Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

February, 2013:

Why do we think more charters would help?

Feb 28th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

Patricia Kilday Hart discusses the political battle over charter schools, but in doing so reminds me that there’s a fundamental question that seems to be going largely unasked.

Now, a sweeping bill filed by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, could lead to an explosion in Texas charter operations. Patrick, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, would require school districts to lease their under-used facilities to charter schools.

The first draft of his bill would have required the lease for $1 a year; he amended it to require schools be leased or sold at fair market value.

The proposal creates a new state agency with ability to approve an unlimited number of new charter schools, now capped by state law at 215. It also would allow traditional school districts to convert to charter operations. For the first time, charter schools – public schools freed from state regulations regarding such issues as teacher contracts and the school calendar – would be eligible for state funding for leasing or purchasing their own campuses.

Requiring school districts to lease or sell properties to charters, however, would be financially ruinous to many, local school officials say. For instance, when the Houston Independent School District asked voters to approve a record $1.9 billion bond package in November, its long-term school construction scheme hinged on the sale of some $100 million in real estate – under-populated campuses the cash value of which would help pay for modernized schools in high-demand neighborhoods.

To supporters of traditional public schools, Patrick’s bill rubs salt in the wound left by the $5.4 billion in cuts made by the Legislature last session. They also are livid that lawmakers would consider funneling precious education dollars to charter operations just as a state judge found that Texas has failed to meet its constitutional requirement to adequately fund its public schools.

[…]

Patrick’s ground-shaking proposal comes as the charter movement in Texas may have reached a tipping point. In the last two years, says David Dunn, executive director of the Texas Charter School Association, the waiting list for students seeking admission to charter schools has skyrocketed from 50,000 to some 100,000 children.

Meanwhile, politically knowledgeable groups are joining hands with philanthropic foundations committed to education reform. Houston’s Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the Greater Houston Community Foundation are backing a new pro-charter group: Texans Deserve Great Schools.

They have been joined by key leaders in the state’s premier political juggernaut, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, who formed Texans for Education Reform to work on behalf of the same goals. The group is led by former Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Dallas, Patrick’s predecessor as education chair until her retirement last year. Influential lobbyist Mike Toomey, a former top assistant to Gov. Rick Perry who fought for tort reform, has signed on as a lobbyist.

[…]

At a committee hearing Thursday, Patrick set an emotional tone for the debate. Critics of his proposal, he said, would be testifying, not just against his bill, but “against the 100,000 students who are on the wait list” for charter schools.

Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, quickly countered: “A lot of schools were mothballed because of the cuts we made to public education.” Lawmakers should restore that funding before creating a new call on taxpayer money, he argued.

I’ve already noted Patrick’s concern of convenience for Teh Childrenz, and needless to say anytime an army of lobbyists and other rent-seekers like those noted above get involved in the process one is well advised to keep both hands on one’s wallet. Be that as it may, I’m still wondering why there isn’t more discussion of the question I’ve raised in the title of this post. Why do we think that having more charter schools would necessarily lead to better educational outcomes in Texas? To be sure, having more charters would mean more choices, and that would likely be beneficial for the students who have the wherewithal to take advantage of those choices. But that assumes that charters are overall at least as good as the traditional public schools. Is that a fair assumption? Let’s take a look at the 2011 accountability rankings and see for ourselves:

Campus Ratings by Rating Category
(excluding Charter Campuses)

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING

2011

Count

Percent

Exemplary

1,176

14.6%

Recognized

2,739

34.1%

Academically Acceptable

3,052

37.9%

    Standard Procedures

2,797

34.8%

    AEA Procedures

255

3.2%

Academically Unacceptable

476

5.9%

    Standard Procedures

458

5.7%

    AEA Procedures

18

0.2%

Not Rated: Other

601

7.5%

Total

8,044

100%

Charter Campus Ratings by Rating Category

ACCOUNTABILITY RATING

2011

Count

Percent

Exemplary

56

11.6%

Recognized

94

19.5%

Academically Acceptable

235

48.8%

    Standard Procedures

97

20.1%

    AEA Procedures

138

28.6%

Academically Unacceptable

54

11.2%

    Standard Procedures

38

7.9%

    AEA Procedures

16

3.3%

Not Rated: Other

43

8.9%

Total

482

100%

In other words, 48.7% of all public school campuses were Exemplary or Recognized in 2011, compared to 31.1% of all charter campuses. On the other side, 5.9% of all pubic school campuses were Academically Unacceptable, compared to 11.2% of all charter campuses. If you knew nothing of the politics of this situation, would you conclude after looking at these tables that more charters would lead to better outcomes? I wouldn’t. Why isn’t this a bigger part of the discussion? Hell, why isn’t it a part of the discussion at all?

I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not opposed to giving charter schools some more latitude. We’d certainly like to encourage the KIPPs and YESes and Harmonys to grow and do good, and we’d like to not needlessly block the creation of the next KIPP or YES or Harmony if someone has a plan to bring it about. But I do not accept the simple premise that “more charters” is better, because the numbers say otherwise. What is the mechanism by which we expect more charters to make things better? What’s our plan to enforce quality control? What are we doing to ensure that any public funds being diverted to “more charters” will actually wind up being used on education and not for the enrichment of the people currently lobbying for those dollars? Those of you who complain about the number of administrators in the public schools need to take a long look at that list above and ask yourself how much these actors are motivated by the greater good, and how much they’re motivated by their own bottom lines. Finally, what’s our contingency plan in case this doesn’t work out as well as we might hope? We’re jumping straight to a solution without having a serious conversation about the process. In the real world, that’s a recipe for failure. We need to be a lot more concerned about that here. The Statesman has more.

Is Section 5 doomed?

Feb 28th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

While there’s been a lot of reporting and analysis suggesting a grim future for the Voting Rights Act, SCOTUSBlog’s Lyle Denniston suggests that maybe, just maybe, Section 5 ain’t dead yet.

Sometimes, in Supreme Court argument, a single phrase can speak volumes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the one member of the Court who bore the most watching because the other eight seemed clearly to divide evenly, used the phrase “trusteeship of the United States government” as a shorthand way to describe how he views the regime set up by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 works. Of course, he meant it as a denunciation.

If Kennedy believes that there is no way to justify any longer that kind of oversight of nine states that have to do the most to obey the 1965 law, that law may well be doomed. But it also was Kennedy who left the impression that he might be willing to go along with a potential way to short-circuit the case of Shelby County v. Holder, and allow the law to survive for some time more.

[…]

But those who had attended the Court’s last hearing on the constitutionality of the 1965 law, four years ago, could recall that Kennedy was equally disturbed then about the threat he saw to states’ rights, and yet the Court concluded that case without striking down the law. It found a way to ease the burden of the law, for local governments, and left it at that.

As the new appeal, by Alabama’s Shelby County, reached the Court, there does not appear to be a ready method of avoiding the constitutional issue — provided that the Court is satisfied that Shelby County’s case is the proper one in which to reach it. And the possibility that it may not be the best test case came up early in the argument, and Kennedy, too, showed some interest in it.

Within the first minutes of the argument of the county’s lawyer, Washington attorney Bert W. Rein, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that Shelby County’s record on minority voting rights had remain “pretty much” unchanged from the past. “You may be the wrong party bringing this,” she commented.

Justice Elena Kagan soon recited the current record of Alabama under existing civil rights laws, noting that the state would be the No. 1 offender in one category, and the No. 2 in another. “Under any formula that Congress could devise [for coverage under Section 5], it would capture Alabama,” Kagan said.

[…]

These questions and comments suggested that, if Alabama and its local jurisdictions could not escape from the law no matter how Congress revised the formula to deal with ongoing discrimination, then the state and Shelby County might not be able to claim any harm from it — and thus not be in a position even to challenge it in court.

It is not surprising, of course, that the Court’s more liberal members would want to find a way to avoid an ultimate decision to strike down the historic law, and they — like everyone else in the courtroom — could sense that that was a real possibility.

But what was potentially significant was that Kennedy perked up. He noted the questions by Kagan and Sotomayor, and asked Rein: “If you would be covered under any formula, why are you injured under this one?” The lawyer said he did not agree with the premise.

Kennedy persisted, saying that Rein should deal with “the hyp0thesis” that any formula would capture Alabama. Why would Alabama have a right to complain? Rein then challenged the authority of Congress to focus on a few selective jurisdictions, like Shelby County, and not look all across the nation to see if the problem of racial bias in voting was prevalent there, too.

Ruling that Shelby County doesn’t have a claim is an option that Dennison discussed previously. It’s a thin reed, and would be at most a temporary reprieve, since there are other cases in the queue that could serve the same purpose, if the purpose is to kill the VRA. But it’s something, for what it’s worth. Rick Hasen, on the other hand, is certain Section 5 is doomed. If Chief Justice John Roberts leads the way in overturning the VRA, you could say it’s the culmination of his life’s work, though Justice Scalia and his evolving view of “original intent” will get an assist. All we can do at this point is wait. The irony of all this happening as a statue of Rosa Parks was being unveiled is off the charts. Texas Redistricting has more, and see what Mustafa Tameez has to say about the VRA and Asian-American voters.

Vouchers continue to be a tough sell

Feb 28th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

I won’t be happy till they’re dead and buried, but it’s something.

Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, doesn’t think the Senate has a taste for vouchers. Noting that a two-thirds vote of the 31-member chamber is needed to bring up a bill for discussion, she said, “I believe there are 11 votes to block.”

House Public Education Committee Chairman Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen, said he and Patrick have discussed the issue. “It would be very difficult to find the votes in committee or on the (full House) floor for any significant voucher program,” Aycock said.

Besides objecting to diverting state support to private schools, some critics suggest it could be problematic to give franchise tax credits for one type of donation and not others. Some raise concerns about how scholarship recipients would be chosen.

Tax consultant Billy Hamilton, whose clients include Raise Your Hand Texas, an education advocacy group that opposes vouchers, said the proposal isn’t good tax policy.

“It’s just another thing that says you can get a special tax break if you do this. If you don’t feel like doing this, you can’t get a tax break, and ultimately your taxes will be higher because other businesses do it,” Hamilton said.

Another complicated tax break that arbitrarily favors some over others is just what our tax code needs, isn’t it? What’s really weird is how at the end of the story Sen. Patrick and his lackey Bill Hammond talk alternately about vouchers being “dramatic change” that will help “transform education”, but also just a small part of a much larger package of reforms that will really only affect a few students, so why is everyone getting all uptight about it already?!? It’s unlikely to be that big a deal on the grounds that private schools don’t serve that many students, won’t be able to accommodate that many more students, and the best of them likely won’t be terribly interested in the kind of students Sen. Patrick claims to be trying to help. It is likely to be a boondoggle for the businesses that take advantage of whatever cookie the legislation would offer, and for some number of parents who were always going to send their kids to private school and now have a way of getting the taxpayers to help pick up the tab for it. The best thing to do here is recognize this for the waste of time that it is and focus on things that might actually have a chance of improving student outcomes.

Texas blog roundup for the week of February 25

Feb 28th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

The Texas Progressive Alliance remains unsequestered as it brings you this week’s roundup.

(more…)

Guest post: A response to Sen. Patrick on school choice

Feb 27th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Note: The following is a guest post, by Aboubacar Ndiaye. It was sent to me unsolicited. I liked it and agreed to print it, so here it is.

Aboubacar Ndiaye

In an editorial published last Wednesday in the Houston Chronicle, State Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston) again argued for what he sees as education reform. In the article, he proposed increasing the use of online learning, course credit testing, and vocational training programs. He also pushed for removing the cap on the number of charter schools in the state. Glaringly absent was any mention of the voucher initiatives he has introduced in the State Legislature.

Numerous policy experts and other commentators have shown definitively that vouchers do little to improve the lot of the children they are said to help (i.e. smart kids forced to go to failing public schools). According to a report from Raise Your Hand Texas, an education policy group, voucher programs in other states and in the District of Columbia have shown no discernible increase in performance for voucher students at private schools. They also found that vouchers actually benefited wealthier households by effectively giving them state-funded private school discounts.

In the past, proponents of public education like myself have been backed into a rhetorical corner. Because of the state’s radical (and unconstitutional) underfunding of public schools, we have had to focus on fighting for money to support basic education programs. That focus, unfortunately, has left us open to the charge that we are “defending failure.” Though it is hard to talk about remodeling a house while it’s on fire, we make a mistake by not proposing and supporting broad-based reform of education in Texas.

As a product of HISD schools and as a former Math tutor in HISD schools, I’ve seen first hand the impact that underfunding has had on public education. Whether it is crowded classrooms or insufficient learning materials, the educational well-being of Texas students is drastically below what it should be. But as we argue for more money from the State and from local property taxpayers, we must, in the same breath, argue for sensible reforms at failing schools in the State.

For example, while Sen. Patrick’s online education proposal seeks to replace classroom time with online teaching, web-based and interactive learning and tutoring sources added onto a full school schedule has been proven to have great educational benefits. A New York Times investigative feature in December 2011 showed the pitfalls of over-reliance on online education sources, but supplemental resources can help low-income students who may not be able to afford private tutoring otherwise.

Along with adding online learning, we should argue for giving principals, teachers, and parents at underperforming schools more flexibility in the management of their own campuses. That means letting them make decisions about school day and school year length, funding extra teachers and teacher aides to reduce class sizes, and to let them experiment with different curriculum strategies like Double Dose Math Courses and Cooperative Teaching. Individual schools districts and the Texas Education Agency would still have to sign off on proposed changes, but that process should be swift and transparent.

Another element of school reform, one that is garnering bipartisan support in the wake of the STAAR debacle, is reducing the emphasis on high-stakes testing. Over-dependence on testing as an accountability measure has had a terrible impact on the way kids are taught in the state. At the school where I worked, I remember constant benchmark testing, weekend test practice, lessons on test-taking strategies, all of which impeded our ability to actually teach content and reasoning skills.

Lastly, we should not reflexively dismiss the idea of school choice. Sen. Patrick’s proposals seek mainly to undermine public education, but they call attention to a problem that too many of us either ignore or tolerate. Every day, thousands of kids in this state are going to failing, often unsafe, schools. Private school subsidies are not the answer, but more funding and transportation options are needed to support magnet and school choice options within the public system. School districts in Houston, Dallas, and Austin have done a great job increasing school choice options, but their magnet systems are not large enough to meet the demand from parents and students. We must also make sure that the magnet and school choice options are true improvements over the home school, and not the proliferation of “magnet in name only” programs at some HISD campuses.

Many of the proposals I have mentioned require buy-in from communities, parents, teachers, and government officials. None of these reforms are easily implemented or cheap for that matter, but they are necessary. If Texas continues on its current educational trajectory, it will create an undereducated low-skill and low-wage workforce that will force companies to either import its skilled labor from other states or move to those states. As the legislature debates restoring the lost funding from the past legislative session, it should also consider the sensible reforms above.

Aboubacar “Asn” Ndiaye was a Field Organizer on the Harris County Democratic Party’s 2012 Coordinated Campaign, and is currently an independent policy professional.

Battlegound Texas officially launches

Feb 27th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
5 comments

You have probably heard by now that Battleground Texas has officially launched.

Spearheaded by organizers of Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012 — when Republican nominee Mitt Romney handily carried the Lone Star State — a new push, called “Battleground Texas,” officially launched Tuesday with the goal of seizing shifting demographics to make the state eventually winnable for a Democratic presidential candidate.

Organizers are not, however, projecting when that might happen. Nor are they saying how much money they will need to raise and spend to give Democrats a fighting chance in Texas, where the party hasn’t won a statewide office since 1994.

“With its size and diversity, Texas ought to be a place where local races are hotly contested and anyone who wants to be president has to compete,” said Jeremy Bird, a senior adviser to Battleground Texas who served as field director of Obama’s re-election bid.

Lynda Tran, a spokeswoman for 270 Strategies, the firm behind Battleground Texas, said the group is registered with the Federal Election Commission and the Texas Ethics Commission.

About 70 percent of Hispanics nationwide voted for Obama over Romney in November. The booming Texas population is being driven by Hispanic growth — minorities accounted for nearly 9 of every 10 new residents in the past decade— and Democratic organizers believe the changing face of the state will boost their chances.

I’m just going to point you to some other coverage of this – the Chron, the Trib, Trail Blazers, Politico, BOR, EoW, Jason Stanford, and via PDiddie, some skepticism. There really isn’t that much for me to say here. If these folks do what they way they want to do, they’ll be doing what should have been done starting 20 years ago and has been done successfully of late in several other states. We just won’t know if it’s real or if it’s just more talk until we’ve had a few more elections.

There’s no question that this will be a long-term project, and everyone involved seems to see it that way. As long as the funding is there for that, it’s all good. But recognizing that we’re in for a long, hard slog doesn’t mean that we can’t have some short term goals, too.

But Perry, for one, isn’t buying that Texas will cease to be a Republican stronghold.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last weekend during the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, Perry said the University of Texas would adopt the rival maroon-and-white colors of Texas A&M before the state ever goes blue.

“Democrats are about government getting bigger and bigger and government providing more and more,” Perry told the newspaper. “Texans have never been for that, and Texans never will.”

Never, to paraphrase Prince, is a mighty long time. But I’m here to tell you, there’s something else: The 2014 elections. The stated goal of Battleground Texas is to make Texas a swing state in Presidential elections. I’m totally down with that, but we shouldn’t have to wait till 2016 to see a meaningful progress report. While Democrats made a huge stride in turnout from 2004 to 2008 – they backslid a bit in 2012 but were still a good half million votes ahead of 2004 last year – turnout in non-Presidential years has essentially been flat this past decade. Since 2002, only two Democrats have gotten as many as two million votes in an off-year election: John Sharp in 2002 (2,082,081) and Bill White in 2010 (2,106,395). Everyone else has generally been stuck in the 1.6 million to 1.8 million range. Republicans, outside of Rick Perry in the four-way 2006 gubernatorial race, have never been below 2.1 million since 2002. If Battleground Texas wants to show it’s got some game going into 2016, I’d like for them to have a goal of helping every statewide Democrat get at least two million votes next year, with a stretch goal of 2.5 million at the top of the ticket. That’s still unlikely to be enough to win, though it could happen in a 2006 turnout year for Republicans, but it would be close and it would be a loud announcement that they’re very much headed in the right direction. Hand in hand with that would be goals of generally winning races in counties like Harris, Fort Bend, and Hays, winning legislative seats in Dallas and Williamson, and winning seats on the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals. Making some headway in the suburbs and boosting turnout along the Rio Grande would be nice, too.

Am I asking too much? Maybe, but I don’t really think so. I presume that whatever steps Battleground Texas will take will begin well before the 2014 elections, and I’m sure they’d like to at least have some proof of concept before the 2016 season begins. The good thing about an off-year election is that you already know about a lot of the voters you’d like to target. You just have to persuade them to show up. I don’t know if Battleground Texas plans to make public any goals for 2014, and if they do I won’t blame them if they have a more modest set of targets in mind. But if it were up to me, this is where I’d like the starting point to be.

Harris Health System plans to serve more patients via Medicaid waiver

Feb 27th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

The story about what they’re going to do leaves a few details out, however.

Harris Health System leaders plan to serve 100,000 new patients in the next three years. That is a 37 percent increase from today, and is particularly ambitious when you consider how many patients the system added in the last year: about 500.

To bridge the enormous gap by the end of 2016, the county hospital district is counting on state and federal approval of a $1.2 billion plan that represents the ambitions of health care providers throughout the region. The plan grows out of the federal government’s decision to grant Texas a waiver from Medicaid rules, allowing it to reimburse providers for charity care and for delivering care in new ways.

The plan, awaiting approval in May, envisions unprecedented cooperation between the district and local private and nonprofit providers.

“That’s a major undertaking. We’re very committed to it. We feel it’s very doable,” Harris Health CEO David Lopez said. “We cannot do it all by ourselves. We need partners with us to help us address the needs of our community.”

[…]

Among the district’s proposals awaiting approval: Build nine new primary care clinics during the next three years, build “quick” clinics next to its emergency rooms where patients who are not in crisis can be seen, outsource more primary care visits to private clinics, and leverage federal funds to support Memorial Hermann and Texas Children’s Hospital’s expansion of primary care services.

Members of Harris County Commissioners Court, which appoints the hospital district’s board, say the waiver plans are too slow in cutting the backlog of patients who cannot get primary care appointments. That waiting list, first identified in fall 2011, is estimated between 91,000 and 104,000 a year.

Commissioner El Franco Lee last week issued a memo with the phrases “reduce waiting lists” and “get patients moving through the system” underlined, calling on Lopez to cut the backlog by outsourcing more doctor visits.

I had a few questions about this after I read the story, so I sent some inquiries to the Harris Health System’s media relations email address. Here are the questions I sent, along with the answers I got:

1. The article says that “the county hospital district is counting on state and federal approval of a $1.2 billion plan”. Where is the money for this coming from? Are there new funding sources being sought, or is this a repurposing of existing funds?

Answer: The $1.2 billion plan in the article refers to the Delivery System Reform Incentive Payments (DSRIP) projects available under the 1115 Medicaid Transformational Waiver Program. Harris Health System serves as the anchor entity for the regional planning for several counties in SE Texas. The Waiver primarily does two things: 1) expands Medicaid managed care to the entire state 2) replaces the Upper Payment Limit (UPL) program with two new pools of funding, The Uncompensated Care Pool and the DSRIP Pool. Detailed information about the proposed local regional health plan may be found at www.SETexasRHP.com.

2. What entities are being asked to approve this plan? What exactly are they being asked to approve? What happens if they reject some or all of it?

Answer: The state of Texas and U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will approve all plans.

3. The story says that this plan is unrelated to the Affordable Care Act. How will the plan be affected if the state changes course and decides to pursue Medicaid expansion, or a law is passed that grants counties the authority to pursue it on their own?

Answer: The 1115 Medicaid Transformational Waiver Program should not be affected by Medicaid expansion since it is unrelated. Detailed information about the 1115 Medicaid Transformational Waiver at-large, may also be found at the state’s Web site.

4. Are details of this plan available on the HHS website? If not, is there a document you could send to me with plan details?

Answer: Detailed information about the proposed local regional health plan may be found at www.SETexasRHP.com.

In other words, if you want to know more, you’re going to need to get your wonk on. State Rep. Garnet Coleman has discussed the 1115 waiver before – see here and here for two examples – and there’s some further discussion here. Basically, this is about delivering health care services via public hospitals and their partners more effectively and efficiently, with some extra federal funds available. It’s not fully clear how this will all work out, and there won’t be a decision on the waiver request until May, but this is what’s coming. Let’s hope it lives up to its promise.

Early voting ends in SD06

Feb 27th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Early voting ended in the SD06 runoff yesterday. As of when I went to bed, the final daily totals had not been sent out – the daily totals as of Monday, which are here, hit my inbox at 9:30 AM Tuesday, so I don’t really expect them till some time today. I’ll update this post after they arrive. As a reminder, here’s the final report from the first round. My guess is that Campos is right and the final total for the runoff will be at or slightly above that of Round One.

Election Day is this Saturday, March 2, from 7 AM to 7 PM. You can see a list of polling places here. The accompanying email from the County Clerk’s office emphasized that this was not final and could change, so be sure to doublecheck before you head out.

In other news, Sylvia Garcia got a late endorsement from the Texas Federation of Teachers. One never knows how much of an effect endorsements will have, but my general rule, especially for a low-turnout affair, is better to have them than not. Both candidates made appearances on KUHF this week, Garcia on Monday morning and Carol Alvarado on Tuesday. You can hear Garcia’s segment here, and Alvarado’s here. Both are very much on the attack – see PDiddie and this Chron story from today for the latest, if that sort of thing interests you. I for one will be glad when all of the nasty ads are done running on TV, in particular all the ads during basketball games on ESPN and CSN Houston. That’s the problem with live sporting events, you can’t zap the commercials. Be that as it may, the SD06 vacancy will be filled on Monday, when the victor is sworn in. Depending on the outcome, we may then have a vacancy in HD145 to deal with, but I’m quite certain that election, if one is needed, won’t be until November. Feel free to post your prediction in the comments.

UPDATE: Here are the final early vote totals for the runoff. So far, 8,780 ballots have been cast, which is a bit more than 500 higher than Round One. Given that some 2,500 mail ballots are still out, I’ll estimate that the ultimate early total will be about 9,000 by Saturday, also about 500 higher than before. We’ll see if that translates to a slightly higher final turnout.

On Latinos not winning Latino Congressional districts

Feb 26th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
2 comments

I have a problem with this analysis by Nathan Gonzales, at least as it pertains to the three Texas districts included.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett

Even though a record number of Latinos are serving in the 113th Congress, Hispanic candidates are significantly underperforming in heavily Hispanic districts, particularly compared to other minority groups.

Nationwide, just 41 percent of congressional districts (24 of 58) with a Hispanic voting age population (VAP) of at least 30 percent are represented by a Hispanic member of Congress. In comparison, 72 percent of districts (32 of 44) with a black VAP of at least 30 percent are represented by a black member.

Why can’t Latinos get elected to Latino congressional districts?

[…]

In Texas’ 33rd, party leaders supported African-American state Rep. Marc Veasey over former state Rep. Domingo Garcia in a Dallas-area district that is 61 Hispanic and just 17 percent black. It helped that black voters outnumbered Latino voters in the primary, runoff, and general elections, according to analysis by the Lone Star Project. In Texas’ 34th, party leaders supported longtime Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D), even though his newly-drawn district is 59 percent Hispanic.

Another challenge is turnout. As the race in Texas 33 showed, the Hispanic percentage of a district’s population can overstate the strength of the Latino electorate, because Latinos don’t vote in the same numbers as other minority groups. In some cases, savvy Latino candidates don’t even run because they know the opportunity isn’t as good as it looks on paper.

[…]

But even when Hispanics dominate a district, sometimes it isn’t enough to secure a Latino victory. Nine districts with over 50 percent Latino VAP are represented by non-Latinos. Just two districts with a black VAP of at least 50 percent are represented by non-black Members.

For example, Texas’ 16th District is now represented by Beto O’Rourke after he defeated longtime Rep. Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic primary last year, even though the seat is 78 Hispanic.

Until Latino voters get more organized and start voting with more frequency, simply citing the population figures of a district can lead to misleading analysis.

Yes it can, and that leads to a second problem I have with this article, but first things first. The problem that I said I have with this is that nowhere does Gonzales take the individual candidates into account when discussing the outcomes in Texas. I’ve discussed two of these races before, so I’m going to quote myself. Here’s what I said about Rep. Doggett’s victory, which by the way was in CD35, not CD34.

The main reason for [Sylvia] Romo’s defeat is that she was up against a very strong opponent. It wasn’t just that Rep. Doggett had name ID and a ton of money, it was also that he had a long record of doing things that Democratic voters tend to like. Though he had to move to run in CD35, he was generally perceived – or at least generally portrayed – as the incumbent, and the first rule of beating an incumbent is that there has to be a good reason to fire that incumbent. Doggett’s voting record has no obvious black marks on it – none that Romo articulated, anyway – and there were no issues of personal behavior to exploit. Having interviewed Romo, I agree that she’s a perfectly well qualified candidate and I think she’d have made a perfectly fine member of Congress, but I don’t think she ever adequately answered the question why voters should choose to replace a perfectly fine sitting Congressperson with seniority, a good record, and a history of making Republicans mad enough to try twice to kill him off via redistricting.

Doggett faced the same challenge in 2004 when Republicans drew him into a district that contained large swaths of South Texas. As was the case last year, he faced off against an established Latina elected official from the new district turf, and he won easily. You’re not going to beat Lloyd Doggett without a good reason to beat Lloyd Doggett.

And here is what I said about O’Rourke versus Reyes in CD16:

I’m pretty sure none of the people involved in redistricting, including the litigants, foresaw [the possibility of Reyes losing to O’Rourke] though at least one blogger did. But Rep. Reyes didn’t lose because the new map made CD16 more hostile to Latinos and more amenable to Anglos. Rep. Reyes had some baggage, O’Rourke ran a strong campaign, and he had some help from a third party. These things happen. Perhaps from here O’Rourke does a good job and becomes an entrenched incumbent, or he sees his star rise and takes a crack at statewide office in a few years, or he himself gets challenged by an ambitious pol in 2014, presumably a Latino, and loses. Point being, Latino voters made the choice here, and they will continue to be able to do so.

I think Rep. Reyes’ baggage was a big factor here, but you have to give credit to Rep. O’Rourke for running a strong race and giving the voters a reason to fire the incumbent and install him instead. I won’t be surprised if Rep. O’Rourke is challenged by a Latino in the 2014 primary, just as Rep. Gene Green was challenged in 1994 and 1996 in the heavily Latino CD29 after winning it in 1992. CD16 is still a district drawn for a Latino, after all. If Rep. O’Rourke does a good job he might be able to have a career like Rep. Green, who hasn’t faced a primary challenge since 1996. If not, he’ll be one and done if a better Latino candidate comes around to run against him.

As for CD33, it’s a similar story to CD16. Rep. Marc Veasey was a compelling candidate whose time in the Texas Legislature was marked by strong advocacy for progressive causes. Former State Rep. Domingo Garcia had a decent record in the Lege when he was there, but it had been awhile and he had his share of baggage as well. He had a reputation for divisiveness and was far from universally beloved among Latino politicos – just look at the large number of Latino State Reps that endorsed Veasey. If African-American turnout in the primary runoff was higher than Latino turnout despite the numerical advantage for Latinos, that didn’t happen by magic.

The other problem I had with Gonzales’ article comes from this paragraph:

Five out of six congressional districts that have both Hispanic and black populations of at least 30 percent each are represented by black Members, including Florida’s 24th and Texas’ 9th, 18th, and 30th districts.

The fallacy of that statement, which Gonzales himself alludes to in his concluding statement, which I quoted above, can be summed up by this document. Here are the Citizen Voting Age Populations (CVAPs) for the three Texas districts, estimated from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey:

CD09 – 50.6% African-American, 19.5% white, 19.2% Hispanic
CD18 – 49.2% African-American, 25.0% white, 20.7% Hispanic
CD30 – 53.5% African-American, 25.5% white, 18.1% Hispanic

You tell me what kind of person you’d expect to win in these districts. Total population is far less relevant than CVAP is. Gonzales knows this, and he should have known better. Via NewsTaco.

Yes, Ed Emmett supports Medicaid expansion

Feb 26th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

As I’m sure you’re aware, I’ve been banging the drum pretty much nonstop for Medicaid expansion. I see it not only as a state issue but a county issue as well, which is why I’ve made a big deal about what Harris County is or isn’t doing about it. I haven’t seen the subject come up in Chronicle reporting on health care issues relating to Harris County, nor have I seen a news story devoted to the matter. I finally got an answer to one of my biggest questions on Sunday in the form of this Chron editorial.

Judge Ed Emmett

Near the top of the to-do list is lessening burden of indigent health care, which costs county taxpayers close to $600 million in unreimbursed expenses annually.

Emmett, a mainstream conservative Republican, makes no bones about the solution. He says he is “full bore” for expansion of Medicaid, the federal program that addresses the health care needs of the poor and indigent. That means pressing the GOP majority in Austin to do what does not come naturally: Recognize the utter necessity of accepting federal dollars to pay for Medicaid expansion in Texas.

Emmett’s dollars-and-cents argument, borrowed from the Legislative Budget Board, is compelling: If Texas contributes $50.4 million in the next two years, he says, the state will receive $4 billion in funding from Washington in the coming biennium – and much of that is money Texans sent to the nation’s capital in the first place.

Getting relief for Harris County Jail as a dumping ground for our mentally ill is another priority. Making fuller use of the Harris County Psychiatric Center is one likely solution.

Well, that’s very good to see. I had not seen any clue about how Judge Emmett felt before that, and I think it’s fair to say that I’ve been paying close attention to the matter. Still, it’s certainly possible that there had been some reporting on it by the Chron that I’ve missed, or some reporting elsewhere. I did a search on “Emmett Medicaid expansion” in the Chron archives, both at the legacy chron.com site and the subscriber-only houstonchronicle.com site. I got three results – the editorial noted above, an unrelated story about Virginia, and this editorial from a couple of days earlier:

The problem of the uninsured in Texas is numerically daunting. More than 6 million of our fellow Texans go without insurance, including nearly 2.7 million whose incomes are between zero and 133 percent of the federal poverty level. About 800,000 are undocumented workers, but 5 million are citizens.

Community Health Choice is calling for what it describes as a “unique Texas solution” that would acknowledge the political reality in this state where federally administered registries are unacceptable.

Instead, it backs a system that would cut down on the complexity of Obamacare while matching up well with the needs of huge numbers of Texans all across the income strata.

Houston and Harris County property taxpayers have an enormous stake in the successful creation of such a program. Each year more than $500 million in county property taxes goes to fund health care expenses. This burden is dumped on local taxpayers by the refusal of the state to create a fair and equitable system.

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, who is on the very front lines in this battle, supports the expansion of Medicaid, noting that “it doesn’t make any sense for the state not to take federal dollars.” Emmett is a mainstream Republican whose views should be heeded in Austin.

I also did a Google search on the same terms. I got the same Chron pieces, some of my own writing, a number of irrelevant matches, and on page two, this Guidry News story from last week, reporting from an H-GAC meeting:

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett discussed two issues, indigent health care and transportation funding.

“While it’s nice to say that the state’s going to stand up against Obamacare, the truth of the matter is indigents are going to get health care and it’s going to be paid for by somebody,” Emmett said. “So one of the issues – and we have no position on it yet, but something everybody needs to be aware of, particularly those at the county level – if we don’t go with Medicaid expansion then that means the local property tax(payers) are going to foot the bill for indigent health care. It’s that simple.”

I presume Judge Emmett was not using the royal “we” in that sentence but was speaking about Commissioners Court. Given all this, I think I can reasonably exonerate myself for my ignorance. And in case anyone else had been wondering about this, Judge Emmett addressed the matter directly in his State of the County 2013 speech, which he delivered yesterday. Here’s the crucial bit from the speech:

The second looming issue is health care. Harris County is home to the Texas Medical Center, arguably the greatest concentration of health care expertise in the entire world. Yet, almost with in the shadows of this institution exists a huge uninsured and underinsured population. The Harris County Hospital District has a legal and moral obligation to provide indigent health care. The best value for taxpayers and the best outcome for patients comes from establishing medical homes through neighborhood clinics. I believe we must do a better job of coordinating public and private resources to meet the health care needs of the entire county. This is not just about the health of individuals. It is critical to the health of our entire community.

With the advent of the Section 1115 waiver process, the State of Texas is taking a big step toward creating an indigent health care delivery system that crosses county lines and encourages innovative approaches.

In the debate about health care, it must be remembered that in any delivery system, someone has to pay. The Texas Hospital Association, the Texas Medical Association and even the Legislative Budget Board believe Texas should expand Medicaid coverage in order to take advantage of the federal matching funds. I agree with the health care professionals. While the political debate over the Affordable Care Act continues, poor people will continue to get sick and need care. Harris County taxpayers should not have to foot the bill while our federal tax dollars are sent to other states.

Of course, with the Legislature in session, there is one subject about which I am obsessed. Funding for mental health care must be increased at the state level, and a plan must be implemented to divert those with mental health issues from the criminal justice system. The Harris County Jail should not be the largest mental health facility in the state. The Harris County Psychiatric Center should be fully utilized, and Harris County should take the lead in developing a pilot project that will make the entire nation take notice. State Sen. Joan Huffman and members of the county legislative delegation are working on legislation to create just such a pilot project. It is shameful that Texas ranks 51st in spending for mental health. It is also wasteful of taxpayer dollars. By spending wisely on mental health, we can save much more in the criminal justice arena. Even more importantly, we can improve lives and do what is right.

I’m glad to hear it. It’s what I expected from Judge Emmett, who’s always been more about doing things than making political points. Obviously, Rick Perry doesn’t care about any of this, but I have some hope that what he’s saying here can sway a few people. It must be noted that doing the right thing carries some risk for Judge Emmett, as there’s already talk about a primary challenge to him. I rather doubt this stance will be an asset to him in such a campaign, if one materializes, but maybe it won’t be that much of a burden if the trend of Republicans coming to accept Obamacare and Medicaid expansion as the law of the land makes its way here. Maybe. In any event, I’m glad this has been cleared up. Now I hope that Commissioners Court follows the Judge’s lead and passes a resolution calling on the Lege to do its part.

UPDATE: Here’s the Chron story:

Emmett, using the bully pulpit of his sixth annual State of the County speech to the Greater Houston Partnership, drew widespread applause when he said he agrees with recommendations from the Texas Hospital Association, Texas Medical Association and Legislative Budget Board on expanding the federal health care program for the poor.

[…]

Ron Cookston, executive director of Gateway to Care, a health care education and outreach group, called Emmett’s announcement “oustanding.”

“Leaders in Fort Worth and Bexar County and other counties across Texas are beginning to step up and recognize the importance of moving forward with the expansion,” Cookston said. “That’s just huge in terms of the working poor that would have access to adequate health care resources.”

Emmett, like Perry, a Republican, said after his speech that his address was not meant as an appeal to political moderation, but to logic. No one has accused Republican governors Rick Scott of Florida, John Kasich of Ohio or Jan Brewer of Arizona of being liberals, he said, but each has decided to support Medicaid expansion.

“To me, it is conservative to spend $50 million to get $4 billion,” he said. “When things are going well, that’s when we need to spend money to make sure things keep going well in the future. If I got that across, then I accomplished my purpose.”

I’d use other words than “conservative” in that last paragraph – “sensible”, “smart”, “a no-brainer” – but whatever works for you is fine by me. It’s just unfortunate that none of these words have any meaning to Rick Perry.

Some people still want to move backwards on equality

Feb 26th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
6 comments

I’ve noted several bills that aim to move Texas forward, however incrementally, towards greater equality. These are all good and fine things, but don’t mistake their existence for evidence that the Legislature is through trying to move us backwards.

On the right side of history

The first Texas school district to offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners is under fire from a state lawmaker, and the penalty could hit the school where it counts — in the pocketbook.

State Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, filed House Bill 1568, on Wednesday. It would cut off health care funding to Texas school districts that allow employees to add a domestic partner to their health care plan, targeting Pflugerville Independent School District, which extended those benefits last year.

The board of trustees of Pflugerville ISD made history in December 2012 with a 5-1 vote, becoming the first school district in Texas to offer health benefits for domestic partners.

“I think the money we give to educate our kids should go to the kids and not trying to expand social benefits that we decided in 2005 was unconstitutional,” Springer said Thursday, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act of 2005, which defined marriage in the Texas Constitution as between one man and one woman. “We’re not taking away all the funding, just the 7.5 percent that goes to the health benefit plan.”

Opponents of Springer’s bill argue that it mischaracterizes the school’s health plan policy. “No tax dollars are being used,” said Chuck Smith, president of Equality Texas, an LGBT lobbying group. Smith said that no money is taken from funding the classroom, but rather the policy “allows access to the benefit plan, but the employee still pays the premium.”

I marvel once again at the disconnect between how certain people feel about the federal government telling the state what it can and cannot do, and the state government telling local governments what they can and cannot do. See also efforts by the Lege to require state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws, but forbid them from enforcing federal gun control laws. If there’s a coherence to the ideology that drives this, I don’t see it. One hopes that the Supreme Court will render this misguided and petty little bill moot in the near future, but that’s no reason not to oppose it now. The Legislature has much better things to do than this.

Knife rights

Feb 26th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
6 comments

With all the talk about guns this year, it should be noted that they are not the only weapons under consideration in the Legislature.

HB936 by Rep. Harold Dutton would decriminalize the possession, manufacture, transfer, repair, or sale of switchblade knives in Texas by amending Sections 46.05 (a)(d)(e) of the Penal Code. At the same time, it would reaffirm that switchblade knives could not be brought into the very same areas defined as “no go” areas for CHL holders with weapons.

HB1299 by Rep. Jonathan Stickland is a pre-emption law; it would forbid cities, towns, and Counties from writing anti-knife laws more restrictive than State of Texas knife laws. Again, this normalizes knife laws, and makes them more like gun laws in Texas. For example, Travis County does not get to ban AR-15s, though I’m sure some of the denizens there would like to.

Molly Ivins used to say “I’m not anti-gun, I’m pro-knife”. I wonder what she’d have to say about all this. As for me, I favor HB936. I’ve never quite understood why switchblades are treated differently than other kinds of knives. It makes sense to me to make the code more uniform, and to decriminalize that which didn’t need to be criminalized in the first place. As for HB1299, I don’t feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. I do find it interesting that a politician who would fiercely resist the federal government telling a state what it can and can’t do, as Rep. Stickland is, would have no trouble using the power of the state to tell cities what they can and cannot do. I don’t quite get the theory behind that, but then I’m not one of those people that thinks the federal government is per se a bad thing. Your mileage may vary. In any event, you might want to keep an eye on these bills. See here for more.

Precinct analysis: Comparing 2012 and 2008, Senate and SBOE edition

Feb 25th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

To follow up on my previous examination of how the 2012 election returns looked in State House districts compared to the 2008 returns, I now have the data to look at other types of districts as well. You can find it as well on the Texas Legislative Council’s webpage – here are the reports for the State Senate and the SBOE. Those are the Excel report directories, but if you want something else – CSV or PDF – just click the Parent Directory link and find the report you want. Let’s first look at the Senate:


Dist McCain    Pct  Obama08    Pct   Romney    Pct  Obama12    Pct  RIdx  DIdx
==============================================================================
01  214,365 69.50%   91,835 29.77%  220,140 72.14%   81,936 26.85%  1.04  0.90
02  159,810 60.79%  100,445 38.21%  161,348 63.22%   90,500 35.46%  1.04  0.93
03  213,045 71.13%   83,554 27.90%  225,526 75.47%   69,915 23.40%  1.06  0.84
04  195,512 67.01%   93,968 32.21%  216,087 70.03%   88,832 28.79%  1.05  0.89
05  170,905 59.67%  111,063 38.78%  181,385 63.06%   99,176 34.48%  1.06  0.89
06   48,222 35.81%   85,445 63.45%   43,931 32.46%   89,849 66.39%  0.91  1.05
07  184,620 66.24%   92,106 33.04%  196,383 66.76%   94,057 31.97%  1.01  0.97
08  180,746 59.48%  119,559 39.34%  186,753 61.67%  110,824 36.60%  1.04  0.93
09  145,020 57.76%  103,614 41.27%  142,499 59.28%   94,117 39.15%  1.03  0.95
10  158,677 52.13%  143,351 47.10%  155,936 53.31%  132,707 45.37%  1.02  0.96
11  173,843 62.64%  101,218 36.47%  184,101 65.06%   94,893 33.53%  1.04  0.92
12  186,268 63.00%  106,834 36.14%  197,333 66.23%   95,905 32.19%  1.05  0.89
13   35,820 16.44%  181,104 83.13%   32,917 15.44%  178,404 83.70%  0.94  1.01
14  114,865 34.49%  212,317 63.76%  116,001 36.14%  193,112 60.16%  1.05  0.94
15   85,552 39.37%  130,042 59.85%   89,030 39.68%  132,125 58.89%  1.01  0.98
16  161,779 54.99%  129,105 43.89%  159,759 56.96%  116,603 41.58%  1.04  0.95
17  174,371 57.76%  124,939 41.38%  178,241 59.36%  117,562 39.15%  1.03  0.95
18  181,472 64.51%   97,598 34.69%  198,175 67.34%   92,809 31.54%  1.04  0.91
19   92,299 43.57%  117,658 55.54%   94,159 44.11%  116,477 54.56%  1.01  0.98
20   81,772 43.32%  105,412 55.84%   78,474 41.65%  107,629 57.12%  0.96  1.02
21   81,054 40.85%  115,445 58.18%   79,167 39.83%  116,117 58.42%  0.98  1.00
22  184,967 65.29%   96,063 33.91%  186,950 67.97%   84,413 30.69%  1.04  0.91
23   46,236 19.46%  189,896 79.91%   42,408 18.09%  190,103 81.10%  0.93  1.01
24  190,823 66.60%   92,555 32.30%  195,593 70.71%   76,766 27.75%  1.06  0.86
25  218,093 61.41%  132,809 37.39%  233,884 64.15%  123,739 33.94%  1.04  0.91
26   84,889 38.24%  134,470 60.58%   74,472 36.30%  127,237 62.01%  0.95  1.02
27   47,197 32.24%   97,746 66.77%   45,768 30.58%  102,319 68.37%  0.95  1.02
28  189,851 71.07%   75,007 28.08%  182,982 73.59%   62,163 25.00%  1.04  0.89
29   63,736 33.50%  124,663 65.52%   59,137 33.33%  115,612 65.16%  0.99  0.99
30  216,383 71.14%   84,565 27.80%  223,487 75.74%   66,674 22.60%  1.06  0.81
31  196,846 77.75%   54,132 21.38%  186,762 79.51%   45,034 19.17%  1.02  0.90

As you can see, Sen. Wendy Davis not only won a district that was carried by Mitt Romney, she won a district that was more Republican in 2012 than it was in 2008. As far as I know, her district is no longer being contested in the redistricting lawsuit, so barring anything strange what we see is what we’ll get going forward. It’s not clear to me that she would have more to fear in 2014 than she did last year or would in 2016, but I presume someone is calculating her odds of re-election versus the odds of being elected statewide, and advising her accordingly. I’m glad that’s not my job. Three other Democratic Senators saw a drop in Democratic performance in their districts – Sens. Kirk Watson, John Whitmire, and Carlos Uresti. Watson’s SD14 was affected by the overall decline in Travis County turnout, which I suspect is a blip and not a trend; Whitmire saw modest increases in both D and R turnout; and Uresti had a small bump in R turnout and a tiny decline in D turnout. I don’t think any of it matters, but Uresti has the smallest margin of error after Davis. Pre-redistricting, SD09 was almost as purple a district as SD10 was in 2008, but that ain’t the case now. Democrats really don’t have any obvious targets to expand their delegation, though SDs 16, 17, and maybe 09 will trend their way somewhat over the decade. But don’t expect much turnover in the Senate that isn’t caused by primaries or voluntary departures.

Here’s the SBOE:


Dist McCain    Pct  Obama08    Pct   Romney    Pct  Obama12    Pct  RIdx  DIdx
==============================================================================
01  168,833 42.84%  221,865 56.30%  161,807 42.58%  213,132 56.08%  0.99  1.00
02  191,754 47.11%  211,625 52.00%  187,147 46.69%  209,020 52.15%  0.99  1.00
03  157,233 38.29%  249,268 60.70%  149,659 37.20%  247,020 61.40%  0.97  1.01
04   89,884 22.61%  305,638 76.89%   84,036 21.07%  311,236 78.04%  0.93  1.01
05  358,691 52.16%  319,808 46.50%  375,942 54.67%  294,887 42.89%  1.05  0.92
06  320,914 58.39%  224,088 40.77%  332,415 59.70%  215,839 38.76%  1.02  0.95
07  358,380 61.22%  221,939 37.91%  390,808 63.64%  215,952 35.16%  1.04  0.93
08  370,712 67.66%  172,373 31.46%  398,664 70.32%  160,372 28.29%  1.04  0.90
09  436,392 69.69%  184,583 29.48%  449,301 73.29%  156,833 25.58%  1.05  0.87
10  313,379 53.54%  263,033 44.94%  331,022 56.97%  235,591 40.55%  1.06  0.90
11  391,597 61.92%  234,922 37.14%  396,329 64.27%  210,974 34.21%  1.04  0.92
12  365,314 57.49%  262,939 41.38%  373,920 59.71%  242,306 38.69%  1.04  0.94
13  123,380 27.66%  319,557 71.63%  110,615 25.75%  314,630 73.26%  0.93  1.02
14  401,810 66.98%  192,696 32.12%  413,181 70.62%  163,020 27.86%  1.05  0.87
15  430,765 74.27%  144,184 24.86%  413,942 76.91%  116,797 21.70%  1.04  0.87

No surprises here. Democratic districts were slightly more Democratic, Republican districts were more Republican. Sure is a good thing Martha Dominguez didn’t withdraw, because District 1 was way too easy a pickup to throw away. Keep an eye on freshman Democrat Ruben Cortez in District 2, who will be on the ballot in 2014, as that could go Republican in a bad year. The Dems’ best shot at pickups are in districts 5 and 10. Both will next be on the ballot in 2016.

I have one more post in this series to come, a look at the Congressional districts. Hope you find this useful.

Report recommends against privatizing the Harris County jail

Feb 25th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
2 comments

Very good news.

Privatizing the Harris County jail would be risky and may not result in savings, according to an internal county memo recommending that Commissioners Court keep the state’s largest lockup in Sheriff Adrian Garcia’s hands.

The confidential Feb. 11 memo, obtained by the Houston Chronicle, comes after more than a year of study by staff from the county budget office, purchasing office and County Attorney’s Office. Commissioner Steve Radack had suggested the county consider privatizing the jail in 2010, and the court voted to accept proposals in April 2011, when the county had begun laying off scores of staff in a lean budget year.

Four private prison firms submitted bids in fall 2011, but only the proposal from Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest private prison operator, was deemed viable.

“CCA provided a very compelling proposal,” the memo states. “However, there is uncertainty about what the county’s actual realized savings would be, and there is also a level of risk and uncertainty that goes along with outsourcing such a vital function to a third party. The evaluation committee concluded that the potential benefit is not sufficient reason to make a change at this time.”

A key factor in recommending against privatization, the memo stated, was the decrease in the sheriff’s budget in recent years, from $424.2 million in fiscal 2010 to what is projected to be less than this year’s $392.6 million budget. The savings are, in part, tied to a steep drop in the jail population, which has fallen by roughly a third since 2008.

“We have improved operations while saving money, we’ve passed jail inspections, we haven’t laid off any employees and we’ve reduced in-custody deaths,” Garcia said. “I think we’ve demonstrated that as a sheriff’s office we’re running this place like a business as much as we’re running it like a county jail.”

I suspect this will be the end of this story. When I inquired about the status of the report back in November, all of the responses I got made it sound like not much if anything would ultimately come out of this. The statements made by County Judge Ed Emmett and County Commissioner Steve Radack in this story sound a lot like what they told me back then. The case for some kind of action would be stronger if the jail was still overcrowded, with inmates being outsourced all over the place, and inspectors at both the federal and state level giving it failing grades – in other words, if we were where we were back when Tommy Thomas was still running things – but it’s extremely hard to argue now that the jail is being mismanaged. Add in the fact that CCA has – how do I put this delicately? – a rather non-stellar reputation for how they do business, and the case for not taking action is crystal clear. I’m glad to see that the county’s budget people see it the same way.

One more thing:

The privatization discussions helped the sheriff better allocate manpower in the jail to reduce overtime costs, said County Budget Officer Bill Jackson, and also allowed the sheriff’s budget to be separated into three parts in the budget the court will consider Tuesday – $166 million for law enforcement, $178 million for the jail and $47 million for jail medical – which will help to better identify and control costs in each category.

Breaking the budget out like this makes sense. You know what else would make sense? Quantifying how much Medicaid expansion would save the county on health care costs, especially mental health care costs. For all that Harris County is trying to think big about health care, they’re almost bizarrely reluctant to be curious about this. I know I’m being tediously monotonous about this. Maybe I’m wrong about the potential for savings here. I doubt it, given what so many other counties are reporting, but I could be. Why not study the question and settle it once and for all? It’s becoming very hard for me to avoid the conclusion that the four Republicans on Commissioners Court don’t want to know the answer because it might be politically awkward for them.

UPDATE: Since writing this post, I have come across this Chron editorial that indicates Judge Emmett is in favor of Medicaid expansion. Obviously, I’m very glad to hear this. I don’t know why there hasn’t been more coverage of this in the Chronicle.

City proposes bike parking alternatives

Feb 25th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Nice.

Public House on White Oak

Bicycle advocates are cheering a city proposal that would give businesses an incentive to offer bike parking and would require some properties to provide it for the first time, saying the ideas mark a cultural shift in Houston.

“This is a first for Houston and a sign of how our city is evolving,” Mayor Annise Parker said. “It recognizes the popularity of cycling and gives a nod to the fact that there are other modes of transportation besides automobiles.”

The bike-related ideas are included in a proposed rewrite of the city’s off-street parking ordinance, largely untouched since it was passed in 1989. The proposal is expected to go before City Council soon. Debate over the rewrite mainly has focused on its impact on bars and restaurants, many of which would be required to provide more parking.

The city initially had exempted only freestanding restaurants and bars smaller than 2,000 square feet from the higher parking requirements; independent restaurateurs wanted all establishments smaller than 4,500 square feet to be exempt. The sides appear to have reached an agreement that would exempt all restaurants smaller than 3,000 square feet and all bars smaller than 2,500 square feet.

[…]

Under the proposed revisions, new retail, commercial and office buildings 5,000 square feet or larger would need to provide one bike parking space, with another bike space required for every additional 25,000 square feet, up to a maximum of six spaces.

The ordinance also would allow any property, other than single-family homes, to reduce required car parking by up to 10 percent by trading one car space for four bike spaces. A 10,000-square-foot retail business, for instance, could drop its required 40 car spaces to 36 by increasing its bike parking from the required one space to 17.

As you know, I wholeheartedly approve of this. I wouldn’t mind seeing more flexibility on trading car spaces for bike spaces, but the fact that it’s happening at all is a big deal. Even better, the group that has been agitating the most forcefully for this sort of accommodation supports the proposal.

Brian Crimmins, chief of staff in the city Planning Department, also noted that the ability of any business (except single-family homes) to trade up to 10 percent of its required parking for additional bike parking spaces would still apply to all restaurants and bars (even those exempt from the higher parking requirements). That would allow these businesses to drop their car parking to essentially match OKRA’s proposal, he said.

In an email to top city staffers confirming the agreed changes, OKRA president Bobby Heugel said his group plans to vocally support the ordinance if it moves forward as negotiated.

“The manner in which our views were received and incorporated into Chapter 26 is exciting and encouraging as OKRA is new to the local political process,” he wrote. “It’s nice to know that participation can make a difference, and that the sharing of perspectives can result in policies in which a variety of stakeholders concerns(‘) are represented.”

You can see some more detail about the proposals as well as the full text of what the city has out forward and what OKRA had countered with.

The Chron editorializes in favor of the new approach, also with a desire to see it go farther.

We’re pleased that the new regulations include cutouts that allow different neighborhoods to create systems that are right for them. Among the added flexibility – such as reducing parking requirements for historic districts, letting bicycle parking replace a certain number of car spots and allowing shared parking lots – are Special Parking Areas. These would allow management entities to set their own parking management plan – with approval from City Hall.

This flexibility makes the proposed changes a vast improvement over the previous regulations, and the folks at City Hall say they’re trying to engage business owners so they can take advantage of the new rules on day one. City Hall could show more good faith by adopting recommendations by OKRA – the Organized Kollaboration of Restaurant Affairs – to allow more types of bars to be exempted from the higher parking minimums.

Residents worried about parking overflow can protect their neighborhoods by applying for permit parking on their streets, as many cocktail fans have learned while chasing down a tow truck.

But there is a price for living in walkable, dynamic neighborhoods, and it includes folks parking in front of your house. That is a price inner-loop Houstonians should be happy to pay.

Agreed.

We could do something to make voting easier if we wanted to

Feb 25th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

With all the negative news about voting rights in the news these days – voter ID, electoral college gerrymandering, challenges to the Voting Rights Act – it’s good to remember that positive change is still possible.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

On two major occasions—during his election-night speech and second inaugural address—President Obama has highlighted the need for election reform. “By the way, we have to fix that,” he said on November 6 about the long lines at the polls in states like Florida. Shortly thereafter, the cause of election reform seemed to fall by the wayside, with more pressing events, such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the fiscal cliff, dominating the news. But Obama returned to the issue on January 21, saying “our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.”

Now the question is whether the Obama administration and Congress will actually do something to fix the shameful way US elections are run. There are smart proposals in Congress to address the issue. The most comprehensive among them is the Voter Empowerment Act, reintroduced today by Democratic leaders in the House, including civil rights icon John Lewis, and Kirsten Gillibrand in Senate.

The bill would add 50 million eligible Americans to the voter rolls by automatically registering consenting adults to vote at government agencies, adopting Election Day voter registration, and allowing citizens to register to vote and update their addresses online. (As Attorney General Eric Holder noted recently, 80 percent of the 75 million eligible citizens who didn’t vote in 2008 were not registered to vote.) It would also guarantee fifteen days of early voting to ease long lines, restore the voting rights of felons after they’ve served their time and ban deceptive ads aimed at suppressing voter turnout. “It’s got almost everything in there that we think is important,” says Eric Marshall of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The Voter Empowerment Act is supplemented by other worthwhile proposals in Congress. There is Senator Barbara Boxer’s LINE Act, which mandates national standards for a minimum number of voting machines and election workers in each precinct, and Senator Chris Coons’s FAST Act, which gives grants to states that conduct elections efficiently, modeled after Obama’s Race to the Top education initiative. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have designated election reform as a top priority for the new Congress.

[…]

The public wants its elected representatives to address these problems. A post-election poll found that 88 percent of 2012 voters support new national voting standards. By nearly two to one, the public is more concerned about “eligible voters being denied the opportunity to vote” rather than “ineligible voters getting to vote.”

“The moment calls for something big,” says Marshall. “There’s a desire for an overhaul. It’s just a question of the will.”

It’s more than just will, since there’s sure to be fanatical opposition to a lot of this. I can only begin to imagine how Texas Republicans might react to any of this if it gets to the legislative process. But still, it would be nice to be on the offensive for awhile. With the Supreme Court set to review, and possibly gut, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act beginning this week, I’m trying to stay positive.

Weekend link dump for February 24

Feb 24th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

“I asked Jack White if Jack White had met Jack Black. They had. It has been on my mind for a long time. Now I know.”

I’m not embarrassed to punctuate with exclamation points where I feel they properly convey my intentions, but I’d totally use an ElRey mark if one were available on my keyboard.

Leonard Cooper demonstrates why knowing math is more important than knowing other things.

The Google Store is coming to a mall near you.

“The thermostat is the iPod. It’s the beginning.”

The video game caricatures from “Wreck It Ralph”.

RIP, Mindy McCready. What a sad, tragic story.

When people talk about states like Mississippi joining the 21st century, it’s less of a rhetorical device than you might think.

“These days, I’ll take good news from congressional Republicans where I can find it.”

“Plus, they had these Coca Cola Freestyle machines everywhere, so I could get Raspberry Coke Zero any time I wanted. Worth the cost of the cruise, I have to say.” I’m a Coke Zero Lime guy myself, but I totally know what he means.

A big, important report about Chinese computer espionage.

A Charlie Pierce rant about media inanity is a joy to behold.

In case you were wondering, the right wing noise machine really will believe anything, no matter how stupid it is.

“Respectable centrist position agrees with Obama’s position. But to agree with one party is not a respectable centrist thing to do. And so a wide stream of coverage and commentary on this issue is dedicated to actively misleading Americans about what the two sides are proposing.”

“But if we’re going to talk about studying a potential relationship between video games and violence, we need to talk about what kind of study policymakers and the general public would find credible and authoritative, no matter its results.”

The war on yoga pants continues apace.

If you’ve made an enemy of Ken Ham, you’re doing something right.

“Quite a few American Christians who have no problem at all accepting, enjoying and celebrating Tim LaHaye’s gory Jesus in the Left Behind series nonetheless pretend to be horrified by Saturday Night Live’s spoof ‘DJesus Uncrossed'”

“If you look at other wearable pieces of functional technology, there’s a reason they’re not ubiquitous. […] Is it useful? Of course it is. Do I look like a tool? Yeah. I’m not going to wear it.”

Go, Lauren Silberman, go!

“In the real world, at least 80 percent of victims of campus rapes know their assailant. The standard strategy of rapists is not to jump a stranger who could, after all, fight back.”

“But as data mining techniques continue to evolve, and as databases become increasingly unified and tractable, and our lives are lived almost entirely online, it’s going to be harder and harder for criminals not to leave a discoverable data trail — especially opportunistic criminals, who break the law when they’re given a chance, as opposed to more considered criminals, who spend a lot of time plotting a crime before committing it.”

“Print me an ear”, and other things I never thought I’d hear someone say.

“So the next time you hear a poll about how Americans think it’s important to shrink the budget deficit, keep in mind that 94 percent of us don’t even know that it’s getting smaller.”

Along those lines, it’s simpler to just observe that David Brooks is a fool, and leave it at that.

RIP, Norma Zenteno.

The return of the day pass

Feb 24th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Remember the day pass? One fare, and you could ride the bus and/or light rail all day? Metro is thinking about bringing it back.

After a five-year hiatus, the daypass may soon return as an option for Metro bus and train riders.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority is studying what it would take to reinstitute single-day passes, either on popular Q cards or as stand-alone tickets for all of its buses and trains.

Any change in fares or creation of a daypass would need more study, Metro officials said, as well as approval of the agency’s board. Members of a board committee said Wednesday they’d like to bring the passes back.

Metro discontinued use of daypasses in 2008 to simplify fares. Many riders lamented the loss.

[…]

The plans discussed Wednesday assumed a daypass would cost twice as much as a single-ride fare.

For riders, daypasses could save costs and encourage more transit use, officials said. Someone who rides park and ride already pays twice the base fare, $2 to $4.50, depending on where the ride originates. So using a bus or the light rail line at lunchtime or to go to a meeting would be essentially free, said Metro board member Christof Spieler.

The passes would be available via the automated ticket machines at rail stops and other places that sell bus tickets. The Q card used by 70 percent of bus riders also could potentially be charged as a daypass.

Additional opportunities to sell passes also were discussed, including on buses and at hotels, where tourists could be encouraged to hop on board.

It’s unfortunate that the Intermodality archives appear to have been removed, because I know Christof Spieler was a critic of Metro’s decision to discontinue the day pass. I’d have liked to review his reasoning from back then, but alas. One of Metro’s stated goals these days, articulated as a reason for pushing the referendum on last year’s ballot, is to increase ridership. I believe this will facilitate that, and the upfront cost for redoing the fare system is relatively small ($1.7 million) and would hopefully be at least partially recouped by higher ridership. Ad revenues would more than pay for this, too. I’m not seeing any strong reason not to do this, so I hope Metro will move forward with it.

The mouth that roared

Feb 24th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

I have two things to say about Ted Cruz.

Not Ted Cruz

Cruz’s fans, and there are many, compare him to Ronald Reagan, who happens to be the 42-year-old senator’s boyhood hero. Cruz’s detractors, and there are many, compare him to Joe McCarthy, the controversial Wisconsin senator known for smearing his foes by innuendo and questioning their patriotism.

There are not many in between.

To Cruz, the swirling controversies of the past two months stem from his credo to “speak the truth,” whatever the consequences.

The Houston Republican’s first legislative proposal, as promised during his campaign, was a complete repeal of the 2010 health care law widely known as Obamacare. He was the only senator on the losing side of every key vote in his first month in office. He was one of only three senators to oppose the confirmation of John Kerry as secretary of state, and one of just 22 to vote against the Violence Against Women Act.

[…]

While assessments of Cruz’s job performance vary widely, there’s one thing all can agree on: The former Texas solicitor general is willfully ignoring the age-old adage that in the Senate, freshmen are seen but not heard.

1. Of all the criticisms one can make of Ted Cruz – and Lord knows, there are many – the one in which I am not interested is the criticism that “freshmen are seen but not heard”. For one thing, all that does is reinforce the Senate’s dysfunctional power dynamics. For another, if a freshman has something to contribute, who cares if they don’t know “how things are done around here”? I don’t want anyone telling Sen. Elizabeth Warren to sit down and shut up until she becomes conversant in Senate minutiae. Cruz is doing what he said he’d do. Anyone who’s surprised by it wasn’t paying attention last year.

The relevant question is whether Cruz wants to do more than what he said he wanted to do, which is basically lob spitballs and vote against stuff. If he wants to have a legacy beyond being flavor of the week for the teabagger crowd, at some point he will need to have some kind of positive accomplishments. If that does interest him – it’s not clear to me that it does, but I could be wrong about that – then I would suggest he study the legislative career of State Sen. Dan Patrick, who was Ted Cruz before Ted Cruz was Ted Cruz. Patrick entered Austin in more or less the same way that Cruz entered DC, as a brash loudmouth who disdained the traditions of the chamber he was about to join, didn’t know his “place”, and vowed to shake things up to be more to his liking. He spent his first session mostly making a fool of himself – remember his stunt where he had a press conference with a million dollars in cash as a prop? – and talk, both by and about him, far exceeded any action on his part. But then a funny thing happened – Patrick started taking the job seriously. He worked hard to learn about issues, he gained a reputation as someone who would listen with an open mind to the concerns of all stakeholders, he demonstrated an ability to work with others – see the CenterPoint right of way bill for an example – and six years later he’s the Chair of the Public Education committee, pushing major reforms. He’s far more dangerous now from my perspective than when he first got elected because now he’s actually effective and is in a strong position to get stuff done, and most (though not all) of that is stuff I don’t like. Depending on what he wants to do in DC, or subsequently back in Texas, Ted Cruz could choose to be Dan Patrick, or he could keep doing what he’s doing now, which would be a choice to be Louie Gohmert, or possibly something even worse.

2. The Express News puts this all another way.

True, there was no doubt who or what Texans were voting for at that time. Cruz, in fact, says he is doing only what Texans elected him to do.

But at some point, Texans are going to want Cruz to be for something rather than just against everything. Deal-making for the public good, after all, is a proud tradition among Texas leaders.

Texans might give Cruz the benefit of the doubt. Being new to a job is always tough. Wanting to prove your worth is always understandable. But there are ways of doing a good job — and standing on principle — without pushing the boundaries of civility.

The senator’s style certainly will endear him to some. Cruz will be the closing speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March, a coveted spot at what is said to be the largest gathering of conservatives in the country.

Previous speakers? Last year, Sarah Palin. Before that Allen West, who lost his House seat in Florida after one term in November, and, the year before, Glenn Beck, who redefined far-out politics.

That’s some telling company.

In the long run, Cruz’s current style will make him a fringe player in his own party. And Texas needs more than that from its senators.

There was a time when bringing federal funds to Texas for various things was considered worthwhile. Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison were both well known for it. Even today at least some of that persists – witness Rep. Kevin Brady promising to work with Houston to ensure that Hobby Airport has sufficient Customs staff, even though he opposed the Hobby expansion project. KBH was a champion of transportation funds, and was considered a good friend of Metro here. What will Ted Cruz do? More to the point, what will the business interests that got used to getting stuff from KBH do if Cruz decides that teabagger posturing is more important than anything else? Maybe they’ll spend some time regretting their choice not to oppose Cruz. Barring anything strange, we’re stuck with him for the next six years. Isn’t that going to be fun? EoW has more.

I knew all this beer harmony couldn’t last forever

Feb 24th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

We have some legislative beer controversy on our hands.

Sen. John Carona

Texas brewers would lose a potential source of capital and some flexibility in negotiating sales under a bill before the state Senate.

The Texas Craft Brewers Guild immediately opposed the legislation, as did one of the state’s two major groups representing wholesale distributors – which called it “asinine” and “anti-competitive.”

The bill, authored by state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee, would prohibit brewery owners from selling distribution rights for their beer and it would restrict them from selling beer at different prices in different geographic areas.

Scott Metzger, owner of Freetail Brewing Co. in San Antonio, has been actively involved in talks regarding a separate package of bills designed to help the state’s growing number of independently owned craft breweries and brewpubs.

He said the major provisions of the Carona bill were not raised during pre-session negotiations among lawmakers and industry stakeholders and he said the Craft Brewers Guild opposes all of them, whether in this bill or if they should be added later to other legislation.

[…]

Under the state’s three-tier distribution system, brewers cannot sell directly to retailers or consumers but must, with a limited exception for smaller breweries, enter exclusive contracts with wholesalers to sell the beer to retailers in designated territories.

Distributors can pay breweries for those rights, although payments are not required and can take different forms.

Donley said the practice is becoming more common as the craft segment grows. These generally smaller brewers reach a point where they need an infusion to expand, he said, and selling distribution rights is a potentially large source of capital.

Denying breweries this option goes against the charge of the pre-session working groups to stimulate economic development in the craft industry, he said.

Carona’s bill would not stop distributors from selling the rights to individual brands to other distributors.

The bill in question is SB639. Donley is Rick Donley, president of the Beer Alliance of Texas, which represents Silver Eagle Distributing and other major wholesalers, who opposes it; Keith Strama of the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas, supports it. There’s no quote from Sen. Carona’s office, but he did send a statement to author Ronnie Crocker after publication. Among other things, we learn that Carona is no longer one of the authors of the craft beer bills that would finally loosen some of the archaic restrictions on microbreweries and brewpubs; apparently, he decided to go a different route. Scott Metzger of Freetail has an interesting perspective on this at his blog:

It has not gone without notice that the proponents of this bill don’t have an interest in restricting themselves from raising prices in different markets, or from selling brands rights, but that they are only concerned about what they have to pay. In essence, this bill is one step short of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code having Mandated Profits for the middle tier. This is self-serving protectionism at its most blatant.

[…]

This Legislation amounts to nothing more than a blatant money-grab by the Wholesale Beer Distributors. It distorts the free market by protecting wholesalers from paying the cost of doing business. Ironically, no one has ever forced any distributor to pay for the distribution rights of a brewer. These are voluntary private-party transactions that occur because craft beer distribution rights are actually valuable and distributors are eager to out-bid their rivals for those rights. If you don’t want to pay, then don’t.

Luckily, this proposal is likely to go nowhere at the Capitol. My contacts up there have told me the Legislature is highly unlikely to move on Legislation that most of the industry hates, benefits only certain players, and goes against free-market principles.

Lastly, I’m thankful to Chairman Carona for filing this legislation. The WBDT was trying to amend Senator Eltife’s craft beer bills with this anti-competetive, self-serving language, and were promptly told no. But I suppose everyone deserves a chance, and I’m looking forward to hearing the WBDT try to explain any shred of public interest that might exist for this money grab.

See also this post for related matters, and this post for a fuller response to Sen. Carona’s statement. Metzger makes it clear in that latter post that he is speaking on behalf of the Texas Craft Brewers Guild. If they are OK with Sen. Carona filing this bill then I don’t see any reason for me to be unhappy about it at this time.

HISD cold on Patrick’s charter proposal

Feb 24th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

HISD has a bone to pick with Sen. Dan Patrick’s school choice bill.

Sen. Dan Patrick

The Houston Independent School District was charter friendly long before other school districts were, mainly due to the influence of then-Superintendent Rod Paige. The nationally known Knowledge is Power Program, for instance, probably would not exist on the scale and scope it does today if Paige hadn’t allowed the original campus to co-locate in HISD’s existing school district facilities.

Ironically, it is the facilities portion of Senate Bill 2 that have become the sticking for HISD. Under the bill, school districts with “unused” or “underutilized” would be required to notify the Texas Education Agency, which would then post excess property online for charter schools to lease or acquire at the cost of $1.

[…]

For HISD, turning over unused facilities would be financially disastrous, district leaders say. Surrounded on all sides by aging campuses, the state’s largest school district has turned to selling off excess property to fund the construction and reconstruction of schools around the district. Last year’s $1.6 billion bond package, in fact, pledged to replace Condit Elementary School and The High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice through sale of surplus property.

When The High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice sits on land near the prime intersection of Memorial and Shepherd drives, it’s not just an inconvenience to give up the land to others. It’s probably a $35 million loss.

Spokesman Jason Spencer notes HISD has recouped $32.4 million in taxpayer money over the last five years through the sale of property, money that is being reinvested in Houston schools. At this moment, HISD still has 10 properties posted for sale, with proceeds earmarked for facility needs.

“Any legislation that would hinder HISD’s ability to continue recouping taxpayer assets by selling property and reinvesting those tax dollars back into Houston schools would add to the financial burden on HISD taxpayers at a time when the Texas Legislature is failing to meet its constitutional obligation to adequately fund public schools,” Spencer said in a rather stiff but clearly unhappy statement from the school district. “It is HISD’s position that the state does not have legal authority to require a locally controlled independent school district to essentially give away facilities that were approved by voters and funded by local taxpayers.”

That’s a pretty strong critique. It was also apparently an effective one, because according to the Trib, Sen. Patrick proposed an amendment that would raise the cost to market value, which seems like a reasonable alternative to me. It may make the charter schools unhappy, however, since one of their main complaints is that they don’t have the same capacity to raise money for capital expenditures as school districts, since they can’t float bonds. I suspect that will be addressed in some other fashion, so it probably isn’t an obstacle. We’ll see what the bill looks like when it emerges from committee. See also the TSTA, which observes that the reason why “some new buildings, particularly in fast-growth districts are empty [is] because school districts couldn’t afford to staff and open them” after the $5.4 billion budget cut from last session that Patrick continues to support.

One more thing, via the Statesman.

At the onset of the hearing, Patrick said he expected opposition from school district officials, but warned that his primary concern was for students and parents who want an alternative to traditional public schools.

“I want you to understand that when you testify, you’re not testifying against a bill,” Patrick said. “You’re testifying against 100,000 families who are are on the wait list who are desperate for their children to have choice.”

Sen. Patrick has made some variation on that statement throughout this process, to emphasize just how much he cares about the children, and how those who oppose him are standing in the way of his coming to their rescue. It’s all very touching, but you know what else many parents – a lot more than 100,000 of them in this state – are desperate for? Affordable health care, and access to it. To say the least, Sen. Patrick is notably less concerned about that. If he were concerned about it, he’d be out there leading the charge to expand Medicaid, since children are among the main beneficiaries of Medicaid. I guess there’s only so much concern one can have about the welfare of children before one starts to get worn out, or something. Suffice it to say that Sen. Patrick’s pleadings don’t impress me very much.

Saturday video break: (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction

Feb 23rd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Song #30 on the Popdose Top 100 Covers list is “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction”, originally by the Rolling Stones, and covered by Devo. Here’s the original:

I trust we’re all familiar with this one. I love seeing 60’s-era videos of the Stones. For all the freaking out certain cultural types did over Elvis and the Beatles, it’s clear that these are the guys they should have been worried about. Here’s Devo:

I think this may be the first example of a song where I knew the original version but had never heard the cover before. I have to say, it was exactly what I would have expected a Devo version of this song to be. If I could go back in time and get them to do an entire double album of covers like that, I surely would. What did you think?

Vote for Houston in the Mayor’s Challenge final

Feb 23rd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
2 comments

From the HuffPo:

Vote below for your favorite idea among the 20 Mayors Challenge finalists! Voting is open from February 20 through March 6.

The Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Mayors Challenge is a competition designed to inspire America’s mayors to generate innovative ideas that solve major challenges and improve city life. The Huffington Post and Bloomberg Philanthropies have partnered to give readers an opportunity to select their favorite idea among the 20 finalists. Click the grid here to learn more about the 20 finalists or scroll down to watch videos from each city.

Click the link above to cast your vote. If you need a reminder of what this is about, see here and here for previous blogging, and here for Mayor Parker’s pitch for Houston:

One Bin for All is a revolutionary idea for residents to discard all materials in one bin, treating “trash” as valuable assets, dramatically increasing recycling using game changing technologies.

Recycling, admittedly, is difficult. Though I am an avid recycler, I can be stumped by aluminum foil or a wet paper towel or a plastic straw. Not surprisingly, so are millions of citizens, and it is estimated that cities only effectively recycle about 30 percent of their trash.

[…]

This first-of-its-kind innovation uses technology in a way that has never been done before. Allowing technology and new process systems to sort household “trash” and derive an initial 55 percent diversion rate, and upwards of 75 percent with composting, anaerobic digestion and catalytic conversion (biomass-to-fuel) is more efficient and effective. The technologies (shredders, sensors, density separators and optical scanners) have been used previously in the waste, mining, or refining industries, but will be combined in a new process which will yield a much higher diversion rate. This system has the potential for cities across the globe to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make a significant contribution to improved air quality, provide an easy-to-use program for residents, save money and increase revenues.

Our innovation will:

  • Provide every residence with curbside One Bin for All services;
  • Decrease the volume of waste sent to landfills and increase recycling rates;
  • Improve air quality by eliminating truck routes and reducing methane emissions from landfills; and
  • Manage costs associated with waste collection and disposal and recycling, saving cities money.

By building the first total material resource recovery facility in the US, Houston has the opportunity to improve the health and quality of life of its citizens, divert more municipal solid waste than any other large City in the nation, save money, change the way citizens think about materials, reduce extraction of raw materials and influence other cities to embrace this transformation.

There’s a video over there as well, so click to see it and then click here to vote. You have until March 6 to cast your vote. Hair Balls has more.

Keeping the push for immigration reform

Feb 23rd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

From the Texas House:

Democratic Texas House members [have] filed an immigration resolution that could serve as a litmus test for Republican support for reforms being suggested at the national level.

House Concurrent Resolution 44, which urges the U.S. Congress to “swiftly enact and fund comprehensive immigration reform that creates a road map to citizenship,” comes after President Obama’s Tuesday State of the Union Address, where he again pushed Congress to craft a bill to address the 11 to 12 million people living in the country illegally, and to repair the nation’s existing immigration system. Filed by state Reps. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, and Ana Hernandez Luna, D-Houston, it incorporates statistics from the Texas Comptroller, the Cato Institute and the Partnership for a New American Economy, and statements of support for immigration reform from former state Reps. John Garza, R-San Antonio and Raul Torres, R-Corpus Christi, the Texas Federation of Republican Women and a national reform framework authored by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators.

Anchia said he wanted the resolution to have some substance and make a strong statement: that Texas can lead the way on immigration reform.

[…]

Anchia said he would reach out to the House Republican Caucus and open up the resolution to joint authorship. He said the timing was ideal after seeing that lawmakers in Texas were unwilling to pass “divisive” state-based immigration measures similar to bills passed in Arizona and Alabama.

“Texas has resisted that and I am proud of the state for having done that,” he said. “If we do not keep momentum going and it fails I worry we won’t be able to get anything accomplished for a long, long time.”

The resolution states that, according to a 2006 study conducted by the comptroller, the deportation of the millions of Texans in the state illegally would have resulted in a loss to the state’s gross domestic product of $18 billion. Figures from the Cato Institute indicate an overhaul of the country’s immigration system would add an additional $1.5 trillion to the country’s GDP.

HCRs aren’t bills, and if adopted they have no force of law behind them. They’re basically legislative petitions, saying “this is what we believe”. It’s a symbol, but if a resolution like this were to be adopted, especially by a strong majority, it would be a powerful symbol, one that just might perhaps get some attention from the folks who can do something about it. Our members of Congress, in other words. Of course, some of them need to hear it more than others. Congressional Democrats are almost entirely on board. Here’s the five Democratic Congressional freshmen from Texas opining on the subject:

Comprehensive immigration reform must include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants living in this country who pass a background check, pay a fee along with back taxes and meet basic citizenship, civics and English language requirements.

In addition, the plan should include funding to increase the number of customs and border patrol officers at our ports of entry while also allocating resources to improve infrastructure at these ports. These investments will create jobs on both sides of the border and keep our border economies sustainable and thriving.

Immigration reform should include interior enforcement measures to improve the removal process for those who want to do our country harm. Worksite enforcement must also make mandatory the use of employment verification systems while improving that system to weed out criminals.

Finally, the package should reform temporary worker programs and create the opportunity for all, while ensuring we remain competitive in all industries and areas in our country and abroad.

The time is now to make the move on immigration reform, and we support efforts to carry out this monumental task. The time is now because of the needs of our country — the urgent need for a younger and more diverse workforce and the need to ensure that the next generation of Americans pays their fair share and keeps vital programs such as Medicare and Social Security solvent. We also need to know who is here so we can weed out those who pose a threat to our country and criminals who should not be here.

We will continue to secure this country from people who would do us harm and must support the men and women on the front lines of this effort by providing them with the necessary equipment and manpower to effectively protect our country. We, however, will remind our colleagues that some border cities like El Paso and others along the South Texas border are regularly ranked as the safest in the United States. We can no longer delay immigration reform. The time to move forward is now.

The words are clear, and the need is clear. Who’s on board, and who will stand in the way?

The driverless car visits Austin

Feb 23rd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

Anyone there get to see it?

Google, which has been developing and touting the future of self-piloting cars, has parked a driverless car in front of the Hilton Hotel downtown, site of the three-day Texas Transportation Forum. The modified Lexus hybrid is equipped with all manner of sensors that allow it to be aware of everything occurring around it and instantly react to those obstacles. The most noticeable of those features is a rotating laser radar device, mounted on a frame on the car’s roof, that generates a detailed three-dimensional map of its environment.

[…]

The American-Statesman has learned that Texas Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton will give the car a test spin at 3 p.m. Tuesday.

Anthony Levandowski, a Google project manager who has worked on the driverless car project, is scheduled to appear Tuesday morning as part of a panel on “How technology is reshaping your transportation options.” Google, while it has been working on the device for several years and lobbying for it to be allowed on public streets for testing, has not announced any plans to commercialize the vehicle.

That was from Tuesday. Dallas Transportation, from whom I got the embedded photo, has more including a video. Though Google has successfully lobbied three other states so far to allow their driverless car on the roads there, as of last report there wasn’t a serious effort in Texas to push for an amendment to our laws. Not yet, anyway. The Trib examines that state of affairs.

Google did not seek permission from any local or state agencies before driving its experimental vehicle on Texas roads and highways alongside thousands of other vehicles, the company confirmed. Any other company testing self-driving technology in Texas wouldn’t need to either. Neither Austin nor Texas laws appear to address self-driving technology.

“I don’t think legally there’s any issues of a self-driving car or specific ordinance against a self-driving car,” said Leah Fillion, a spokeswoman for Austin’s transportation department. “It’s kind of a fuzzy area.”

Anthony Levandowski, project manager for Google’s self-driving car research, said the company brought a Lexus hybrid outfitted with its autopilot technology to the Texas Transportation Forum to get elected officials and members of the transportation industry more familiar with the emerging technology.

During a panel discussion Tuesday, Levandowski said the company hoped to have the software on the market within five years.

[…]

Though no Texas or federal laws address such technology being used on the roads, Levandowski said that would and should change.

“We do think it would be great to have the existing transportation code clearly address this technology,” Levandowski said.

The state’s transportation code currently refers only to “a person” operating a vehicle. Levandowski described an updated version as specifying “for a vehicle to operate, it must have a licensed driver inside.”

[…]

State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, a member of the House Transportation Committee, said he had not considered the issue of self-driving vehicles but that it’s probably something state lawmakers should look at more closely.

“It’s worth a discussion because government is usually reactive instead of proactive,” Pickett said. “The first time [a self-driving car] runs over a fire hydrant or, even worse, a person, there will be a flurry of bills filed.”

If that’s the case, and if Levandowski’s five-year prediction is accurate, we have two, maybe three more legislative sessions after this one to get ready and be proactive. Better start studying up, y’all. Did any of my Austin readers have a chance to see this? Leave a comment if so and let us know. More from Dallas Transportation here.

LBJ Wildflower Center helping to restore pine trees to Texas

Feb 23rd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Very cool.

The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center of The University of Texas at Austin has been selected by the Texas A&M Forest Service (TFS) to serve as the local grower of loblolly pines to restore wildfire-damaged Bastrop County.

The 2011 Bastrop County Complex fire destroyed 1,691 homes while burning 33,000 acres that gave the area its picturesque landscape. Already, the Wildflower Center has worked with a university graduate student to provide 35,000 loblolly pines that are being given this winter to county residents. The center will now expand its growing operation as one of three contractors with TFS to produce up to 6 million trees total by 2017 for the Lost Pines region.

“The Wildflower Center is conveniently located for project partners to access the pines we grow before a planting event,” said the center’s Senior Director, Damon Waitt. “We can also serve as a holding area for trees grown by the facilities that aren’t near Bastrop County.”

[…]

The tree growers will use seeds the TFS collected from Lost Pines loblollies years ago, with future TFS contracts expected to continue the program through 2017. “The Lost Pines is such a unique area ecologically, and the trees there are more drought-tolerant than loblolly pines in East Texas, so we are thrilled to have this seed source to work with,” said Dr. Waitt, who is also the center’s senior botanist.

Sure is a good thing they saved those seeds, isn’t it?

Friday random thirteen: Cracked covers

Feb 22nd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

You know how much I love lists and cover songs, so you should not be surprised to learn that this 20 worst pop music covers list in Cracked, which I discovered while looking for their story about dirty old-time songs for my previous entry, would be catnip to me. I have thirteen of the listed songs in my collection, some by the original artist, some by a different cover artist, and one by Cracked’s named offender, so I just went with them all rather than whittle them down to 10. Here they are:

1. You Shook Me All Night Long – Bing Ji Ling (orig. Ac/DC, bad cover by Celine Cion and Anastasia)
2. Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door – Warren Zevon (orig. Bob Dylan, bad cover by Guns N Roses)
3. American Pie – Don McLean (bad cover by Madonna)
4. My Generation – The Who (bad cover by Hilary Duff)
5. Video Killed The Radio Star – The Buggles (bad cover by The Presidents of the United States of America)
6. Walk This Way – Aerosmith (bad cover by Macy Gray)
7. I’m A Believer – The Monkees (bad cover by Smashmouth)
8. Sweet Child O’ Mine – Sheryl Crow (orig. Guns N Roses)
9. Big Yellow Taxi – Joni Mitchell (bad cover by Counting Crows)
10. Anarchy In The UK – Sex Pistols (bad cover by Motley Crue)
11. Behind Blue Eyes – The Who (bad cover by Limp Bizkit)
12. (Sittin’ On The) Dock Of The Bay – Otis Redding (bad cover by Michael Bolton)
13. And It Stoned Me – Van Morrison (bad cover by Bob Dylan)

For what it’s worth, I like the Smashmouth and GNR covers, the former of which was prominently featured in the movie Shrek and the latter of which got a fair amount of radio airplay back in the day. I will also note that Popdose, from whom I got that Sheryl Crow version and several others of “Sweet Child O’ Mine”, had the same complaint about not doing the riff. The others I can’t say I’ve heard, and for the most part I can’t say I want to hear them, though I’m sure I’ve come across the Michael Bolton cover in my nightmares. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any song covers that truly offend me, but Rod Stewart, backed by the London Symphony Orchestra and a choir, doing “Pinball Wizard” may be the most ridiculously over the top cover I’ve ever heard. What are your least favorite cover songs?

As if you needed another reason to support Medicaid expansion

Feb 22nd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Even more data on why Medicaid expansion makes sense from Texas Impact.

It’s constitutional – deal with it

The study, by former Texas deputy comptroller Billy Hamilton, says Texas shouldn’t pass up the chance to insure up to 2 million of its more than 6 million uninsured people.

Hamilton cited other benefits. Expansion of the Medicaid rolls would “provide relief to local taxpayers and increase the financial stability of the health care infrastructure on which all Texans depend,” he wrote.

Texas Impact, a statewide interfaith group with a progressive bent, and San Antonio-based Methodist Healthcare Ministries, which owns half of the largest hospital and health care system in South Texas, commissioned Hamilton’s study. It was released last month but on Monday, the sponsoring groups issued this update, which breaks out the financial effects and numbers of newly covered persons by county and by legislative district.

Gov. Rick Perry and other state GOP leaders oppose the Medicaid expansion, saying the state-federal program is a mess and a budget-buster.

Hamilton’s study, though, says if Texas agrees to the expansion, the state would reap $27.5 billion in new federal health care spending from 2014-2017. That would generate an estimated 231,000 jobs by 2016, and just under $68 billion of new economic activity in the state over the four-year period, he found. Hamilton said the additional economic jolt would throw off $2.5 billion in new local tax collections statewide in 2014-2017.

Under his “moderate enrollment growth” scenario, in which about 1 million adults statewide would gain Medicaid coverage, Dallas County would attract $612 million annually in federal Medicaid match by 2016 and Collin County, $132 million. Those figures compare with combined county, hospital district and/or private hospital charity care costs of $691 million in Dallas County, and $9 million in Collin County, for the most recent year for which data were available.

“As if saving local taxpayers millions on low-income care isn’t enough, lawmakers can actually bring new revenues to their districts without raising taxes — and make their constituents healthier in the process,” said Bee Moorhead, an ordained Presbyterian clergy woman who is Texas Impact’s executive director.

See here for the initial Texas Impact report, and click on the “this update” link in the story to see what’s new. Basically, they broke out the numbers by House and Senate district, so if you want to contact your legislators and let them know why they should be behind this effort (hint, hint) you can have some facts at your fingertips. You might also contact your County Commissioner about it, since the numbers are based on county figures. Speaking of counties and Commissioners Courts, Travis County has passed a resolution calling on the Lege to take action on expanding Medicaid, following the lead of Dallas County. Bexar County will vote on this on February 26. What is your county doing? Whatever it is, keep up the pressure. You can’t be heard if you’re not making noise. And the more Rick Perry feels the need to defend himself, the better.

Here’s more from the Chron:

Hospital districts, county health care services, jails and charities in Harris County spent $920 million providing services to the uninsured for which they were not reimbursed, according to 2011 figures. If the Texas Legislature approves Medicaid expansion, at least $645 million and as much as $1.4 billion in federal funding would reach Harris County in 2016 to provide services for many of the currently uninsured, depending on how state leaders would structure the expanded coverage, according to estimates.

Using data from hospitals, the census and current legislative proposals, the report also estimated increases to local tax revenue from expanding services to an additional one million adults, which in Harris County could be as high as $411.5 million over four years starting in 2014.

[…]

Elena Marks, a health policy expert at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, said federally funded Medicaid expansion is too good to pass up, citing a 2012 study by The Perryman Group titled, “Only One Rational Choice.”

Rather than looking at the flow of federal, state and local tax dollars in health care, that study looked at the overall economic impact of reducing uncompensated care, enhanced productivity from healthier Texans and other multiplier effects. It concluded that every dollar spent by the state on Medicaid would return $1.29 in revenue over the first 10 years of the expansion.

Marks warns, however, that expanding Medicaid would not be enough, hoping that local funds freed by federal and state dollars could go toward improving care.

She points to a federal grant program operated through Regional Healthcare Partnerships that funds innovative improvements to providing primary care, serving at-risk populations and targeting particular diseases.

El Paso and Dallas counties have passed resolutions urging legislative approval, and a network of state non-profits, including Houston’s The Metropolitan Organization, are encouraging others to follow suit.

“American taxpayers already have funded the increased health insurance coverage, but it’s the governor’s decision whether eligible Texans will be allowed access to it,” said Kevin Collins, TMO co-chairman and a Catholic pastor, in a press release about a rally at the state capitol Wednesday. “Access to affordable, quality health care is a fundamental right for all.”

Yes, let’s not forget the Perryman report or the Legislative Budget Board recommendation, either. The usual nattering nabobs are quoted in both stories fretting about the Medicaid match maybe someday being reduced by the Feds (at which point Texas could choose to back out if it wanted to) or Medicaid not being perfect but not addressing any of the points about the economic boon that Medicaid expansion would be or the lives that it would save, and surely not having any viable alternatives because they don’t care about that sort of thing. Oh, they also express concern about there not being enough doctors to handle the influx of new Medicaid recipients, which while valid on its face is deeply ironic coming from the kind of people that crammed tort “reform” down our throats partly on the premise that drastically limiting liability on doctors would lead to a flood of new MDs in our state. So yeah, I don’t really take any of their whining seriously. Even Florida Governor Rick Scott, who was one of the lead plaintiffs in the suit against Obamacare, has agreed to expand Medicaid for at least the first three years, when the feds are picking up 100% of the cost. Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, writing in the Trib, has more.

Fixing our front door

Feb 22nd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

This sounds very cool.

The century-old Sunset Coffee Building, looming in disrepair over Allen’s Landing at the north end of downtown, will become Houston’s “front door” with an $8 million public-private renovation set to begin in April.

The three-story brick structure is boarded up, marked with graffiti, and has shrubs growing out of some second-floor windows.

Come mid-2014, however, the facility will house kayak, canoe and bike rentals on the first floor, office space on the second floor, private event space on the third floor, a rooftop terrace, and will be flanked by outdoor plazas and walkways connecting to Commerce Street.

Most of the money comes from private donations to the nonprofit Buffalo Bayou Partnership. The fundraising also was boosted by a $500,000 federal grant and finished off with a $2.4 million infusion from Houston First, the board that runs the city’s convention and arts facilities.

[…]

Susan Keeton, chairman emeritus of the Buffalo Bayou Partnership, said it has been a long road, with some skepticism from the nonprofit’s board members, since the partnership first bought the building in 1997, with the dream of making it a focal point of recreation on the bayou. Renovations had been slated to start in 2008, but fundraising lagged amid the national recession.

“It is our Plymouth Rock, and the wonderful thing about it is that, unlike Plymouth Rock – which now is sort of small and forlorn, I’ve seen it off of Cape Cod – this, particularly when the Coffee Building gets renovated, is not going to be a lonely place,” Keeton said. “A day like today, this beautiful slope ought to just attract people, too many, almost.”

Sounds awesome to me, and long overdue. Kudos to the Buffalo Bayou Partnership, Houston First, and the city for making this happen. I can’t wait to see the finished product. Here’s the Houston First press release, and CultureMap and Swamplot have more.

Houston loses air pollution permit lawsuit

Feb 22nd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Bummer.

Ship Channel crica 1973

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that Houston may not effectively void a state air pollution permit.

The justices agreed with Southern Crushed Concrete that Houston’s 2007 law restricting the location of concrete-crushing facilities violates state statute by nullifying a permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

In reversing an appeals court decision, Justice Debra Lehrmann said the state’s Health and Safety Code is clear.

The law “compels us to give effect to the Legislature’s clear intent that a city may not pass an ordinance that effectively moots a Commission decision,” Lehrmann wrote in an opinion for the nine-member court.

City Attorney Dave Feldman said he was not surprised by the ruling because “any time you have a local ordinance that regulates a specific area that is regulated by the state, preemption is an issue that you have to deal with.”

[…]

Southern Crushed Concrete’s facility meets the state’s requirement, but not the city’s. So the company sued, claiming the city did not have the authority to regulate its business.

Houston countered that the state’s permit regulates air pollution, while its ordinance dealt with land use. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, ruling that reasoning would allow a city to effectively void any TCEQ permit it opposes.

I think there was merit in Houston’s ordinance, but I can see the reasoning behind the Supreme Court ruling. Mostly what this points out is that as usual, the state isn’t doing as much as it could to protect the environment and the health of people who live a little too close to places like the Southern Crushed Concrete facility. I also find it amusing in a way that this ruling that affirmed the state’s supremacy over cities came out around the same time that League City was declaring its supremacy over the federal government. I wonder what the Supreme Court would say about that? Anyway, this story isn’t quite finished yet, since the matter has been referred back to the TCEQ, where Houston can pursue an appeal of its initial permit to Southern Crushed Concrete. Perhaps the city can lobby for a modification to the state law that would allow local ordinances to be taken into account by the TCEQ when reviewing permit requests as well.

Aiming to attract magnets

Feb 22nd, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
2 comments

HISD has applied for a $12 million federal grant to create as many as eight new magnet schools.

HISD’s application, which is due to the U.S. Department of Education on March 1, would create science, technology, engineering and math programs at Ryan Middle, M.C. Williams Middle, Kashmere High, Furr High and the South Early College High School in HISD and a yet-to-be-named middle school in North Forest, if the Texas Education Agency moves forward with a plan to merge the two districts.

This earlier story from before the vote has more details.

All the programs would focus on science, technology, engineering and math, subject areas that the U.S. Department of Education will favor in this year’s application process.

“It’s unprecedented,” Superintendent Terry Grier said of the focus on math and science. “This is something that’s really being pushed from the White House.”

[…]

Ryan Middle School, a campus that has historically struggled, could be converted into the HISD Middle School for Health Professions, a feeder into the prestigious DeBakey High School.

An early college high school would also open in the North Forest area, pending the merger, to allow students to earn high school and college credits simultaneously.

The stories mention six schools by name. A seventh would be a new magnet high school aimed at energy professions, something Superintendent Grier proposed a couple of weeks ago. A middle school arts magnet was also proposed.

Terry Grier

The arts middle school likely would move into a spruced-up version of the HSPVA campus in Montrose, he said. The $1.9 billion bond package HISD voters approved in November included about $80 million to relocate HSPVA to the downtown theater district. Construction of that new campus could take 18 months to two years.

No location has been identified for the new energy magnet school. HISD plans to meet with possible corporate and nonprofit partners to begin developing the curriculum and campus, Grier said. He expects it to be a campus of 500-800 students, much like DeBakey and HSPVA.

Industry leaders said they are excited to start talks with HISD.

“This high school would be highly beneficial to the energy industry, as we know there’s a great need for workers going forward,” said Joni Baird, a public affairs manager for Chevron. “We need to have our students prepared to be our future workforce.”

It’s not clear to me if the new arts magnet middle school is part of HISD’s grant application or if there’s some other school in the mix. If HISD doesn’t get the grant they’ll reconsider their options. There’s still a lot of work to be done to better organize HISD’s existing magnet schools, but this is a potentially very exciting development.

The birth control poll

Feb 21st, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

The Texas Freedom Network would like you to know that Texans support having access to birth control.

A new statewide poll from the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund shows Texans believe that access to family planning and birth control is important and should not be limited by a woman’s income level, employer or medical provider. Voters support government taking action to ensure that Texas women can make their own decisions about family planning, including providing state funding for family planning and birth control programs in the state.

Support for state funding for providing access to family planning services and birth control for low-income women is both broad and deep, crossing political, racial, generational and geographic lines. Moreover, strong support exists for access to birth control among religiously observant Texans, including both Catholics and Protestants, as well as Born-again Christians.

Here’s the poll memo:

Texans believe that access to family planning and birth control is important and should not be limited by a woman’s income level, employer, or medical provider. Voters support government taking action to ensure that Texas women can make their own decisions about family planning, including providing state funding for family planning and birth control programs in the state.

Support for state funding for providing access to family planning services and birth control for low-income women is both broad and deep, crossing political, racial, generational, and geographic lines. Moreover, strong support exists for access to birth control among religiously observant Texans, including both Catholics and Protestants, as well as Born-again Christians.

Voters support efforts to make birth control more accessible to women, not less. Texans oppose the cuts to funding for family planning made by the state Legislature in 2011 and want to see funding restored. They also oppose allowing employers to deny their employees health care coverage for family planning services and birth control, and want to ensure that state funding for family planning goes to medical providers that offer a full range of family planning services, including birth control.

The results in this report are based on a statewide poll of registered Texas voters, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Chesapeake Beach Consulting for the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund. The survey reached a total of 604 registered voters in Texas and was conducted February 6 – 11, 2013. The margin of sampling error for the sample is +/- 3.99 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level.

The poll was conducted jointly by Democrat Anna Greenberg and Republican Bob Carpenter. It has certainly accomplished the goal of getting media attention, as these Chron, DMN, Statesman, AusChron, and Hair Balls stories show. But only the Texas Observer notes the disconnect:

Despite the overwhelming evidence of support for family planning services, some legislators have filed bills that go after contraception. Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford), for example, is pushing “Hobby Lobby” legislation, which would give tax breaks to companies, like Hobby Lobby, that face federal fines over their refusal to provide emergency contraception coverage to their employees through insurance.

Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) filed HB 1057 last week, which would prevent abortion providers or their affiliates (like Planned Parenthood) from providing sex education materials for public schools.

But, according to [TFN President Kathy] Miller, this study only illustrates that lawmakers have lost sight of what Texans actually want. “Last legislative session, we saw some legislators openly declare war on contraception. Texans clearly want that war to stop,” Miller said.

I’m not surprised by this poll result, and I do hope it gets a lot of attention. But, and I hate to be a wet blanket here, the fact is that many Republican legislators have nothing to fear, or at least they believe they have nothing to fear, from it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when was the last time someone lost an election in Texas for being wrong on birth control? Far as I can tell, the next time will be the first time. Lord knows, there are plenty of Republicans who’ll be on the ballot in 2014 that should take heed of this, starting with our promiscuously litigious Attorney General/Governor wannabee Greg Abbott, who’s been busy amicus-briefing the federal courts over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate for employers, including Hobby Lobby. But until someone actually does lose an election over this, why should we expect anything or anyone to change? Someone needs to start convincing some of those Republican women to reconsider some of the people they’ve been voting for.

Meet SWIFT

Feb 21st, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

SWIFT is the State Water Infrastructure Fund for Texas, which would be created by the big water bills of the session, HB4 and SB4. Basically, this is a plan to create a water infrastructure bank, to finance various water projects that the state needs at low interest, with some seed money from the Rainy Day Fund to get started. So far the proposals have been met with approval by the various stakeholders.

A parade of Texas mayors on Tuesday urged state lawmakers to invest $2 billion in reservoirs, pipelines and other water-supply projects.

Houston’s Annise Parker, San Antonio’s Julian Castro and other mayors said the passage of House Bill 4, which would create a fund to help pay for water-related infrastructure, is necessary to satisfy the demands of residents and businesses.

“We are not going to wait, but it sure would be nice to have the state with us,” said Parker, who said Houston is moving forward on water projects. “If the rest of the state does not make the same efforts we have, we may lose our competitive advantage.”

[…]

State Rep. Allan Ritter, a Nederland Republican who filed the bill, said a $2 billion capitalization could finance the state’s entire long-range water plan, which identifies 562 projects at a cost of $53 billion over the next half-century.

The initial $2 billion would come from the state’s rainy day fund

The projects would be selected by the Texas Water Development Board but would be locally owned and controlled, Ritter emphasized.

“They need help in what I call ‘getting over the hump,'” he said of the financing challenge water providers face with projects that can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to complete.

There’s a lot of money at stake, and any time there’s a lot of money at stake, there are many competing interests for it.

“We can’t afford to pit one [group] against another,” said Laura Huffman, of the Nature Conservancy. “A growing state is going to want to eat, drink and turn the lights on.”

Much will depend on whether key lawmakers—Rep. Allan Ritter (R-Nederland) and Fraser in particular—can craft a fair structure for distributing what will likely be billions of dollars over the coming decades.

“I think it’s like most of the issues that come before this body,” said state Rep. Doug Miller (R-New Braunfels). “Follow the money.” Austin American-Statesman reporter Asher Price did just that. He found that one of the organizations behind the push for a state water bank, H2O4Texas, is funded by “industries that stand to benefit from massive projects to move water around the state.”

That’s not terribly surprising but suggests that legislators will have to be careful to guard against allowing the water bank to turn into a slush fund.

The key word is: prioritization. The state water plans lists 562 distinct water projects, a wish list drafted by hundreds of “stakeholders” organized into 16 regional water planning groups. Those projects are the essence of the plan. But how do you pick which ones to fund? What form does the funding take—grants, loans, etc? Which projects get funded first? Do conservation-focused projects receive a leg up or is the money going to flow into new reservoirs?

Ritter’s legislation, House Bill 4, has been praised by environmentalists for requiring that at least 20 percent of the funds go toward water conservation.

Sen. Fraser’s legislation, Senate Bill 4, would create a fund outside of the state treasury but would put the Texas Water Development Board in charge of prioritizing the projects. But Fraser repeatedly complained today that the board is ill-equipped to take on such a huge task. Fraser said he’d had trouble getting a simple list of water-supply projects that the board considers top priorities.

Under Senate Bill 4, the Water Development Board would be run by three full-time commissioners instead of six part-timers. It would also set up a nine-member advisory committee to recommend water projects to the full board. Other senators, however, piled on Fraser’s proposal, leading him to stress that it was a work in progress and likely to be negotiated until the bitter end.

This AP report goes into more detail about conservation and highlights a potential stumbling block for the legislation.

Luke Metzger, director of the advocacy group Environment Texas, told the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday that it was critical that the state emphasizes conservation and ensures enough water is left behind for the eco-system. He pointed out that large-scale water projects, such as new reservoirs, can have a negative impact on the environment.

“In 1968, the State Water Plan predicted that by the year 2020 you would need 32 million acre-feet of water. Of course it’s almost 2020 now, and we’re only using 18 million acre-feet,” he said. “It’s critical that in planning for the next 50 years, we are flexible and we’re careful not to burden Texans in the future with huge debts for projects we might not need.”

He pointed out that San Antonio grew by more than 65 percent while still using the same amount of water and said other cities could follow that model. He said plans are for the state to meet 34 percent of future water needs through conservation and called on the committee to set aside that much of the new water fund for projects that save water.

Just fixing leaky water mains could save enough water for 2.7 million Texans, Metzger said.

[…]

So far no group has come out against creating what would be called the State Water Infrastructure Fund for Texas, or SWIFT. But the measure may require Republican lawmakers to vote in favor of lifting the state’s constitutional spending limit, which many conservatives do not want on their record.

Have I mentioned before that artificial spending and revenue caps are stupid and destructive? This is another illustration of why. The issue here is whether appropriating money from the Rainy Day Fund would count towards the revenue cap, which mandates that spending can only grow so much from one biennium to the next. Use of the Rainy Day Fund wasn’t originally intended to be included in such calculations, but the fanatics who rule over Republican primaries don’t care for such subtleties, so the issue remains a potential roadblock for doing the things the Lege has said it wants to do.

Bike trail on utility rights-of-way bills filed

Feb 21st, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

This is a big show of support for making bike trails on CenterPoint’s rights of way happen.

Houston voters last fall approved a $166 million bond measure to expand the city’s trail system, to be matched by $105 million in private donations via the Houston Parks Board. About 78 miles of trails would get built, limited largely to east-west paths that run along bayous. Many of the utility easements run north-south.

Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Dan Patrick, R-Houston, filed Senate Bill 633 and state Reps. Jim Murphy, R-Houston, Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, and Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, filed House Bill 200. Both drafts were filed Monday.

In a prepared statement, the lawmakers cast their proposals as a way to cut time and cost in trail development.

“The people of Houston have said loud and clear that they want more hike and bike trails,” Ellis said in a statement. “But it has become very difficult to acquire the land in urban areas like Houston that is suitable for development of trails. This legislation is a unique and innovative compromise solution to develop new trails without undue delays and excess cost.”

See here for the background. I’m not a lawyer, but comparing the text of the original bills that were filed by Reps. Sarah Davis and Jim Murphy, HB 404 and HB 258, to the updated bills HB 200 and SB 633, the main difference seems to me to be that the original bills basically exempted the utility from any and all liability, while the updated bills “[do] not limit the liability of an electric utility for serious bodily injury or death of a person proximately caused by the electric utility’s wilful or wanton acts or gross negligence with respect to a dangerous condition existing on the premises”. That, frankly, was my main concern, so I’m glad to see that saner heads have prevailed. It may be that CenterPoint is still getting away with something here – again, I Am Not A Lawyer, and I don’t know what level of protection CenterPoint would have without this bill – but on the surface at least this looks better to me. Barring any further revelations, I’ll be happy to see this pass. Hair Balls has more.

← Earlier Posts