had a hand in downtown skyscrapers, the former Houston Post building on the Southwest Freeway and even the Astrodome. The post office was one of the firm’s first big public commissions in Houston, Fox said.

When it was built in 1962, it replaced the Southern Pacific railroad’s main passenger station, an art deco building that opened in 1934, according to Fox. It replaced a station that dated back to 1886.

So in other words, it’s a historic building that replaced two earlier buildings that would now be even more historic had they not been torn down first. That’s our city in a nutshell, isn’t it?

In the long run, we’re all dead

Feb 28th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

There’s long-term planning, and then there’s long-term planning.

Big Bend National Park is known for its jagged beauty, but sometimes the mountains are blotted from the horizon by a sky the color of mud.

The air is so dirty on many summer days that the federal government wants Texas to implement a plan that makes at least “reasonable progress” toward eliminating haze at the iconic park, with the goal of achieving natural visibility by 2064.

But the clean-air plan, which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is poised to approve Wednesday, sets a target of 2155, missing the federal goal by 91 years.

Just in time for my 189th birthday. I’ll be sure to have my great^5-grandchildren haul my ashes out there so I can enjoy it. Way to go, TCEQ!

In the long run, we’re all dead

Feb 28th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
Comments are off for this post

There’s long-term planning, and then there’s long-term planning.

Big Bend National Park is known for its jagged beauty, but sometimes the mountains are blotted from the horizon by a sky the color of mud.

The air is so dirty on many summer days that the federal government wants Texas to implement a plan that makes at least “reasonable progress” toward eliminating haze at the iconic park, with the goal of achieving natural visibility by 2064.

But the clean-air plan, which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is poised to approve Wednesday, sets a target of 2155, missing the federal goal by 91 years.

Just in time for my 189th birthday. I’ll be sure to have my great^5-grandchildren haul my ashes out there so I can enjoy it. Way to go, TCEQ!

Friday random ten: The eighties strike back

Feb 27th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
2 comments

I’ve said that 70s music goes with everything, and I think that’s true. But I also think it’s true of 80s music, and really, if you have enough of each of these, what more do you need? To demonstrate that, today’s Genius-inspired Friday randon ten comes from the Fishbone song “Party At Ground Zero”, from that well-known 80s-heavy sub-genre of “End of the World songs”, such as “99 Red Balloons”, “1999”, and of course “It’s The End Of The World As We Know It”. I have my college buddy Steve Smith, now a writer and classical music critic in New York, to thank for turning me on to these guys. Knowing that his taste in, and knowledge of, music was both very different and vastly superior to mine, I asked him to make me a mix tape. The result of his effort included this number, and for that I’m grateful. So here’s what Genius had to say about it, first in the order given:

1. Party At Ground Zero – Fishbone
2. We Care A Lot – Faith No More
3. Dance This Mess Around – The B-52s
4. Pulling Mussels From A Shell – Squeeze
5. Rock and Roll – The Velvet Underground
6. Girlfriend Is Better – Talking Heads
7. See You Later, Alligator – Bill Haley and the Comets
8. I Want Candy – Bow Wow Wow
9. Long Distance Runaround – Yes
10. Bodhisattva – Steely Dan

And as played:

1. Party At Ground Zero – Fishbone
2. Rudie Can’t Fail – The Clash
3. Cherry Bomb – The Runaways
4. Shock the Monkey – Peter Gabriel
5. Help Save The Youth of America – Billy Bragg
6. I’m Not The Man I Used To Be – Fine Young Cannibals
7. Zoot Suit Riot – Cherry Poppin’ Daddies
8. Your Racist Friend – They Might Be Giants
9. Roadrunner – The Modern Lovers
10. Who Needs Sleep? – Barenaked Ladies

Mostly 80s music, some 70s music that’s right at home with 80s music, and a few outliers just to prove the thesis that it goes with anything. See what I mean? What are you listening to this week?

Friday random ten: The eighties strike back

Feb 27th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

I’ve said that 70s music goes with everything, and I think that’s true. But I also think it’s true of 80s music, and really, if you have enough of each of these, what more do you need? To demonstrate that, today’s Genius-inspired Friday randon ten comes from the Fishbone song “Party At Ground Zero”, from that well-known 80s-heavy sub-genre of “End of the World songs”, such as “99 Red Balloons”, “1999”, and of course “It’s The End Of The World As We Know It”. I have my college buddy Steve Smith, now a writer and classical music critic in New York, to thank for turning me on to these guys. Knowing that his taste in, and knowledge of, music was both very different and vastly superior to mine, I asked him to make me a mix tape. The result of his effort included this number, and for that I’m grateful. So here’s what Genius had to say about it, first in the order given:

1. Party At Ground Zero – Fishbone
2. We Care A Lot – Faith No More
3. Dance This Mess Around – The B-52s
4. Pulling Mussels From A Shell – Squeeze
5. Rock and Roll – The Velvet Underground
6. Girlfriend Is Better – Talking Heads
7. See You Later, Alligator – Bill Haley and the Comets
8. I Want Candy – Bow Wow Wow
9. Long Distance Runaround – Yes
10. Bodhisattva – Steely Dan

And as played:

1. Party At Ground Zero – Fishbone
2. Rudie Can’t Fail – The Clash
3. Cherry Bomb – The Runaways
4. Shock the Monkey – Peter Gabriel
5. Help Save The Youth of America – Billy Bragg
6. I’m Not The Man I Used To Be – Fine Young Cannibals
7. Zoot Suit Riot – Cherry Poppin’ Daddies
8. Your Racist Friend – They Might Be Giants
9. Roadrunner – The Modern Lovers
10. Who Needs Sleep? – Barenaked Ladies

Mostly 80s music, some 70s music that’s right at home with 80s music, and a few outliers just to prove the thesis that it goes with anything. See what I mean? What are you listening to this week?

Help celebrate 27 for 27

Feb 27th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

The following is a message from the TexBlog PAC and my much younger colleague, Matt Glazer.

(more…)

Help celebrate 27 for 27

Feb 27th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
Comments are off for this post

The following is a message from the TexBlog PAC and my much younger colleague, Matt Glazer.

(more…)

One more PPP poll

Feb 27th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

PPP does the Governor’s race, general election-style.

Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rick Perry would both best Democrat Tom Schieffer in a potential gubernatorial face off next year, although the race has some potential to be competitive if the current Governor is renominated.

Hutchison leads Schieffer 54-30 while Perry has a 45-35 advantage over him, below the magic 50% number considered safe for incumbents.

Hutchison appears to be close to unbeatable in a general election. She pulls 20% of the Democratic vote, has a 23 point lead among independents, and has 86% of Republicans committed to voting for her.

Perry’s standing pales on all three of those fronts. Only 13% of Democrats say they would vote for him, he actually trails Schieffer by a small amount among independents, and he gets a smaller 78% segment of the Republican vote.

Perry would certainly still be favored over Schieffer, but compared to Hutchison his winning the GOP primary would leave the door ever so slightly open for a possible Democratic takeover. If Hutchison is the victor that door is pretty much shut.

Hutchison is the only one of the trio with a positive favorability rating. 58% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of her compared to 31% who view her negatively. 48% have an unfavorable take on Perry compared to 41% who give him their approval, and Schieffer’s breakdown is 25/31.

Again, this is basically “Well-known R” versus “Unknown D”, with the added zest of KBH’s positives and Rick Perry’s not-so-positives. While KBH’s better performance in this matchup is hardly surprising, I’ll just note that Rick Perry has twelve full months to do something about her favorability rating, and I wouldn’t underestimate him on that score. Let’s check this again in September or so and see where we stand.

In the meantime, it’s possible KBH could wind up with a bit of a John McCain problem. She’s generally well-liked and does as well as she does in these polls because she has a fairly moderate image. If she feels the need to run right to win the GOP nomination, or if Perry’s attacks force her to the right, some of that sheen may come off for independent voters and soft Ds. It certainly doesn’t have to play out this way – if the Dems don’t have a primary worth voting in, she can court voters outside the GOP base and try to swamp Perry’s boat that way. Or his attacks may hurt him more than they hurt her. She’s clearly in the better position, I just don’t think it’s impregnable.

As for the matter of a Dem primary, Todd Hill says Schieffer’s entry is a matter of when, not if, so I suppose at the least we’ll have Schieffer versus Kinky Friedman for the brass ring. Yeah, I know, I’m tingling all over at that prospect, too. Having said that, I wish PPP had done a KBH/Perry versus Friedman poll, if only for the entertainment value. I really have no idea how he’d do in such a survey, though if I had to bet I’d say he would not fare as well as a generic D. Still would have been nice to have the data point. Maybe next time, assuming there isn’t a better matchup to test out (*cough* *cough* Leticia Van de Putte *cough* *cough*).

UPDATE: And here we have further confirmation of Schieffer’s candidacy.

Fort Worth Democrat Tom Schieffer, who has served as U.S. ambassador to Japan and Australia, is all but certain to run for governor and will announce the formation of an exploratory committee Monday in Austin.

“He indicated to me that if he was going to announce, it would be on Texas Independence Day,” said Austin attorney Joe Longley, a longtime friend.

Sources close to Schieffer said he would have a news conference in the Speaker’s Committee Room at the Texas Capitol. Rep. Paula Pierson, D-Arlington, said that she had reserved the room and that “possibly” Schieffer would be there.

In an interview in Washington, Schieffer, 61, said, “I will make a decision on Sunday after I meet with my family.” He first expressed interest publicly in the post two weeks ago in an interview with the Star-Telegram.

“I have continued to check with people I know all over the state, and I have received an incredible response,” said Schieffer, shaking his head. “I have been amazed at the reaction.”

Whatever else happens, I’m glad he’ll be in. We needed something to counterbalance the Rick-n-Kay story line, and if there is a competitive Democratic primary for Governor, that makes it less likely KBH can run an appeal-to-everyone primary campaign. I look forward to Schieffer’s announcement.

One more PPP poll

Feb 27th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
2 comments

PPP does the Governor’s race, general election-style.

Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rick Perry would both best Democrat Tom Schieffer in a potential gubernatorial face off next year, although the race has some potential to be competitive if the current Governor is renominated.

Hutchison leads Schieffer 54-30 while Perry has a 45-35 advantage over him, below the magic 50% number considered safe for incumbents.

Hutchison appears to be close to unbeatable in a general election. She pulls 20% of the Democratic vote, has a 23 point lead among independents, and has 86% of Republicans committed to voting for her.

Perry’s standing pales on all three of those fronts. Only 13% of Democrats say they would vote for him, he actually trails Schieffer by a small amount among independents, and he gets a smaller 78% segment of the Republican vote.

Perry would certainly still be favored over Schieffer, but compared to Hutchison his winning the GOP primary would leave the door ever so slightly open for a possible Democratic takeover. If Hutchison is the victor that door is pretty much shut.

Hutchison is the only one of the trio with a positive favorability rating. 58% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of her compared to 31% who view her negatively. 48% have an unfavorable take on Perry compared to 41% who give him their approval, and Schieffer’s breakdown is 25/31.

Again, this is basically “Well-known R” versus “Unknown D”, with the added zest of KBH’s positives and Rick Perry’s not-so-positives. While KBH’s better performance in this matchup is hardly surprising, I’ll just note that Rick Perry has twelve full months to do something about her favorability rating, and I wouldn’t underestimate him on that score. Let’s check this again in September or so and see where we stand.

In the meantime, it’s possible KBH could wind up with a bit of a John McCain problem. She’s generally well-liked and does as well as she does in these polls because she has a fairly moderate image. If she feels the need to run right to win the GOP nomination, or if Perry’s attacks force her to the right, some of that sheen may come off for independent voters and soft Ds. It certainly doesn’t have to play out this way – if the Dems don’t have a primary worth voting in, she can court voters outside the GOP base and try to swamp Perry’s boat that way. Or his attacks may hurt him more than they hurt her. She’s clearly in the better position, I just don’t think it’s impregnable.

As for the matter of a Dem primary, Todd Hill says Schieffer’s entry is a matter of when, not if, so I suppose at the least we’ll have Schieffer versus Kinky Friedman for the brass ring. Yeah, I know, I’m tingling all over at that prospect, too. Having said that, I wish PPP had done a KBH/Perry versus Friedman poll, if only for the entertainment value. I really have no idea how he’d do in such a survey, though if I had to bet I’d say he would not fare as well as a generic D. Still would have been nice to have the data point. Maybe next time, assuming there isn’t a better matchup to test out (*cough* *cough* Leticia Van de Putte *cough* *cough*).

UPDATE: And here we have further confirmation of Schieffer’s candidacy.

Fort Worth Democrat Tom Schieffer, who has served as U.S. ambassador to Japan and Australia, is all but certain to run for governor and will announce the formation of an exploratory committee Monday in Austin.

“He indicated to me that if he was going to announce, it would be on Texas Independence Day,” said Austin attorney Joe Longley, a longtime friend.

Sources close to Schieffer said he would have a news conference in the Speaker’s Committee Room at the Texas Capitol. Rep. Paula Pierson, D-Arlington, said that she had reserved the room and that “possibly” Schieffer would be there.

In an interview in Washington, Schieffer, 61, said, “I will make a decision on Sunday after I meet with my family.” He first expressed interest publicly in the post two weeks ago in an interview with the Star-Telegram.

“I have continued to check with people I know all over the state, and I have received an incredible response,” said Schieffer, shaking his head. “I have been amazed at the reaction.”

Whatever else happens, I’m glad he’ll be in. We needed something to counterbalance the Rick-n-Kay story line, and if there is a competitive Democratic primary for Governor, that makes it less likely KBH can run an appeal-to-everyone primary campaign. I look forward to Schieffer’s announcement.

Another City Council lineup update

Feb 27th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
2 comments

Time for our periodic check on who’s running for what this fall. The Memorial Examiner gets us started.

Five confirmed candidates are vying to replace Lawrence in District A.

Jeff Downing, Amy Peck, Bob Schellkopf, Brenda Stardig and Alex Wathen are campaign-ready, having filed campaign treasurer forms.

Not running in District A is P.M. Clinton, 58, a private investigator and longtime Spring Branch resident.

Clinton said Tuesday that he’s been asked to run, but feels he can do more by staying involved with a reactivated Spring Branch Revitalization Association.

In District G, Oliver Pennington and Mills Worsham have filed treasurer papers and are campaigning.

The story has basic bio information on all of them. Peck is the new name to me – she’s a district liaison for state Sen. Dan Patrick, and worked for Sen. Jon Lindsay before him. She’s also 24, which makes her a heck of a lot more focused and accomplished than I was at that age. Not surprisingly for someone with that resume, she lists cost reduction as her top priority.

I can add two more names to this group: Lane Lewis for A, and Dexter Handy for G. Lewis, according to an email from Carl Whitmarsh, who broke the news of Lewis’ candidacy a few days ago, is the former Chair of the Houston Gay Lesbian BiSexual Transgendered Political Caucus, Democratic Chair and Election Judge in Oak Forest, and Professor of Government and Political Science at San Jacinto College where he will soon be teaching supervisor of his department. Handy ran for County Commissioner in Precinct 3 against Steve Radack last year. I’ve confirmed his candidacy via email. I interviewed Handy twice last year, once for the primary and once for the general. He’s a real good guy, and I’m glad to see him in the race.

Elsewhere, I’ve now heard of two candidates for At Large #1: former HCC Trustee and 2005 candidate for District C Herman Litt, and Steve Costello, who is the head of the Memorial Park Conservancy. There are two other entrants for At Large #4 as well, Jay Green and Sandy Dahlke, about whom I know nothing.

Finally, while there were no new entrants into the Mayor’s race that I know of, there was some action as current City Council member Peter Brown kicked off his campaign, and City Controller Annise Parker called on Governor Perry to make sure Houston got its fair share of the stimulus money. What are you hearing these days?

Another City Council lineup update

Feb 27th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Time for our periodic check on who’s running for what this fall. The Memorial Examiner gets us started.

Five confirmed candidates are vying to replace Lawrence in District A.

Jeff Downing, Amy Peck, Bob Schellkopf, Brenda Stardig and Alex Wathen are campaign-ready, having filed campaign treasurer forms.

Not running in District A is P.M. Clinton, 58, a private investigator and longtime Spring Branch resident.

Clinton said Tuesday that he’s been asked to run, but feels he can do more by staying involved with a reactivated Spring Branch Revitalization Association.

In District G, Oliver Pennington and Mills Worsham have filed treasurer papers and are campaigning.

The story has basic bio information on all of them. Peck is the new name to me – she’s a district liaison for state Sen. Dan Patrick, and worked for Sen. Jon Lindsay before him. She’s also 24, which makes her a heck of a lot more focused and accomplished than I was at that age. Not surprisingly for someone with that resume, she lists cost reduction as her top priority.

I can add two names to this group: Lane Lewis for A, and Dexter Handy for G. Lewis, according to an email from Carl Whitmarsh, who broke the news of Lewis’ candidacy a few days ago, is the former Chair of the Houston Gay Lesbian BiSexual Transgendered Political Caucus, Democratic Chair and Election Judge in Oak Forest, and Professor of Government and Political Science at San Jacinto College where he will soon be teaching supervisor of his department. Handy ran for County Commissioner in Precinct 3 against Steve Radack last year. I’ve confirmed his candidacy via email. I interviewed Handy twice last year, once for the primary and once for the general. He’s a real good guy, and I’m glad to see him in the race.

Elsewhere, I’ve now heard of two candidates for At Large #1: former HCC Trustee and 2005 candidate for District C Herman Litt, and Steve Costello, who is the head of the Memorial Park Conservancy. There are two other entrants for At Large #4 as well, Jay Green and Sandy Dahlke, about whom I know nothing.

Finally, while there were no new entrants into the Mayor’s race that I know of, there was some action as current City Council member Peter Brown kicked off his campaign, and City Controller Annise Parker called on Governor Perry to make sure Houston got its fair share of the stimulus money. What are you hearing these days?

Search openly

Feb 27th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
Comments are off for this post

Is there really a debate about whether or not we should conduct a search for a new HISD Superintendent in an open manner? Because I think the choice is clear.

The Greater Houston Partnership, which represents the business community, is lobbying the school board to introduce a few leading contenders to the public — something the board hasn’t done in a search in nearly two decades.

“There are challenges to transparency, but the payout is huge,” said Jeff Moseley, president and chief executive of the business partnership.

[HISD President] Marshall said he supports naming multiple finalists — perhaps three — but not all his colleagues have been as quick to embrace the idea. Some worry fewer people will apply for the job if word of their job search will get back to their current school boards.

“I just think we need to stop using that as an excuse if we really and truly believe in transparency,” Marshall said. “Good superintendents can sit down with their boards and say, ‘Here’s an opportunity.’ I don’t think they add value to their candidacy by insisting on secrecy.”

Trustee Manuel Rodriguez Jr., on the other hand, prefers naming only one finalist.

“If the Greater Houston Partnership wants to know the candidates, they ought to run for school board,” he said. “By releasing the names of candidates, we put those candidates in jeopardy of losing their own jobs.”

Sorry, but I am unimpressed by Trustee Rodriguez’s argument here. Hell, college and pro coaches get vetted for other jobs all the time, usually with the knowledge and blessing of their current employer. Smaller programs generally consider it to be a positive when the bigger ones interview their coaches, because it’s a sign that they’re doing something right, and because being a place that provides opportunities for advancement is in itself a lure for good employees. I just don’t see the downside here.

And if that wasn’t enough, this would more than clinch it for me:

During the 2004 search that resulted in [Superintendent Abe] Saavedra’s hiring, board members conducted late-night interviews that ended with the candidates being hurried out of the administration building and into waiting cars. Extra HISD police officers were brought in to help keep track of reporters trying to catch a glimpse of the contenders.

In Florida, one of the most open states when it comes to superintendent searches, the names of all applicants are public record, and the community is allowed to attend meetings where school boards interview candidates.

Which one of these processes sounds healthier and more likely to produce a positive result? Seriously, this is an easy call.

Search openly

Feb 27th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Is there really a debate about whether or not we should conduct a search for a new HISD Superintendent in an open manner? Because I think the choice is clear.

The Greater Houston Partnership, which represents the business community, is lobbying the school board to introduce a few leading contenders to the public — something the board hasn’t done in a search in nearly two decades.

“There are challenges to transparency, but the payout is huge,” said Jeff Moseley, president and chief executive of the business partnership.

[HISD President] Marshall said he supports naming multiple finalists — perhaps three — but not all his colleagues have been as quick to embrace the idea. Some worry fewer people will apply for the job if word of their job search will get back to their current school boards.

“I just think we need to stop using that as an excuse if we really and truly believe in transparency,” Marshall said. “Good superintendents can sit down with their boards and say, ‘Here’s an opportunity.’ I don’t think they add value to their candidacy by insisting on secrecy.”

Trustee Manuel Rodriguez Jr., on the other hand, prefers naming only one finalist.

“If the Greater Houston Partnership wants to know the candidates, they ought to run for school board,” he said. “By releasing the names of candidates, we put those candidates in jeopardy of losing their own jobs.”

Sorry, but I am unimpressed by Trustee Rodriguez’s argument here. Hell, college and pro coaches get vetted for other jobs all the time, usually with the knowledge and blessing of their current employer. Smaller programs generally consider it to be a positive when the bigger ones interview their coaches, because it’s a sign that they’re doing something right, and because being a place that provides opportunities for advancement is in itself a lure for good employees. I just don’t see the downside here.

And if that wasn’t enough, this would more than clinch it for me:

During the 2004 search that resulted in [Superintendent Abe] Saavedra’s hiring, board members conducted late-night interviews that ended with the candidates being hurried out of the administration building and into waiting cars. Extra HISD police officers were brought in to help keep track of reporters trying to catch a glimpse of the contenders.

In Florida, one of the most open states when it comes to superintendent searches, the names of all applicants are public record, and the community is allowed to attend meetings where school boards interview candidates.

Which one of these processes sounds healthier and more likely to produce a positive result? Seriously, this is an easy call.

Grand Parkway Segment E gets a go-ahead

Feb 27th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

As expected.

Harris County Commissioners Court on Tuesday approved an agreement to build and maintain a segment of the Grand Parkway connecting the Katy Freeway and U.S. 290, but questions over what would happen if the county ultimately decided the project was not financially viable could delay work indefinitely.

The agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation clearly states that Harris County would be reimbursed for its investment in Segment E of the proposed “outer outer” loop around Houston if another entity agreed to develop the entire 185-mile project.

But the agreement does not describe what would happen if the county decided not to build the segment after spending money on the segment and no one ever agreed to build the whole project.

Here’s a copy of the agreement (large PDF), which I got via an email sent from Robin Holzer to members of the CTC. She states:

The agreement stipulates that Harris County will be responsible for funding right-of-way acquisition, engineering and design, utility work, environmental studies and mitigation, compliance with TAS and ADA, and any other aspect of the project not mentioned in attachment D. According to this agreement Harris County will be on the hook for the entire estimated project cost in excess of $500 million.

Before voting Cmr. Steve Radack pushed staff to clarify the County’s financial obligations saying, “I don’t want Harris County tax payers to be out one penny on this project.” He asked what happens if the County moves forward on segment E but decides not to finish the project.

Attorney Bob Colley, who worked on the agreement for the County, explained that the County will only be reimbursed for segment E costs if TxDOT or another entity ultimately assumes responsibility for it and the entire Grand Parkway. If HCTRA develops segment E and no one takes it over, the County will be out the entire cost.

Commissioners also clarified the County’s obligations stemming from this agreement. In conclusion, today’s vote allows the County to pursue segment E, but does not obligate the County to begin spending money on it.

Emphasis in original. That’s a lot of money hanging on a what-if, isn’t it?

Back to the Chron:

About 10 representatives from environmental and neighborhood groups that oppose the project spoke against it during Tuesday’s meeting, calling it a magnet for sprawl that will be too far north to have much of an impact on U.S. 290 traffic. They said the court should use the money to build commuter rail or toll lanes on the freeway instead.

A detailed list of reasons why this isn’t such a hot idea can be found in this post from last year, when this project was fast-tracked. I agree with the point Jay Crossley made in the comments to that post, which is that this represents urban planning in another form. Somehow, though, those who object to that idea don’t ever seem to have a problem with it when it’s done this way.

Grand Parkway Segment E gets a go-ahead

Feb 27th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
Comments are off for this post

As expected.

Harris County Commissioners Court on Tuesday approved an agreement to build and maintain a segment of the Grand Parkway connecting the Katy Freeway and U.S. 290, but questions over what would happen if the county ultimately decided the project was not financially viable could delay work indefinitely.

The agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation clearly states that Harris County would be reimbursed for its investment in Segment E of the proposed “outer outer” loop around Houston if another entity agreed to develop the entire 185-mile project.

But the agreement does not describe what would happen if the county decided not to build the segment after spending money on the segment and no one ever agreed to build the whole project.

Here’s a copy of the agreement (large PDF), which I got via an email sent from Robin Holzer to members of the CTC. She states:

The agreement stipulates that Harris County will be responsible for funding right-of-way acquisition, engineering and design, utility work, environmental studies and mitigation, compliance with TAS and ADA, and any other aspect of the project not mentioned in attachment D. According to this agreement Harris County will be on the hook for the entire estimated project cost in excess of $500 million.

Before voting Cmr. Steve Radack pushed staff to clarify the County’s financial obligations saying, “I don’t want Harris County tax payers to be out one penny on this project.” He asked what happens if the County moves forward on segment E but decides not to finish the project.

Attorney Bob Colley, who worked on the agreement for the County, explained that the County will only be reimbursed for segment E costs if TxDOT or another entity ultimately assumes responsibility for it and the entire Grand Parkway. If HCTRA develops segment E and no one takes it over, the County will be out the entire cost.

Commissioners also clarified the County’s obligations stemming from this agreement. In conclusion, today’s vote allows the County to pursue segment E, but does not obligate the County to begin spending money on it.

Emphasis in original. That’s a lot of money hanging on a what-if, isn’t it?

Back to the Chron:

About 10 representatives from environmental and neighborhood groups that oppose the project spoke against it during Tuesday’s meeting, calling it a magnet for sprawl that will be too far north to have much of an impact on U.S. 290 traffic. They said the court should use the money to build commuter rail or toll lanes on the freeway instead.

A detailed list of reasons why this isn’t such a hot idea can be found in this post from last year, when this project was fast-tracked. I agree with the point Jay Crossley made in the comments to that post, which is that this represents urban planning in another form. Somehow, though, those who object to that idea don’t ever seem to have a problem with it when it’s done this way.

Will we or won’t we fix unemployment insurance?

Feb 26th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
1 comment

There’s a lot of money riding on the answer to that question.

The lure of $555 million in federal stimulus money for additional unemployment insurance has Texas legislators mulling whether to expand unemployment benefits to more workers.

To get that money, Texas would have to implement some key changes to state law — including modifying some eligibility requirements to include tens of thousands of low-wage workers. Such changes have been considered but not enacted in previous sessions.

[…]

Gov. Rick Perry is reviewing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed by President Barack Obama this month and the strings attached to all the money, a spokeswoman said.

The unemployment money would be the mostly likely candidate if Perry were to reject anything from the stimulus package.

Perry has said the stimulus money should be used only for one-time projects, not ongoing expenses.

“The hardest thing to remove from government is a temporary program,” Ken Armbrister, Perry’s legislative director, said at a Wednesday hearing.

[…]

The federal money could lessen the need for new taxes on business, said state Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, who is chairman of the Technology, Economic Development and Workforce Committee.

“Failure to adopt the policy changes … would result in a higher burden on business taxpayers in the immediate and near term during the recession” than would expanding the benefits, Strama said.

I can understand the reluctance to taking one-time money for potentially ongoing expenditures. But sometimes these are things you should have been doing anyway, and will at worst take on a relatively small expense while getting a worthwhile return on it. A little more analysis and a little less sloganeering would go a long way here.

The Workforce Commission is still determining how much the change would cost.

But an analysis of a similar 2007 bill put the price tag at about $35 million to $45 million a year as 74,000 additional workers would become eligible for benefits, according to the Legislative Budget Board.

The number, however, would probably be somewhat higher given today’s higher unemployment rates.

That change alone would open the door to Texas receiving $185 million of the stimulus money.

The Legislature has some options for how to tap the remaining $370 million. Lawmakers would need to enact two of four policy changes, such as allowing people to get benefits while searching for part-time work.

The Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income Texans, estimates that all of the reforms combined would cost $55 million to $75 million a year, so the federal money could cover the costs for seven years or more.

No one knows the true cost because that would be driven by how many more people took advantage of the benefits, said Talmadge Heflin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocates for limited government.

“The upside is all short-term,” Heflin said. “The downside in future years will greatly outweigh any upside.”

Funny, you could say the exact same thing about those big property tax cuts we enacted last session when we had some extra cash lying around. I don’t recall there being a whole lot of angst from certain quarters about how we were going to pay for it going forward – there may have been something about the beauty of the free market, or the Laffer curve, or magic pixie dust, I’m not sure. You want to talk about something that’s tough to get rid of, try repealing an irresponsible tax cut. In contrast, this would cost about $150 million per biennium – likely less in the future when the economy improves and more people are working again – which is about 0.2% of the total state revenue we have for this period. It would also help a lot of people who could really use it, and would be quite economically stimulative, as the recipients would be spending all that money on frivolities like food and housing. Seems like an easy decision to make, if you ask me. Patricia Kilday Hart sums up the hearings, in which Texas Workforce Commission Chair (and former chair of the Republican Party of Texas) Tom Pauken spoke in favor of getting stimulus money, as follows:

So, to review:

1. An escalating unemployment rate means the trust fund is paying out 120 percent more than it did this time last year and

2. At current rates, the trust fund will be broke by fall and

3. Bill Hammond [of the Texas Association of Business] doesn’t want to take any federal stimulus money to fix it because somebody might have to pay higher taxes in the future.

Like I said, seems like an easy call to me. Press releases from the AFL-CIO of Texas and Senators Rodney Ellis, Eddie Lucio, Leticia Van de Putte, and Representative Joe Deshotel, who are urging Governor Perry to declare this a legislative emergency, are beneath the fold.

(more…)

Will we or won’t we fix unemployment insurance?

Feb 26th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

There’s a lot of money riding on the answer to that question.

The lure of $555 million in federal stimulus money for additional unemployment insurance has Texas legislators mulling whether to expand unemployment benefits to more workers.

To get that money, Texas would have to implement some key changes to state law — including modifying some eligibility requirements to include tens of thousands of low-wage workers. Such changes have been considered but not enacted in previous sessions.

[…]

Gov. Rick Perry is reviewing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed by President Barack Obama this month and the strings attached to all the money, a spokeswoman said.

The unemployment money would be the mostly likely candidate if Perry were to reject anything from the stimulus package.

Perry has said the stimulus money should be used only for one-time projects, not ongoing expenses.

“The hardest thing to remove from government is a temporary program,” Ken Armbrister, Perry’s legislative director, said at a Wednesday hearing.

[…]

The federal money could lessen the need for new taxes on business, said state Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, who is chairman of the Technology, Economic Development and Workforce Committee.

“Failure to adopt the policy changes … would result in a higher burden on business taxpayers in the immediate and near term during the recession” than would expanding the benefits, Strama said.

I can understand the reluctance to taking one-time money for potentially ongoing expenditures. But sometimes these are things you should have been doing anyway, and will at worst take on a relatively small expense while getting a worthwhile return on it. A little more analysis and a little less sloganeering would go a long way here.

The Workforce Commission is still determining how much the change would cost.

But an analysis of a similar 2007 bill put the price tag at about $35 million to $45 million a year as 74,000 additional workers would become eligible for benefits, according to the Legislative Budget Board.

The number, however, would probably be somewhat higher given today’s higher unemployment rates.

That change alone would open the door to Texas receiving $185 million of the stimulus money.

The Legislature has some options for how to tap the remaining $370 million. Lawmakers would need to enact two of four policy changes, such as allowing people to get benefits while searching for part-time work.

The Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income Texans, estimates that all of the reforms combined would cost $55 million to $75 million a year, so the federal money could cover the costs for seven years or more.

No one knows the true cost because that would be driven by how many more people took advantage of the benefits, said Talmadge Heflin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocates for limited government.

“The upside is all short-term,” Heflin said. “The downside in future years will greatly outweigh any upside.”

Funny, you could say the exact same thing about those big property tax cuts we enacted last session when we had some extra cash lying around. I don’t recall there being a whole lot of angst from certain quarters about how we were going to pay for it going forward – there may have been something about the beauty of the free market, or the Laffer curve, or magic pixie dust, I’m not sure. You want to talk about something that’s tough to get rid of, try repealing an irresponsible tax cut. In contrast, this would cost about $150 million per biennium – likely less in the future when the economy improves and more people are working again – which is about 0.2% of the total state revenue we have for this period. It would also help a lot of people who could really use it, and would be quite economically stimulative, as the recipients would be spending all that money on frivolities like food and housing. Seems like an easy decision to make, if you ask me. Patricia Kilday Hart sums up the hearings, in which Texas Workforce Commission Chair (and former chair of the Republican Party of Texas) Tom Pauken spoke in favor of getting stimulus money, as follows:

So, to review:

1. An escalating unemployment rate means the trust fund is paying out 120 percent more than it did this time last year and

2. At current rates, the trust fund will be broke by fall and

3. Bill Hammond [of the Texas Association of Business] doesn’t want to take any federal stimulus money to fix it because somebody might have to pay higher taxes in the future.

Like I said, seems like an easy call to me. Press releases from the AFL-CIO of Texas and Senators Rodney Ellis, Eddie Lucio, Leticia Van de Putte, and Representative Joe Deshotel, who are urging Governor Perry to declare this a legislative emergency, are beneath the fold.

(more…)

Voter ID debate set for the Senate

Feb 26th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

I did an interview with State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte this evening, and in the course of our conversation, which I’ll be publishing on Monday, she said that there was a hearing set for voter ID legislation – presumably SB362 – in the Senate on March 10. This bill was referred to the full Senate last week, bypassing any committee hearings, because that would have given the Dems one more chance to kill it. That probably makes this the first non-emergency bill they debate and vote on, which shows again that as far as the Republican Party is concerned, is the single most important issue facing Texas today. We’ll see what arrows the Dems have in their quiver to try to derail this. It could very well get ugly, even uglier than what we saw on Day One, but if it does, it was the Republicans that picked this fight. It didn’t have to happen, and it wouldn’t have happened had they had a better, more realistic sense of priorities. But here we are, and what is about to be done will not be undone.

Voter ID debate set for the Senate

Feb 26th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
1 comment

I did an interview with State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte this evening, and in the course of our conversation, which I’ll be publishing on Monday, she said that there was a hearing set for voter ID legislation – presumably SB362 – in the Senate on March 10. This bill was referred to the full Senate last week, bypassing any committee hearings, because that would have given the Dems one more chance to kill it. That probably makes this the first non-emergency bill they debate and vote on, which shows again that as far as the Republican Party is concerned, is the single most important issue facing Texas today. We’ll see what arrows the Dems have in their quiver to try to derail this. It could very well get ugly, even uglier than what we saw on Day One, but if it does, it was the Republicans that picked this fight. It didn’t have to happen, and it wouldn’t have happened had they had a better, more realistic sense of priorities. But here we are, and what is about to be done will not be undone.

PPP on the Texas Senate race

Feb 26th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Public Policy Polling follows up its snapshot of the Republican GOP matchup for Governor with a poll of Senate possibilities.

We tested Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, Attorney General Greg Abbott, and state Senator Florence Shapiro on the Republican side against Houston Mayor Bill White and former Comptroller John Sharp on the Democratic side.

Abbott, who has not announced plans to seek the seat, appears to be the strongest initial candidate. 43% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of him compared to only 25% that view him negatively. He leads Sharp 44-36 and White 42-36 in possible contests.

Dewhurst is almost as strong, with a 43/30 favorability breakdown. He leads Sharp and White by slightly more narrow margins than Abbott, 42-36 over the former and 42-37 over the latter.

It seems inevitable that one of those heavyweights will get into the race if there is indeed a vacancy, but we also tested Shapiro to see how competitive the contest would be if the GOP ended up nominating one of the less well known candidates who have already made their intentions to seek the seat known. Shapiro leads White 37-36 but trails Sharp 37-34, an indication the race could pretty much be a tossup if a more well known Republican doesn’t run.

It appears that Dewhurst or Abbott would be an early favorite, but it’s worth noting that Sharp and White have a lot more room to grow in terms of name recognition. 43% of the electorate has no opinion of White and 41% has none of Sharp, figures much higher than the 27% for Dewhurst and 32% for Abbott. That gives them an opportunity to define themselves positively with the voters who haven’t formed an opinion about them yet.

As Matt notes, the first problem with this is that it ignores most of the announced Republican candidates for this race. There’s no reason to believe Dewhurst or Abbott will jump in to this race, though there’s no reason to think they won’t, either. All we know now is that they haven’t given any indication. What I take from this is that the “Known R versus Unknown D” races show about a six or seven point lead for the R, while the “Unknown R (Sen. Shapiro is an announced candidate) versus Unknown D” races are basically tossups. Looking at the full report (PDF), the partisan breakdown is given as 44R/38D/18I, so in some sense this is just a recapitulation of party ID. And it does suggest that in a race between equally-funded candidates, Texas is indeed a competitive state.

Of course, that leads to the other problem with this, which as the first commenter on the PPP post noted is that we won’t have a two-person race, we’ll have a cast-of-thousands special election. That’s assuming KBH does resign at some point, whether before or after the November of 2010 election. There is still the possibility that she could lose the GOP primary, or remain in the Senate and then lose the general election for Governor. In which case, this election won’t be till 2012, and any poll taken now is even less useful than usual. So while this data point has some usefulness, I wouldn’t consider it predictive in any meaningful sense. It’s fun, and that’s fine as it is.

PPP on the Texas Senate race

Feb 26th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
2 comments

Public Policy Polling follows up its snapshot of the Republican GOP matchup for Governor with a poll of Senate possibilities.

We tested Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, Attorney General Greg Abbott, and state Senator Florence Shapiro on the Republican side against Houston Mayor Bill White and former Comptroller John Sharp on the Democratic side.

Abbott, who has not announced plans to seek the seat, appears to be the strongest initial candidate. 43% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of him compared to only 25% that view him negatively. He leads Sharp 44-36 and White 42-36 in possible contests.

Dewhurst is almost as strong, with a 43/30 favorability breakdown. He leads Sharp and White by slightly more narrow margins than Abbott, 42-36 over the former and 42-37 over the latter.

It seems inevitable that one of those heavyweights will get into the race if there is indeed a vacancy, but we also tested Shapiro to see how competitive the contest would be if the GOP ended up nominating one of the less well known candidates who have already made their intentions to seek the seat known. Shapiro leads White 37-36 but trails Sharp 37-34, an indication the race could pretty much be a tossup if a more well known Republican doesn’t run.

It appears that Dewhurst or Abbott would be an early favorite, but it’s worth noting that Sharp and White have a lot more room to grow in terms of name recognition. 43% of the electorate has no opinion of White and 41% has none of Sharp, figures much higher than the 27% for Dewhurst and 32% for Abbott. That gives them an opportunity to define themselves positively with the voters who haven’t formed an opinion about them yet.

As Matt notes, the first problem with this is that it ignores most of the announced Republican candidates for this race. There’s no reason to believe Dewhurst or Abbott will jump in to this race, though there’s no reason to think they won’t, either. All we know now is that they haven’t given any indication. What I take from this is that the “Known R versus Unknown D” races show about a six or seven point lead for the R, while the “Unknown R (Sen. Shapiro is an announced candidate) versus Unknown D” races are basically tossups. Looking at the full report (PDF), the partisan breakdown is given as 44R/38D/18I, so in some sense this is just a recapitulation of party ID. And it does suggest that in a race between equally-funded candidates, Texas is indeed a competitive state.

Of course, that leads to the other problem with this, which as the first commenter on the PPP post noted is that we won’t have a two-person race, we’ll have a cast-of-thousands special election. That’s assuming KBH does resign at some point, whether before or after the November of 2010 election. There is still the possibility that she could lose the GOP primary, or remain in the Senate and then lose the general election for Governor. In which case, this election won’t be till 2012, and any poll taken now is even less useful than usual. So while this data point has some usefulness, I wouldn’t consider it predictive in any meaningful sense. It’s fun, and that’s fine as it is.

The sad state of sex education in Texas

Feb 26th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

We do a really lousy job of it.

In sex education classes, 94 percent of Texas school districts teach that abstaining from sex is the only healthy option for unmarried couples, and, in many cases, students are given misleading and inaccurate information about the risks associated with sex, according to a 72-page report released Tuesday.

Two percent of districts — in a state that has the third highest teen birth rate in the nation — ignore the subject completely, according to the study.

The two-year study, “Just Say Don’t Know: Sexuality Education in Texas Public Schools,” was conducted by two Texas State University researchers and funded by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, the research arm of the Texas Freedom Network, which describes itself as “a mainstream voice to counter the religious right.”

You can find the report and all related materials, including some fascinating videos that demonstrate just how sex ed is done these days, here.

Researchers David Wiley and Kelly Wilson, who both teach health education, examined tens of thousands of lesson plans, student handouts, speaker presentations and other related documents obtained from 990 school districts, 96 percent of Texas’ districts, through the Texas Public Information Act.

“Most of the mistruths share a common purpose, and a likely effect, and that is discouraging young people who might already be sexually active from using condoms, a message I find shocking as a professional health educator,” Wiley said.

[…]

In the report, researchers documented at least one factual error in the materials received from 41 percent of the school districts. The study’s authors found instances in which districts used what they called sexist, religious and shame- or fear-based techniques during instruction. The findings include:

On wearing condoms during sex, the Brady district has told teens, “Well if you insist on killing yourself by jumping off a bridge, at least wear these elbow pads.”

The Edinburg school district policy states, “Students should be informed that homosexual acts are illegal in Texas and highly correlated with the transmission of AIDS.”

I guess if you think the only acceptable sex is married heterosexual sex, and that nobody needs to know how not to have kids, then all this makes sense. For the rest of us, I think we could maybe do a little better than this. Kudos to the TFN for taking this on.

And in a bit of fortuitous and not-coincidental timing, I got a piece of email shortly after this came out from State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte and State Rep. Mike Villarreal, who have legislation filed to address some of these concerns. From the email:

SB 1076 and HB 1567 require abstinence curriculum that includes instruction on contraception to provide scientifically accurate information about contraceptives and methods of reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. SB 1076 and HB 1567 prohibit these school districts from discouraging contraception use by students who are sexually active. This legislation does not mandate that schools provide sex education, but if they choose to offer a sex education course, it prohibits them from providing inaccurate information.

“While it is true that abstinence is the healthiest choice for teens, we cannot close our eyes and pretend we do not have students that are sexually active. We must equip students with the knowledge necessary to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies,” said Van de Putte.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that our children receive accurate information in the classroom, particularly when students’ health is at stake,” Villarreal said. “We’re dealing with a myriad of problems in Texas as a result of our sky high teen pregnancy rates. We cannot allow our schools to provide erroneous information – the stakes are far too high.”

The Observer reports on more such bills.

Sen. Kirk Watson and Rep. Mark Strama filed legislation, Senate Bill 1100 and House Bill 1694, which they are calling the Prevention Works Act, which requires that school districts notify parents about the content of their children’s sex education classes. Rep. Joaquin Castro’s House Bill 741 and its companion, Sen. Rodney Ellis’ Senate Bill 515, require health education to be comprehensive, age-appropriate and based on medically accurate information. “I know that sounds like a ridiculously minimal standard,” says Ryan Valentine, deputy director of the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, “but it’s not an inconsequential first step.”

No it isn’t is it? Both of the Senate bills above have at least one Republican coauthor, though neither of the House bills do. Perhaps if we can tear our attention away from ultrasounds for a few minutes, we might get something that would actually help people passed. Click on for more from the TFN.

(more…)

The sad state of sex education in Texas

Feb 26th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
3 comments

We do a really lousy job of it.

In sex education classes, 94 percent of Texas school districts teach that abstaining from sex is the only healthy option for unmarried couples, and, in many cases, students are given misleading and inaccurate information about the risks associated with sex, according to a 72-page report released Tuesday.

Two percent of districts — in a state that has the third highest teen birth rate in the nation — ignore the subject completely, according to the study.

The two-year study, “Just Say Don’t Know: Sexuality Education in Texas Public Schools,” was conducted by two Texas State University researchers and funded by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, the research arm of the Texas Freedom Network, which describes itself as “a mainstream voice to counter the religious right.”

You can find the report and all related materials, including some fascinating videos that demonstrate just how sex ed is done these days, here.

Researchers David Wiley and Kelly Wilson, who both teach health education, examined tens of thousands of lesson plans, student handouts, speaker presentations and other related documents obtained from 990 school districts, 96 percent of Texas’ districts, through the Texas Public Information Act.

“Most of the mistruths share a common purpose, and a likely effect, and that is discouraging young people who might already be sexually active from using condoms, a message I find shocking as a professional health educator,” Wiley said.

[…]

In the report, researchers documented at least one factual error in the materials received from 41 percent of the school districts. The study’s authors found instances in which districts used what they called sexist, religious and shame- or fear-based techniques during instruction. The findings include:

On wearing condoms during sex, the Brady district has told teens, “Well if you insist on killing yourself by jumping off a bridge, at least wear these elbow pads.”

The Edinburg school district policy states, “Students should be informed that homosexual acts are illegal in Texas and highly correlated with the transmission of AIDS.”

I guess if you think the only acceptable sex is married heterosexual sex, and that nobody needs to know how not to have kids, then all this makes sense. For the rest of us, I think we could maybe do a little better than this. Kudos to the TFN for taking this on.

And in a bit of fortuitous and not-coincidental timing, I got a piece of email shortly after this came out from State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte and State Rep. Mike Villarreal, who have legislation filed to address some of these concerns. From the email:

SB 1076 and HB 1567 require abstinence curriculum that includes instruction on contraception to provide scientifically accurate information about contraceptives and methods of reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. SB 1076 and HB 1567 prohibit these school districts from discouraging contraception use by students who are sexually active. This legislation does not mandate that schools provide sex education, but if they choose to offer a sex education course, it prohibits them from providing inaccurate information.

“While it is true that abstinence is the healthiest choice for teens, we cannot close our eyes and pretend we do not have students that are sexually active. We must equip students with the knowledge necessary to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies,” said Van de Putte.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that our children receive accurate information in the classroom, particularly when students’ health is at stake,” Villarreal said. “We’re dealing with a myriad of problems in Texas as a result of our sky high teen pregnancy rates. We cannot allow our schools to provide erroneous information – the stakes are far too high.”

The Observer reports on more such bills.

Sen. Kirk Watson and Rep. Mark Strama filed legislation, Senate Bill 1100 and House Bill 1694, which they are calling the Prevention Works Act, which requires that school districts notify parents about the content of their children’s sex education classes. Rep. Joaquin Castro’s House Bill 741 and its companion, Sen. Rodney Ellis’ Senate Bill 515, require health education to be comprehensive, age-appropriate and based on medically accurate information. “I know that sounds like a ridiculously minimal standard,” says Ryan Valentine, deputy director of the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, “but it’s not an inconsequential first step.”

No it isn’t is it? Both of the Senate bills above have at least one Republican coauthor, though neither of the House bills do. Perhaps if we can tear our attention away from ultrasounds for a few minutes, we might get something that would actually help people passed. Click on for more from the TFN.

(more…)

Catch the WAve

Feb 26th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

The following is a message from Super Neighborhood 22:

Catch the WAve Day, all day Saturday March 7

Hosted by: SN22, Mayor White’s Office of Special Events, and MECA

Purpose: To showcase area businesses, schools & non-profits, plus an eco-fair and children’s activities

What’s going on:

  • Washington Ave corridor businesses will be offering special values & incentives
  • Grab a go.rev.go electro-cab from one participating business to another (for tips)
  • Eco-Fair from 1-5 in Spotts Park (corner of Memorial Drive & Waugh)**

** Spotts Park will feature live music and performances by MECA, a Children’s Spott with special interactions, and the Eco-Fair, with Go Green reps from city departments, plus a host of green community organizations.

Click on to see the flyers for more details.

(more…)

Catch the WAve

Feb 26th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
1 comment

The following is a message from Super Neighborhood 22:

Catch the WAve Day, all day Saturday March 7

Hosted by: SN22, Mayor White’s Office of Special Events, and MECA

Purpose: To showcase area businesses, schools & non-profits, plus an eco-fair and children’s activities

What’s going on:

  • Washington Ave corridor businesses will be offering special values & incentives
  • Grab a go.rev.go electro-cab from one participating business to another (for tips)
  • Eco-Fair from 1-5 in Spotts Park (corner of Memorial Drive & Waugh)**

** Spotts Park will feature live music and performances by MECA, a Children’s Spott with special interactions, and the Eco-Fair, with Go Green reps from city departments, plus a host of green community organizations.

Click on to see the flyers for more details.

(more…)

The Riddler goes on a rampage

Feb 26th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

The Observer looks at a trio of bills by Rep. Debbie Riddle in which she tries to solve the immigration issue all by herself.

Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, is launching a three-pronged attack on non-citizens this session. Prong 1: Hook ‘em at work with HB 48, which would suspend employers’ licenses for “knowingly” employing undocumented workers. Prong 2: Nail ‘em at school with HB 50, which would disqualify undocumented students from receiving in-state tuition.

And then there’s Prong 3, which would, it seems, get ‘em everywhere else. HB 49 would create a Class B misdemeanor (Criminal Trespass by Illegal Aliens) that would effectively authorize local law enforcement to enforce two sections of the federal code governing most immigration law.

Asked if there were a precedent for such a law in other states, Riddle said, “If not, I’m willing to be on the cutting edge and do what’s bold here in Texas.”

[…]

Under HB 49, peace officers, acting on “reasonable suspicion,” could detain people for being undocumented – even if they have not committed another crime. If ICE confirms the detained person is in the U.S. illegally, the peace officer could then make an arrest.

[…]

Constitutionality aside, leaving immigration to the feds has worked out for federal agents and local law enforcers alike, says El Paso Police Chief Gregory Allen. “It’s been pretty clear cut,” Allen says. “I don’t think it should be spread out. ICE doesn’t help us out with our robbery problems or our burglary problems. They’re not cruising our neighborhoods. We shouldn’t be required to help them.”

Riddle’s response? “I don’t think that we should have this hair-splitting of, oh, well, this isn’t my job,” she says. “Citizens don’t really care that much about who is making sure that their security is established in place.”

However, according to Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, burdening local law enforcement with enforcing federal immigration law could negatively impact a police department’s capacity to fight crime, since city police departments already have their hands – and jails – full enforcing current criminal statutes. What’s more, allowing local law officers to arrest illegal immigrants might discourage victims of questionable status from coming forward and reporting crimes, particularly in cases of family violence.

“You’d lose a lot of witnesses. There’d be a lot of crime that would go unreported,” says Acevedo. “I’ll give you an example. We went to a call with domestic violence. Here, a young woman was beaten by a legal resident and his threat to her was, if you call the police, you’re going to get deported.”

There is a precedent for this, and we know from experience that the result is even worse than what Chief Acevedo anticipates. I’m talking about Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, which has been doing exactly what Riddle wants for years. How’s that working out for them?

In Guadalupe, grocery store employees waited in vain for help during an armed robbery.

In Queen Creek, vandalism spread through a neighborhood where Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies rarely patrolled.

In Aguila, people bought guns in the face of rising crime that deputies couldn’t respond to quickly enough.

And in El Mirage, dozens of serious felony cases went uninvestigated.

Response times, arrest rates, investigations and other routine police work throughout Maricopa County have suffered over the past two years as Sheriff Joe Arpaio turned his already short-handed and cash-strapped department into an immigration enforcement agency, a Tribune investigation found.

Read the whole five-part series, which I’ve referenced before, and ask yourself why we’d want to emulate that. I can’t think of any good reason. I’m sure this thing would come with a hefty fiscal note as well, which in these tight budgetary times ought to be enough to give one pause regardless of one’s ideological perspective on the issue. I doubt Riddle cares about that, however – I’m sure she’d be happy to reapportion money from just about anywhere else for this. The bill has been referred to the Criminal Jurisprudence committee, where it will hopefully die a swift and well-deserved death.

The Riddler goes on a rampage

Feb 26th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
1 comment

The Observer looks at a trio of bills by Rep. Debbie Riddle in which she tries to solve the immigration issue all by herself.

Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, is launching a three-pronged attack on non-citizens this session. Prong 1: Hook ’em at work with HB 48, which would suspend employers’ licenses for “knowingly” employing undocumented workers. Prong 2: Nail ’em at school with HB 50, which would disqualify undocumented students from receiving in-state tuition.

And then there’s Prong 3, which would, it seems, get ’em everywhere else. HB 49 would create a Class B misdemeanor (Criminal Trespass by Illegal Aliens) that would effectively authorize local law enforcement to enforce two sections of the federal code governing most immigration law.

Asked if there were a precedent for such a law in other states, Riddle said, “If not, I’m willing to be on the cutting edge and do what’s bold here in Texas.”

[…]

Under HB 49, peace officers, acting on “reasonable suspicion,” could detain people for being undocumented – even if they have not committed another crime. If ICE confirms the detained person is in the U.S. illegally, the peace officer could then make an arrest.

[…]

Constitutionality aside, leaving immigration to the feds has worked out for federal agents and local law enforcers alike, says El Paso Police Chief Gregory Allen. “It’s been pretty clear cut,” Allen says. “I don’t think it should be spread out. ICE doesn’t help us out with our robbery problems or our burglary problems. They’re not cruising our neighborhoods. We shouldn’t be required to help them.”

Riddle’s response? “I don’t think that we should have this hair-splitting of, oh, well, this isn’t my job,” she says. “Citizens don’t really care that much about who is making sure that their security is established in place.”

However, according to Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, burdening local law enforcement with enforcing federal immigration law could negatively impact a police department’s capacity to fight crime, since city police departments already have their hands – and jails – full enforcing current criminal statutes. What’s more, allowing local law officers to arrest illegal immigrants might discourage victims of questionable status from coming forward and reporting crimes, particularly in cases of family violence.

“You’d lose a lot of witnesses. There’d be a lot of crime that would go unreported,” says Acevedo. “I’ll give you an example. We went to a call with domestic violence. Here, a young woman was beaten by a legal resident and his threat to her was, if you call the police, you’re going to get deported.”

There is a precedent for this, and we know from experience that the result is even worse than what Chief Acevedo anticipates. I’m talking about Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, which has been doing exactly what Riddle wants for years. How’s that working out for them?

In Guadalupe, grocery store employees waited in vain for help during an armed robbery.

In Queen Creek, vandalism spread through a neighborhood where Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies rarely patrolled.

In Aguila, people bought guns in the face of rising crime that deputies couldn’t respond to quickly enough.

And in El Mirage, dozens of serious felony cases went uninvestigated.

Response times, arrest rates, investigations and other routine police work throughout Maricopa County have suffered over the past two years as Sheriff Joe Arpaio turned his already short-handed and cash-strapped department into an immigration enforcement agency, a Tribune investigation found.

Read the whole five-part series, which I’ve referenced before, and ask yourself why we’d want to emulate that. I can’t think of any good reason. I’m sure this thing would come with a hefty fiscal note as well, which in these tight budgetary times ought to be enough to give one pause regardless of one’s ideological perspective on the issue. I doubt Riddle cares about that, however – I’m sure she’d be happy to reapportion money from just about anywhere else for this. The bill has been referred to the Criminal Jurisprudence committee, where it will hopefully die a swift and well-deserved death.

Bradford announces for At Large #4, Pennington announces in G

Feb 25th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

We know he had been contemplating the possibility, but now former HPD Chief C.O. Bradford has made it official: He’s going to run for the open At Large #4 City Council seat. From his email:

Chief Bradford has been a resident of the city of Houston since 1979. He has lived in the Hiram Clarke, Alief, Fondren Southwest, and MacGregor areas. He understands the various characteristics of the Houston community and appreciates the efforts to focus on neighborhood needs.

Bradford served 24 years as a Houston Police officer and seven years as Chief of Police. He was appointed Houston’s Police Chief by Mayor Bob Lanier and re-appointed by Mayor Lee Brown. He is an attorney and public safety consultant with degrees in law from the University of Houston Law Center, criminal justice from Grambling State University, and a public administration degree from Texas Southern University. Also, Chief Bradford is a graduate of the FBI Academy and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government Program for State and Local Executives.

“It is certainly an honor to serve in the public sector. Making a difference for the greater good of all is a tremendous reward. As Houston moves forward, we must get better prepared to deal with issues such as public safety, budget restraints, critical infrastructure repairs, representation via council redistricting and many others.” stated Bradford. “After careful consideration, I am most honored to be asked by so many friends, supporters, and family to run for Houston City Council. I will utilize my experience, training, and education to help improve the quality of life in this wonderful community, Houston, Texas.”

Noel Freeman is already in the running for this seat. I hold Chief Bradford in high regard, and I really admired the campaign he ran for District Attorney and the issues he emphasized in that race. I think he’d make a fine Council member. Having said that, Noel asked for my support awhile back, and I promised it to him. I did that, of course, because I think he’ll make a fine Council member as well, so my decision is clear. If I were starting out at this point, it would be a lot harder. But it’s a choice between good options, and you can’t ask for more than that.

Meanwhile, Oliver Pennington, who first came to my attention as a potential candidate for District G a month ago, has made his formal announcement as well. Here’s his email:

Houston municipal and environmental attorney Oliver Pennington announced today that he will seek the Houston City Council District G seat that is being vacated by Councilmember Pam Holm due to term limits. Pennington said “I believe I can make a positive difference for residents and business owners in District G. I will use my experience to secure funding for needed neighborhood and regional public works and crime prevention projects. I will help residents unravel the complex city regulations affecting neighborhoods such as those for traffic control and neighborhood protection.”

Pennington has designated District G community leader Penny Butler as his Campaign Treasurer and the Honorable Chase Untermeyer, recent Ambassador to Qatar, as the Campaign’s Chair.

Pennington received his B.A. from Rice University in 1960 and his J.D. from the University of Texas in 1963 where he was an Associate Editor of the law review. After graduation he joined the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski in 1963 as an associate and became a Partner in 1973 practicing municipal finance, municipal law, municipal utility district law, environmental and administrative law. In 2002 he became Of Counsel to the firm.

Pennington is former Chairman of the Houston Civil Service Commission. He was a member of Board of the Memorial Park Conservancy for five years, which is in the heart of District G. He is also a member of the Houston and Texas State Bar Associations. He is a member of the Greater Houston Partnership where he is or has been a member of the Water Laws Committee and the Environmental Committee and the Economic Development Committee. Pennington was also a member of the Board of Directors of North Houston Association, a trade group advocating public policy and economic development policies favorable to that area.

Pennington’s campaign will focus on improving the Quality of Life for residents, reducing taxes and eliminating waste at City Hall, improving infrastructure, safety and parks. Pennington said “I will forge coalitions with other council members and will work with the Mayor to insure that the City government works more efficiently for District G.”

Pennington is a native Houstonian and has lived in District G for almost 40 years with his wife Beverly; together they have raised and educated two children in the district. They have 5 grandchildren.

For more information visit the campaign’s web site at www.oliverpennington.com.

I know HCC Trustee Mills Worsham is also running in G, but I’ve not received any formal word on his campaign’s status.

Still no sign of a candidate for At Large #1. I can say that Sue Schecter will not be in the running, based on an email I got from her, and she was the only one I’d heard of up till now. Anybody else out there hearing anything?

Bradford announces for At Large #4, Pennington announces in G

Feb 25th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
1 comment

We know he had been contemplating the possibility, but now former HPD Chief C.O. Bradford has made it official: He’s going to run for the open At Large #4 City Council seat. From his email:

Chief Bradford has been a resident of the city of Houston since 1979. He has lived in the Hiram Clarke, Alief, Fondren Southwest, and MacGregor areas. He understands the various characteristics of the Houston community and appreciates the efforts to focus on neighborhood needs.

Bradford served 24 years as a Houston Police officer and seven years as Chief of Police. He was appointed Houston’s Police Chief by Mayor Bob Lanier and re-appointed by Mayor Lee Brown. He is an attorney and public safety consultant with degrees in law from the University of Houston Law Center, criminal justice from Grambling State University, and a public administration degree from Texas Southern University. Also, Chief Bradford is a graduate of the FBI Academy and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government Program for State and Local Executives.

“It is certainly an honor to serve in the public sector. Making a difference for the greater good of all is a tremendous reward. As Houston moves forward, we must get better prepared to deal with issues such as public safety, budget restraints, critical infrastructure repairs, representation via council redistricting and many others.” stated Bradford. “After careful consideration, I am most honored to be asked by so many friends, supporters, and family to run for Houston City Council. I will utilize my experience, training, and education to help improve the quality of life in this wonderful community, Houston, Texas.”

Noel Freeman is already in the running for this seat. I hold Chief Bradford in high regard, and I really admired the campaign he ran for District Attorney and the issues he emphasized in that race. I think he’d make a fine Council member. Having said that, Noel asked for my support awhile back, and I promised it to him. I did that, of course, because I think he’ll make a fine Council member as well, so my decision is clear. If I were starting out at this point, it would be a lot harder. But it’s a choice between good options, and you can’t ask for more than that.

Meanwhile, Oliver Pennington, who first came to my attention as a potential candidate for District G a month ago, has made his formal announcement as well. Here’s his email:

Houston municipal and environmental attorney Oliver Pennington announced today that he will seek the Houston City Council District G seat that is being vacated by Councilmember Pam Holm due to term limits. Pennington said “I believe I can make a positive difference for residents and business owners in District G. I will use my experience to secure funding for needed neighborhood and regional public works and crime prevention projects. I will help residents unravel the complex city regulations affecting neighborhoods such as those for traffic control and neighborhood protection.”

Pennington has designated District G community leader Penny Butler as his Campaign Treasurer and the Honorable Chase Untermeyer, recent Ambassador to Qatar, as the Campaign’s Chair.

Pennington received his B.A. from Rice University in 1960 and his J.D. from the University of Texas in 1963 where he was an Associate Editor of the law review. After graduation he joined the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski in 1963 as an associate and became a Partner in 1973 practicing municipal finance, municipal law, municipal utility district law, environmental and administrative law. In 2002 he became Of Counsel to the firm.

Pennington is former Chairman of the Houston Civil Service Commission. He was a member of Board of the Memorial Park Conservancy for five years, which is in the heart of District G. He is also a member of the Houston and Texas State Bar Associations. He is a member of the Greater Houston Partnership where he is or has been a member of the Water Laws Committee and the Environmental Committee and the Economic Development Committee. Pennington was also a member of the Board of Directors of North Houston Association, a trade group advocating public policy and economic development policies favorable to that area.

Pennington’s campaign will focus on improving the Quality of Life for residents, reducing taxes and eliminating waste at City Hall, improving infrastructure, safety and parks. Pennington said “I will forge coalitions with other council members and will work with the Mayor to insure that the City government works more efficiently for District G.”

Pennington is a native Houstonian and has lived in District G for almost 40 years with his wife Beverly; together they have raised and educated two children in the district. They have 5 grandchildren.

For more information visit the campaign’s web site at www.oliverpennington.com.

I know HCC Trustee Mills Worsham is also running in G, but I’ve not received any formal word on his campaign’s status.

Still no sign of a candidate for At Large #1. I can say that Sue Schecter will not be in the running, based on an email I got from her, and she was the only one I’d heard of up till now. Anybody else out there hearing anything?

Expanded gambling: It isn’t just for race tracks any more

Feb 25th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Here’s an update to the story about the big expanded gambling bill that was filed yesterday.

Slot machines also would be allowed at the state’s existing race tracks under the proposal by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston; Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas; Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio, and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie. In addition, the three federally recognized Indian tribes could operate a casino on their tribal lands.

“Texans already are voting with their feet and going out of state” to gamble, Ellis said. Menendez noted that Texas is “surrounded by gaming.”

Opposition immediately arose from conservative and Christian groups and a racetrack group pushing more narrowly for slot machines at tracks. Backers of Joint Resolution 31 and Senate Bill 1084, the broad gambling legislation, said their proposal would bring in at least $3 billion a year in new state and local revenue.

The legislation calls for $1 billion to be funneled to a trust fund for college scholarships and another $1 billion to transportation. Casino proponents also said their proposal would create 90,000 to 120,000 jobs.

I don’t believe any of those economic projections. Then again, I never believed the projections that the horse racing interests gave about their slots-at-racetracks proposals. I think there will be a net benefit to the state, at least in terms of revenues taken in – the bulk of the social costs will not be borne by the state, so the books will looks good – but $3 billion a year and 100,000 jobs is just crazy talk, as far as I’m concerned.

The way this is being done, as an alternative to slots-at-racetracks, will make for a fascinating dynamic in the sausagemaking process. I see it as lobbyist versus lobbyist, with some folks like the religious conservatives taking potshots from the sidelines. There’d be a hell of a reality TV show in there if someone had seen this coming early enough.

The legislation calls for $1 billion to be funneled to a trust fund for college scholarships and another $1 billion to transportation. Casino proponents also said their proposal would create 90,000 to 120,000 jobs.

Up to 12 casinos would be allowed statewide, with designated areas for nine of them: Galveston, South Padre Island, Bexar County, Tarrant County, Travis County and two each in Dallas and Harris counties.

A plan critic, Tommy Azopardi, of Texans for Economic Development, said the legislation would create a “widely disparate tax rate” between casinos and tracks (15 percent versus 35 percent), wouldn’t allow tracks to have the same games as casinos and would greatly expand “the footprint of gambling in the state.”

Casino backers said tracks could apply for one of the casino licenses but would have to go through the same process as other applicants.

I got a press release from Azopardi, not coincidentally sent by the same guy who sent me the earlier poll information, which I’ve reproduced beneath the fold. It’s going to be a bear trying to sort out the objective facts from the spin on this one, that’s all I know. Maybe I’ll get lucky and the CPPP or someone like that will weigh in. In the meantime, keep your hip-waders handy.

(more…)

Expanded gambling: It isn’t just for race tracks any more

Feb 25th, 2009
by Greg Wythe.
Comments are off for this post

Here’s an update to the story about the big expanded gambling bill that was filed yesterday.

Slot machines also would be allowed at the state’s existing race tracks under the proposal by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston; Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas; Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio, and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie. In addition, the three federally recognized Indian tribes could operate a casino on their tribal lands.

“Texans already are voting with their feet and going out of state” to gamble, Ellis said. Menendez noted that Texas is “surrounded by gaming.”

Opposition immediately arose from conservative and Christian groups and a racetrack group pushing more narrowly for slot machines at tracks. Backers of Joint Resolution 31 and Senate Bill 1084, the broad gambling legislation, said their proposal would bring in at least $3 billion a year in new state and local revenue.

The legislation calls for $1 billion to be funneled to a trust fund for college scholarships and another $1 billion to transportation. Casino proponents also said their proposal would create 90,000 to 120,000 jobs.

I don’t believe any of those economic projections. Then again, I never believed the projections that the horse racing interests gave about their slots-at-racetracks proposals. I think there will be a net benefit to the state, at least in terms of revenues taken in – the bulk of the social costs will not be borne by the state, so the books will looks good – but $3 billion a year and 100,000 jobs is just crazy talk, as far as I’m concerned.

The way this is being done, as an alternative to slots-at-racetracks, will make for a fascinating dynamic in the sausagemaking process. I see it as lobbyist versus lobbyist, with some folks like the religious conservatives taking potshots from the sidelines. There’d be a hell of a reality TV show in there if someone had seen this coming early enough.

The legislation calls for $1 billion to be funneled to a trust fund for college scholarships and another $1 billion to transportation. Casino proponents also said their proposal would create 90,000 to 120,000 jobs.

Up to 12 casinos would be allowed statewide, with designated areas for nine of them: Galveston, South Padre Island, Bexar County, Tarrant County, Travis County and two each in Dallas and Harris counties.

A plan critic, Tommy Azopardi, of Texans for Economic Development, said the legislation would create a “widely disparate tax rate” between casinos and tracks (15 percent versus 35 percent), wouldn’t allow tracks to have the same games as casinos and would greatly expand “the footprint of gambling in the state.”

Casino backers said tracks could apply for one of the casino licenses but would have to go through the same process as other applicants.

I got a press release from Azopardi, not coincidentally sent by the same guy who sent me the earlier poll information, which I’ve reproduced beneath the fold. It’s going to be a bear trying to sort out the objective facts from the spin on this one, that’s all I know. Maybe I’ll get lucky and the CPPP or someone like that will weigh in. In the meantime, keep your hip-waders handy.

(more…)

← Earlier Posts