Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

March, 2013:

Weekend link dump for March 31

Mar 31st, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

And out like a lamb…

Geez, now even I’m worried about Gmail. Thanks, Ezra.

The Nielsen Family ain’t what it used to be.

This five-year-old girl discovered a new species of dinosaur, which is now named for her. What have you done with your life?

“70′s Actor Erik Estrada To Star In Right Wing ‘Religious Liberty’ Musical“. Go ahead, top that headline.

“Like her full-sized counterpart, little Beverly Crusher runs a theater and attends conventions, but she also rides cats and still carries a torch for a certain Starfleet captain.”

I miss The Far Side. Imagine what it would be like in a social media-enabled world.

“Apparently government doesn’t create jobs, but government inaction sure loses them.”

“Here are five issues Democrats must consider to ensure the 2012 victory isn’t squandered.”

How Google embraced and extinguished the RSS industry.

RIP, Henry Gonzales, manager of the pioneering Tejano band La Mafia.

On the plus side, wearing Google Glass while riding in a driverless car would still be legal.

Pro tip: If Ralph Reed is speaking for you, you’re in the wrong.

RIP, Arijit Guha, who put a face on the problem of lifetime insurance limits.

When MTV banned the B-52’s because of the invasion of Iraq.

Regardless of what the Census may say, there are gay people everywhere.

A two-headed shark sounds cool in theory, but probably wouldn’t live very long in reality. But still – two-headed shark!

No, really, marriage equality has nothing to do with polygamy, incest, or bestiality, no matter how much some people would like for that to be true.

“See, Gracie, those of us who believe in same-sex marriage also think if you’re lucky enough to have two parents who love you, then you have every right to say you need them both. In fact, I wish every child were lucky enough to grow up in a safe, stable home with loving parents. And Gracie, that’s why I support same-sex marriage.”

“Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?” If only it were that simple.

More reasons to avoid WalMart, if you need them.

I’ll say again, I’m rooting for BlackBerry to get up off the mat.

All of the wigs worn on “The Americans”.

Good riddance to you, Maggie Gallagher.

RIP, Richard Griffiths, a/k/a Uncle Vernon Dursley.

Ted Cruz sure does lie a lot.

The top ten reasons why Kim Jong-un would want to bomb Austin.

“Obviously we all have free speech. But what people usually want with free speech is the ability to speak their mind and not have people think worse of them for it. And on gay rights if not quite yet on full marriage equality, these folks sense they may be losing that right.”

You have a strange definition of “only”, Bud

Mar 31st, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
6 comments

Or maybe it’s your definition of “logical”, I’m not sure.

But while first-year manager Bo Porter continues to fire up his players and general manager Jeff Luhnow oversees year one of a complete organizational overhaul, many longtime Astros fans continue to criticize the club’s impending American League debut.

MLB commissioner Bud Selig said Tuesday he fully understands fans’ complaints and sympathizes with their pro-National League pull. But Selig told the Houston Chronicle the only “logical choice” for baseball was to relocate the Astros to the AL, and he believes fans won’t question the move five years from now.

“The American League is very attractive,” said the 78-year-old Selig, who plans to retire Dec. 31, 2014. “We had a division number of six (teams) in the National League Central. And all the National League clubs had complained to me for a long time: ‘Commissioner, this isn’t fair. The other (divisions) are either five, and one division only has four.’ … And it made no sense.”

[…]

Selig said the primary reason for the Astros’ AL relocation came down to simple geography. With St. Louis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and the Chicago Cubs in the NL Central, the Astros were the odd team out. According to the commissioner, the Cardinals, Cubs, Brewers and Reds have “tremendous” rivalries. The Astros did not, he said, because of their isolation.

“The teams left in the National League Central all had a geographical (base) – there was a relationship. Houston was sitting down there; there was no relationship,” said Selig, who stressed he made the decision in the best long-term interests of baseball. “And I understand they’ve been in the National League for a long time, and I’m sympathetic to that. But we had to move a team, and … the fact of the matter is when you looked at all the other things that could happen, the only logical thing was for Houston to move. … I didn’t have an alternative.”

I can think of at least three reasonable alternatives, none of which would have necessitated the need for all-season interleague play, as we will now have with an odd number of teams in each league. Note that the Cincinnati Reds get their traditional rival the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim as their Opening Day opponent. Baseball could have done any of the following:

1. Left things as they are. The divisions have been unbalanced since they were created in 1994, with the NL Central having a sixth team since 1998. Why did we hear so little about how “unfair” this was until there arose an opportunity to impose a condition on a somewhat sketchy new buyer? Every team in the NL Central has won the division at least once since 1995 with the exception of the pathetic Pirates, and the number of teams in the division is the least of their issues. I don’t buy the premise that there was a problem that needed to be solved.

2. Expand to 32 teams and go to four four-team divisions in each league. This would solve the balancing issue, and would make scheduling easier to boot. You could use it as an impetus to get rid of that silly interleague play altogether, since all that really does is vary each teams’ strength of schedule, which is a definite competitive liability for some teams each year, and make rainouts harder to make up. There’s plenty of money in baseball these days – the biggest problem is bottom-feeding owners – and no sign of that reversing course any time soon. I’d nominate Montreal as one expansion location, as that might help MLB make up for the grievous sin it committed against them a decade ago; I don’t have a clear favorite for a second franchise location, but there are plenty of potential sites. I can understand why the owners might not want to do this, but it’s surely a logical possibility.

3. Use divisions for scheduling purposes only and ditch them for playoff seeding. This is basically what the NBA does, where the top eight teams in each division qualify for the playoffs and winning your division carries no special benefit. MLB could simply take the four teams with the best record – or the top five, with #4 and #5 playing that one-game death match as they do now for the right to advance – and be done with it. This deals with the “unbalanced division” problem and almost certainly ensures that a team with a losing record cannot make the playoffs. It can’t dilute the concept of a “pennant race” any more than the three-division/wild card setup already has.

So there you have it, three logical alternatives to shifting (or shafting, depending on your perspective), the Astros. Maybe the league switch was the “best” solution by whatever criteria Selig and MLB had, and maybe it was the only solution that could get sufficient political support to actually happen. But it sure wasn’t the only logical solution. So happy Opening Day, at least for those of you who can see it.

Advising the court on redistricting

Mar 31st, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Last Friday, all parties to the Texas redistricting lawsuit submitted their advisories to the San Antonio court, in which they told the court what they think it should do once the Supreme Court has rendered a decision on the Voting Rights Act. You can see what they all had to say there, or you can read Texas Redistricting’s summaries of their positions. Bottom line, there’s a chance that the 2014 primaries could be delayed, and there’s a chance that some or all of the 2012 interim maps could be made permanent. On the subject of the latter, as we know there have been bills filed to make it happen, and we now know that AG Greg Abbott supports that position. We won’t know for several months what the San Antonio court will do, but now we know what the parties in the litigation want them to do. Check it out.

The HPV vaccine

Mar 31st, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

This story about HPV and its vaccine is from a couple of weeks ago, but it needs to be read.

The vaccine that blocks a sexually transmitted infection that causes cervical, oral and other cancers was hailed as a home run when it was approved seven years ago, but, given usage rates, doctors still aren’t sure if it’ll ever live up to the promise and render any of the diseases a shadow of their current lethality.

Instead, doctors are huddling to determine how to improve inoculation rates that hover at 33 percent, a figure attributed to controversy that beset the vaccine from the beginning. The controversy included concerns that the vaccine would encourage premarital sex and Gov. Rick Perry’s 2007 attempt to require it of Texas school girls.

“It’s just wrong that politics should play a role in this,” says Dr. Lois Ramondetta, a University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center gynecologic oncologist who treats cervical cancer, the cancer for which the vaccine initially was approved. “This is the only cancer for which we know an infection is the cause and have a vaccine that prevents it. Getting vaccinated should be a no-brainer.”

The virus also is associated with a number of other cancers that researchers have begun finding are spiking – oral cancers that involve the back of the throat, tonsils and base of the tongue, and cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis and anus. Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, recently referred to the increase as “one of the epidemics of the 21st century.”

[…]

Two vaccines – Gardasil and Cervarix – have been shown to protect against the strains of the virus that cause cervical cancer. Because neither provides any therapeutic benefit once an infection takes hold, the Centers for Disease Control recommends a series of three shots to girls at 11 to 12 years of age.

But it was that recommendation that roiled the waters. A Yale study found parental concern the vaccine could make adolescents less wary of casual sex was the biggest single factor in the decision not to vaccinate.

When Perry issued his order – overturned by the Texas Legislature later that session – making the vaccine mandatory for public school girls, the outcry included not just members of the religious right, but the leadership of the Texas Medical Association, who argued that it should stay voluntary until safety and liability issues were vetted.

“Education needs to come first,” said Dr. Joseph Bocchini at the time, then the chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics chairman of infectious diseases. “Much of the public doesn’t know about HPV and its link to cervical cancer and other diseases. You can’t put a mandate ahead of that.”

The whole controversy over Perry’s order – you can see my blogging about it here was bizarre to me. It’s always strange to see Rick Perry do the right thing, though of course in this case he was motivated in large part by helping one of his cronies, who had a large piece of the company that was going to provide the vaccine. I suppose the backlash was predictable, and Lord knows it would probably be even worse today, but it was still depressing to watch. I remain grateful to Rep. Jessica Farrar for being a voice of reason and compassion throughout the debacle. I wonder how many lives might have been saved if sanity had prevailed. I can only hope the next time this comes up, the needs of the kids will come first.

Saturday video break: Mad World

Mar 30th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Song #25 on the Popdose Top 100 Covers list is “Mad World”, originally by Tears For Fears and covered by Gary Jules. Here’s the original:

Never heard it before. I’ve listened to rock radio for most of my radio-listening life, and back in the 80s the only Tears For Fears songs that got played on rock radio stations were “Shout” and “Everybody Wants To Rule The World”. Later, when 80s music stations became a thing, I’d sometimes hear “Head Over Heels”. I have no memory of ever hearing this song. Here’s the cover:

Nope, still never heard it before, but holy crap that video has 56 million views. Obviously, a lot of other people have heard it before. What’s your preference?

Abbott asks for the interim maps

Mar 30th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Very interesting.

The recently dormant Texas redistricting issue woke up Thursday with a disagreement between the state’s attorney general and a Latino legislators’ group.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has called on the Legislature to make the current — and interim — redistricting maps permanent.

Abbott’s letter to Texas House Speaker Joe Straus — which was dated March 8 and just uncovered by Michael Li, a redistricting expert and author of a redistricting blog — said if the interim maps become permanent, then further intervention from federal courts might not be necessary. That, Abbott’s letter said, could “ensure an orderly election without further delay or uncertainty.”

“Enacting the interim plans into law would confirm the Legislature’s intent for a redistricting plan that fully comports with the law, and will insulate the State’s redistricting plans from further legal challenge,” Abbott wrote.

The Mexican-American Legislative Caucus, or MALC for short, responded in a filing with the San Antonio federal court that approved the interim maps. MALC said the interim maps for the Texas House and the U.S. House of Representatives still might not comply with the U.S. Voting Rights Act.

“The attempt of the State of Texas to circumvent the judicial process through legislation that fails to provide a final remedial redistricting plan for Texas House and Texas Congressional Districts is even more reason for this Court to begin the process that will lead to a final and just remedial plan for future Texas elections,” MALC said in its filing.

Here’s the Texas Redistricting post the story refers to, and the MALC advisory that contains and objects to Abbott’s letter. I had previously noted the earlier Texas Redistricting post that pointed out the late-filed bills to make the interim maps permanent. At the time, I wondered if Republican Sen. Kel Seliger and Rep. Drew Darby had consulted with Abbott about this before they filed. Now I know. What’s curious about this is that Abbott’s intent in appealing the DC court’s ruling that denied preclearance to the Supreme Court was to get the original legislatively-drawn maps enacted for 2014. I’m not sure what he has in mind by changing direction in this way. Is it a hedge against a potentially adverse ruling from SCOTUS, or is there something else to it that I’m not seeing? Burka thinks he’s playing partisan games, but I still can’t see towards what end. Whatever the case, this also answers my question about whether the plaintiffs would accept that deal as insurance against Section 5 being gutted. I can’t wait to see what comes next.

Our drought is severe again

Mar 30th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Not good, y’all.

The situation continues to worsen across the state, with now more than 87 percent of Texas in a moderate or worse drought.

It’s not clear when relief might be coming.

After the very cold start to this week southerly winds have now returned to the Houston metro area, which will bring more clouds and considerably warmer weather beginning [Thursday] and through the weekend.

Unfortunately, as has been the case for much of the last six months, forecasters say a series of disturbances that could bring rain to the area are likely to remain just to the north of the greater Houston region this weekend. We may nonetheless see a little light rain.

Our best chance of rain during the next week or so is likely to come Tuesday when a cold front moves through the area.

So far this has pretty much been the opposite of 2012, and if that doesn’t improve soon it’s going to be an unpleasant summer. If there is a bright side to all this, it’s that current conditions may have acted as a catalyst for the Lege to begin to address the state’s long-term water needs, but that’s of little comfort now. We need some rain, and we need it soon.

Rep. Reynolds indicted for barratry again

Mar 30th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Sheesh.

Rep. Ron Reynolds

Dozens of law enforcement officers simultaneously raided multiple law offices and two chiropractic clinics Monday morning for their alleged involvement in a kickback scheme to sign up clients, according to an I-Team review of court records.

In all, arrest warrants were issued for eight Houston-area lawyers, including State Representative Ron Reynolds. They are charged with barratry, commonly known as “ambulance chasing,” a third degree felony punishable by up to ten years in prison a $10,000 fine.

Reynolds and the other attorneys are accused of paying kickbacks to Robert Valdez, the alleged ringleader of the operation. Prosecutors said Valdez routinely scour accident reports, then approach and aggressively persuade crash victims to sign contracts for legal representation.

“We have information from a confidential informant, that Ron Reynolds delivered cash in envelopes to Mr. Valdez, in exchange for referring clients to him on numerous occasions,” said Phil Grant, First Assistant Montgomery County District Attorney.

Reynolds faced the same charge in Harris County last summer, but the case was dropped after the lead investigator faced some personal legal troubles that potentially tainted the case.

“It appears that Representative Reynolds stepped away from this organization during the period of time he was charged in Harris County,” Grant said.

“After his case was dismissed, it appears that he got right back in,” he said.

Montgomery County prosecutors picked up the case because Valdez is a resident, and a confidential informant there provided extensive documentation of the alleged scheme. Grant said records indicate a simple fender would fetch $600 in kickbacks, while a commercial vehicle accident commanded $6000 or more. Additionally, Valdez is accused of steering patients to two chiropractic clinics in Northeast Houston, which he partially owned.

“He was working both ends of the scheme,” Grant said. “He was getting kickbacks allegedly from the attorneys, but he was also making a lucrative amount of money from trumping up medical treatments for individuals who had been in car accidents.”

There’s video at that link, and there’s more from the Chron. As noted, the previous indictment against Rep. Reynolds was dropped in February after an investigator in the Harris County DA’s office that had been assigned to Reynolds’ case was arrested and charged with stealing collectible comic books that had been evidence in another case. The Harris County DA’s office has been eliminating evidence that had been discovered by that investigator and another that was arrested and dropping charges in cases where insufficient evidence remained; Rep. Reynolds’ case was the first to be dismissed because of this. Via his Facebook page, Rep. Reynolds put out this statement:

“This warrant and inquiry comes on the heels of my clearance from barratry charges in Harris County, and my office is fully cooperating with investigators regarding this matter as well,” said Rep. Reynolds. “I will fight diligently to prove my innocence.”

Strictly speaking, he wasn’t cleared – the charges were dismissed due to a lack of untainted evidence against him. Rep. Reynolds remains innocent until proven guilty, and I hope these charges turn out to be unfounded, but good Lord this looks bad. I’ve met Rep. Reynolds, I like him personally and I wish him luck in defending himself, but regardless of the outcome in this case, someone needs to provide the voters of HD27 an alternative choice in the next Democratic primary.

Friday random ten: Fifty states of random, part 2

Mar 29th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Following up on last week, our musical tour of the United States continues.

1. Massachusetts – Greg Greenaway
2. There’s A Panther In Michigan – Trout Fishing In America
3. Montana – Frank Zappa
4. Minnesota 1945 – Eddie From Ohio
5. A Crazy Little Tune – Nevada Newman
6. A Night With The Jersey Devil – Bruce Springsteen
7. Fairytale of New York – The Pogues featuring Kirsty MacColl
8. North Dakota – Lyle Lovett
9. Men Of Ohio – Trinity University Wind Symphony
10. Oklahoma Home – Elana James

Technically, Nevada Newman is a singer and not a song title, but this is my list and Nevada is a state, so there. All three of my New Jersey songs just have “Jersey” in the title, which speaking as a New York native is good enough for me. (The other two songs, in case you’re wondering, are “No Left Turns In Jersey”, by Eddie from Ohio, and “Jersey Girl”, also by Springsteen. If the term “jug handle” means anything to you, you will get the reference of the title to the EFO song.) I’ll have to go back and check to see if I have more songs with “New York” in the title than I do songs with “Texas” in the title. Unlike New Jersey, no one ever drops the “New” in “New York”.

Feds bypass the state on Title X funds

Mar 29th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

Very interesting.

The federal government announced [Monday] that it would no longer award a large slice of federal family-planning funds to the state of Texas. Instead, the feds will award the $6.5 million grant to the Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, a coalition of providers led by Fran Hagerty, to distribute to clinics for birth control, wellness exams, STD screenings and other family planning services.

The Observer reported in November that the coalition would apply directly to the federal government for the grant—called Title X (Title 10).

Before today, the sole grantee for Texas’ Title X funds had been the Texas Department of State Health Services. The health department had in turn distributed the grant money to family planning providers statewide. In 2011, the Title X grant had been part of $111.5 million available to the state for family-planning services.

But the 2011 Legislature slashed family planning funding by two thirds, causing more than 60 clinics to close and cutting in half the number of Texans receiving services through Title X, according to an annual review by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

The collateral damage wrought by this decision has been widespread. Many of the providers in Hagerty’s coalition had lost state family-planning funds and are struggling to stay open. Though they still received other government health funding, the loss of Title X grant money had been keenly felt. Unlike other state funding streams, the Title X grant had allowed providers to cast privacy protection over all of their clients. This is especially important for teens that would otherwise need parental consent to access birth control. The Title X grant also allowed clinics to buy pharmaceutical drugs at a steep discount, and gave them the flexibility to invest in staff and infrastructure. Losing the Title X money and the flexibility that came with it had seriously destabilized the family planning safety net across Texas and reduced low-income women’s access to birth control and preventive care.

The federal government in turn decided that Hagerty’s group would be a better steward of Title X.

The Texas Department of State Health Services had sponsored 40 providers that operated a total of 122 clinics. Hagerty’s coalition will distribute the Title X money to 34 contractors operating 121 clinics across the state, beginning next month. Hagerty said in an email that she doesn’t yet know how much the three-year budget will be due to uncertainty over federal budget cuts.

“WHFPT and [the Department of State Health Services] must work together to improve the health status of all Texans,” Hagerty wrote. “We are all ready and eager for this opportunity to provide family planning care for Texas families.”

Trail Blazers, the Trib, and the AusChron also reported on this, with the latter recapping some more of the history of this coalition and noting that Planned Parenthood is a member of it. I blogged about the Observer’s reporting in November as well. Not surprisingly, the powers that be in Texas didn’t take this well.

Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday called a decision by the Obama administration to send a $6.5 million federal family planning grant to a Texas coalition of women’s clinics, rather than a state agency, “a clear attempt to circumvent the will of the Texas taxpayers and impose their own values on the people of Texas.”

His criticism of the White House at a Texas Faith and Family Day rally at the state Capitol was echoed by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who claimed the decision would “line the pockets of Planned Parenthood.”

[…]

egarding the grant announced this week, Fran Hagerty, CEO of the Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, said she believes her group won the competition because it demonstrated it could serve more women than the state agency’s program. The association promised to serve some 160,000 women next year, while the state’s program reached only 65,000 last year because of rules limiting what kinds of health entities could access the funds. She also said that only two of the 34 clinics in her association are affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

“Nobody is making money off of anything,” Hagerty said. “It’s not possible. People do this work because they care.”

Hagerty noted that in 2011, the Texas Legislature cut $73 million from the budget’s family planning programs, forcing some 50 women’s health clinics across the state to close. Health and Human Services Commission analysts have estimated the family planning cuts would result in 24,000 more births to low-income mothers, at a cost of as much as $273 million more in spending by the state, mostly in Medicaid expenses, over the next budget cycle.

“We are hoping to go back and reopen clinics,” she said. None of the 34 clinics that will get the grant money provide abortions. “They provide high-quality family planning.”

Blake Rocap, legislative counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, praised the decision by the Obama administration and argued that rules adopted by the Legislature should not apply because “it’s not Texas’ money.”

“They submitted a more competitive bid than the state agency,” he said. “Is the state afraid of a little free-market competition?”

Ouch. As I said back then, this is good news for the coalition since it will not have to put up with the state’s BS for these funds. Lord knows, with the way the Lege continues to screw with Planned Parenthood and women’s health in general, any degree of freedom is good. I wouldn’t count on it long-term, since there’s no guarantee the federal government won’t someday be as reactionary and anti-woman as the 2011 Lege was, but it’ll do for now. The hysterical reaction from Perry et al is strong evidence that this was the right call.

More details on the House budget

Mar 29th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Consider this to be written in pencil, because it’s going to change.

More than $1.6 billion and disagreements on how much Texas should spend on public education and Medicaid separate the budgets proposed by the House and Senate.

The Senate budget proposal, passed 29-2 by the upper chamber last week, spends $195.5 billion, a 2.9 percent increase from the current two-year budget. The House budget, which is scheduled for a vote on the House floor on April 4, spends $193.8 billion, a 2.1 percent increase.

While the House budget is smaller, it spends nearly $1 billion more on public education. The Senate plan spends $604 million more on higher education.

The Senate also invests $2.1 billion more in health and human services. A large portion of that extra spending, $974.5 million, covers projected growth in costs associated with Medicaid such as more Texans enrolling in the program and general medical cost inflation. The House budget does not address those costs.

“Our bill does not include cost growth, does not include rate increases, and we need to address those things,” state Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie and the chamber’s chief budget writer, said last week.

Assuming the House proposal passes that chamber, members from both the House and Senate will meet in conference committee to resolve differences between the two plans.

The final product is likely to be larger than what either side has proposed. Neither budget addresses large shortfalls in transportation or water funding, two issues many lawmakers have discussed tackling this session. Legislators have also said they are considering additional spending on tax reform and further reversing last session’s public education cuts.

Lawmakers are also waiting on an updated revenue projection from Comptroller Susan Combs. If she tells them there is more revenue available than what she estimated in January, lawmakers may feel more comfortable spending more.

As the story notes, don’t be fooled by the graphic for higher education. There was an accounting change that makes it look like there was a cut, but in actuality there’s more money being appropriated, so that’s good. The budget still isn’t where it needs to be to account for growth and need, and we suffered needlessly for two years thanks to Comptroller Combs’ lousy revenue forecast, but things are better and that’s no doubt why this session has been less contentious so far. I do believe the House will account for Medicaid and the Senate will bump up its public education spending, with both being abetted by a higher revenue projection for the biennium. Beyond that, watch for the usual shenanigans in the amendment and rider process.

Water infrastructure bill passes

Mar 29th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

This is good.

The Texas House on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to create a revolving, low-interest loan program to help finance a new round of reservoirs, pipelines and other water-supply projects for the drought-stricken state.

Lawmakers approved House Bill 4 on a 146-2 vote, but left the question of how much seed money to provide the program for another day.

State Rep. Allan Ritter, a Nederland Republican who filed the bill, said a $2 billion capitalization could finance the state’s entire longrange water plan, which identifies 562 projects over the next half-century to satisfy the demands of a rapidly growing population.

The startup money would come from the state’s unencumbered Rainy Day Fund under separate legislation filed by Ritter. His HB 11 is pending in a House subcommittee on budget transparency and reform.

Ritter said the new fund could leverage $27 billion over the next 50 years for water-related infrastructure. The loan program, as designed, would allow the state to continue lending money for projects as earlier loans are paid back.

“This will work,” Ritter told House members to close a four-hour debate.

See here for some background on this program, which is called SWIFT, the State Water Infrastructure Fund for Texas. The good news about this is that conservation efforts were made an explicit part of SWIFT, and the forces of nihilism were beaten back, at least for the day. The Observer explains.

Despite the bill’s easy passage (there were 146 ‘ayes’ and just two ‘nos’), tea party-oriented members launched a challenge to key provisions in the bill-and spectacularly failed in what was another defeat for ideological enforcers like Michael Quinn Sullivan and Texans for Prosperity’s Peggy Venable, whose involvement in the spoiler effort lurked just beneath the surface of the debate.

Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford) led an effort to remove a key water-conservation provision. HB 4 has earned the support of some conservationists because Ritter included a stipulation that at least 20 percent of the funding go toward water conservation. King’s amendment would’ve gutted that requirement. King’s fellow legislators didn’t buy it though; the amendment was killed with a vote of 104 to 41.

Rep. Van Taylor’s (R-Plano) proposed amendments didn’t go over so well either. Taylor, for one, wanted to ban the transfer of Rainy Day Fund money to get the water bank rolling.

Rep. Lyle Larson (R-San Antonio), in a moment of political drama, called Taylor out for being what he called “disingenuous.” He asked Taylor if, should his proposed amendment pass, he intended to vote for HB 4. Taylor replied that he would still not vote for the bill.

Larson blew up. “If you’re not going to vote for the bill and you’re offering up amendments, I think everyone in this body needs to recognize that. The idea of an amendment is to make the bill better … and what you’re doing I believe is disingenuous, to step up and offer amendments for political reasons, to try to gain some kind of favor instead of trying to make the bill legitimately better.” The House shot Taylor’s amendment down with a vote of 127 to 18.

Good for you, Rep. Larson. There are legitimate questions about using the Rainy Day Fund for this purpose, but that’s not where Rep. Taylor was coming from. The puppet masters behind his amendment were as always primarily interested in spending as little money as possible on anything, regardless of its merit or value. If the startup funds for SWIFT come out of general revenue instead of the Rainy Day Fund, there’s that much less money for other things, like schools and Medicaid and everything else. It was a bad amendment, offered in bad faith, and it got what it deserved. But that won’t be the end of it, because there’s a separate bill (HB11) to authorize the transfer of funds from the RDF, and of course the Senate hasn’t discussed its companion bill yet. There are still plenty of opportunities for the forces of darkness to do their thing. PDiddie and the Trib have more.

Are we getting close to a Dome decision?

Mar 29th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

Maybe by the end of the year. But don’t rush County Judge Ed Emmett, who has a few things to say about that study that claimed it would be cheaper than originally reported to demolish the Astrodome.

Still cheaper to renovate than the real thing

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett put that study with all the ones that have been done over the past decade.

“We’re far from making that decision. Commissioner’s Court has to decide what to do with the Dome, and we are all pretty much chewing on the (Harris County) Sports and Convention Corporation saying, ‘Give us the best ideas because we do have to move forward.’ But if the decision were to be made that the Dome would somehow come down, we’d have to go out for bids. So I mean, a study doesn’t do us any good on that.”

If anything, the latest study has renewed interest in transforming the Dome, but he says the lingering question remains:

“What’s the revenue stream that’s gonna support whatever the idea is and that’s what Commissioner’s Court’s gonna have to decide. Once we decide what to do with the Astrodome, the Harris County Domed Stadium, then you start asking the question: How much will it cost and who’s gonna pay for it? And if it involves taxpayer dollars, then the taxpayers are gonna get to have a say on that.”

Emmett says he expects the Harris County Sports & Convention Corporation to contribute to the discussion.

“They know that they’re kind of under the gun to come up with a suggestion as to what the best idea is, and my guess is that they’ll bring options to Commissioner’s Court and Commissioner’s Court will vote.”

There’s audio at the link above. Judge Emmett is hoping that the Sports & Convention folks can present something by the end of the year, in which case we the taxpayers get to have our say on it in 2014. I can hardly wait. Texas Leftist has more.

House passes major changes to testing and graduation requirements

Mar 28th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

This is a big deal.

Texas public high school students would face far fewer high-stakes exams and gain more freedom in choosing courses under a major education bill approved by the state House on Tuesday.

Hours of debate among lawmakers centered on whether the state was giving students much-needed flexibility or scaling back too far – eliminating an Algebra II class as a standard graduation requirement, for example.

The bill, which is similar to proposals in the Senate, says students would have to pass five end-of-course exams to graduate, down from 15. It also scraps the default requirement that students take four years of math and science courses.

Supporters say House Bill 5 would decrease dropouts, letting students take more meaningful vocational classes that will prepare them for jobs after high school if they decide against college.

“I believe this is good policy. I think most people in Texas believe this is good policy,” Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen, said after his bill passed following nearly nine hours of discussion.

[…]

The legislation would end the three-tiered diploma system that kept some students on the lowest level from being admitted into most colleges.

All students now would have to complete a “foundation” curriculum that includes four years of English and three years each of math, science and social studies.

Students could add on “endorsements” by taking courses in a speciality: business and industry; science, technology, engineering and math; public services; arts and humanities; or a mixture. Those students also would have to take a fourth math class, meant to raise the rigor, under an amendment from Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas.

Students who complete an endorsement and take four years of science and math, including Algebra II, would meet the “distinguished” standard.

The Statesman notes the main issue debated during the daylong discussion of this bill, led by Rep. Mark Strama, who was one of only two votes against it.

A bipartisan coalition of members led by Strama argued that the state would be backing away from the rigorous requirements that have produced results, particularly among low-income and minority students, in the name of giving students flexibility.

“Every conversation I’ve had for months has revolved and swirled around this issue,” Aycock said.

Under current law, the 4×4 curriculum is the default graduation plan for all students unless they opt for a minimum plan requiring fewer credits for graduation that doesn’t qualify the student for a four-year college.

Strama put forth an amendment that would make the default plan under House Bill 5 the “distinguished diploma,” which is close to the 4×4 plan and a prerequisite to qualify for automatic college admission under the state’s top 10-percent law.

The distinguished diploma requires four years of science and math, including Algebra 2, rather than the three years called for in the “foundation diploma.” Algebra 2 is seen by many educators as a key indicator of whether a student is ready for college.

“We should assume all of them want a college prep curriculum and are capable of it, and let them decide if they don’t,” Strama said.

Higher Education Committee Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas, signed on to Strama’s amendment and said he was concerned that looser requirements might be sending the state in the “slightly wrong direction,” away from ensuring students are prepared for the 21st century economy.

Forcing students to choose between an upper and lower track would stigmatize the foundation diploma as the lesser option when that isn’t the intention, said Aycock and his allies.

“It would have all these students have to admit at the very beginning of school: ‘I can’t hack this. I have to drop down to a lower level in order to get through high school,’” state Rep. Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, said of Strama’s amendment.

After nearly 90 minutes of debate, Strama’s amendment was set aside on a 97-50 vote.

Bill McKenzie, for one, heartily approved of Strama’s amendment. Strama explains his No vote here, and it’s worth your time to read it.

In a preview story, the Trib expanded on these concerns.

Over the past several years, Texas has had “significant gains among all students, especially those of low income backgrounds,” in college and career preparation, said Sonia Troche, the Texas regional director of La Raza. “What they are doing now is actually helping.”

Primary among the concerns of opponents like Troche is a provision that would do away with the state’s so-called 4X4 graduation plan, which requires four years of courses in math, science, social studies and English. Instead, students would complete a “foundation” program with four credits in English, three in math, two in science, three in social studies and then they would earn “endorsements” by completing five credits in areas of study like humanities, science, engineering, technology and math, or business and industry.

The array of choices available to students could prove difficult to navigate for low-income and minority students whose parents are not acquainted with the system because of language or educational barriers, Troche said. Under the current plan, the default is a diploma that requires all of the courses needed for college readiness. The proposal would also reduce the number of end-of-course exams students must from 15 to five total tests, one each in reading, writing, biology, algebra I and U.S. history.

“To a family that may not know all the details, they might think their son or daughter just graduated from high school and are now eligible for college,” Troche said. “But, in fact, if they did an endorsement type of program and graduated from high school but didn’t complete all the required courses, they would have a high school diploma, but would not ready to go to college.”

[…]

State education officials like Higher Education Coordinating Board Commissioner Raymund Paredes and Texas Education Commissioner Michael Williams have joined Shapiro and Troche in sounding an alarm about the proposed changes.

Paredes said in a February interview that even if there are currently high-paying jobs in fields that do not require post-secondary education, the job opportunities for those without a college degree continue to dwindle.

“There’s an increasing amount of information that suggests career technical education is going to be done increasingly in two-year institutions, because once again, the demands of advanced manufacturing jobs and high skilled industrial jobs are growing,” he said.

High school, Paredes said, needs to prepare students to be successful in that setting.

At a Senate hearing Monday, Williams said he would recommend the number of required end-of-course exams to be reduced to eight — three more than under the HB 5 plan in either geometry or algebra II, world history or geography, and chemistry or physics. In remarks delivered around the state, he also said he does not support moving away from the 4X4 curriculum.

See Burka for more on that. I don’t agree much with the Texas Association of Business, which has been among the most stalwart supporters of the STAAR tests, to the point of hostage taking, but this is a valid concern, and it tracks with what I’ve been hearing from people who actually work in schools. Raise Your Hand Texas on the other hand seems pleased with HB5. I’m not sure what to make of all this just yet.

Rep. Harold Dutton knows what he makes of it.

No Child Left Behind, and its precursor Texas system, was created to make sure that, well, no child was left behind. But to Dutton’s way of thinking, no version of accountability, past to present, has touched the lives of African-American males in the Texas school system. So Dutton, being Dutton, proposed our accountability system be based solely on the progress of African-American males.

Aw, ever the jokester, that Dutton. On the floor, near the tail end of yesterday’s debate, Dutton talked about the dominance of African-American males in the state jails, county jails and the probation system.

“What’s the one thing they have in common, other than their race? You know what that one thing in common is?” Dutton asked from the front microphone of the House. “The TEAMS test didn’t help them. The TAAS test didn’t help them. The TAKS test didn’t help them. The end-of-course exams didn’t help them, and the reality is that House Bill 5 is not going to help them, either, unless we do something about it.”

And Dutton’s idea of doing something about it would be to judge school districts by how they teach the children on the bottom rung of academic progress. Needless to say, he didn’t get a lot of support in the House.

Not a lot of big-money lobbyists for that, I’m afraid.

The Observer tracked the amendments that were proposed for HB5.

The amended bill includes new requirements that STAAR tests be given later in the year—no sooner than the third week of May—and that copies of the test be released annually instead of every three years. (Strama introduced both of those.)

Amendments approved back-to-back by Rep. Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont) and Rep. Chris Turner (D-Arlington) would bar anyone working for a test contractor like Pearson from making political contributions or serving on advisory committees for the state. The amendments appear targeted at Pearson lobbyist Sandy Kress, who serves on a Texas Education Agency committee on accountability.

Rep. Mike Villarreal (D-San Antonio) tacked on an amendment limiting the benchmark tests school districts can give to two benchmarks per STAAR test. The House also approved his amendment that requiring a review of the bill’s effects on graduation rates and college readiness.

Villarreal said he supports HB 5 because he’s seen how vocational opportunities help students in his district. He said some students who otherwise wouldn’t be interested in school get to see how classroom concepts apply to the real world, and find high-paying jobs after graduation.

Rep. Diane Patrick (R-Arlington) voted for the bill, but tried in vain to add protections for rural students in small schools, who she worried wouldn’t have enough course options to finish one of the “endorsements” required for a distinguished diploma.

“My concern is that we have created a plan that is not available, not attainable to all students,” Patrick said. Some representatives suggested distance learning would solve that problem.

Strama sparked the day’s toughest debate around noon, with a proposal to make the college-ready “distinguished” path the default for students, reflecting concerns from higher ed leaders and some Latino and African-American members that HB 5 would leave too many minority students unprepared for college. Strama’s amendment failed, and he eventually voted against the bill.

After the vote, Strama told the Observer that while there are many issues with standardized testing in Texas, the problems are with the execution of the tests and not with the number of end-of course exams.

“I’m afraid that in the upper level coursework we’re going to have wildly varying degrees of rigor and achievement across the state,” he said. “It is more important than ever that we measure kids with one yardstick.”

As the state’s low-income population continues to grow, Strama said it’s more important that students in poor schools are held to the same tough standards as all students.

“If we can’t get those kids to pass these tests, we’re going to pay a high price, and saying they don’t have to pass the test isn’t going to solve the problem,” Strama said.

Here’s a press release from Rep. Villarreal on his amendments. Like I said, I’m still thinking about all this. To say the least, it’s a big and complicated subject, and I don’t claim any particular expertise. I am certain that there will be differences with the Senate bill, and there will be much horse-trading in conference committee. Reducing the number of exams, and aligning them with college admissions makes sense to me. Providing viable alternate paths to high school graduation that prepare kids for a professional career and aren’t viewed as lesser achievements is a good idea, too. I feel confident that whatever we do this session, we’ll be revisiting it next session, and likely again after that.

Craft beer bills pass out of the Senate

Mar 28th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

A good day indeed.

The Texas Senate voted Monday to give craft brewers and brewpubs new opportunities to sell their beer.

“To see that happen was amazing,” said Scott Metzger, a San Antonio brewpub owner who worked with other brewers, legislators and wholesalers in negotiating a compromise.

Brock Wagner, owner of Houston’s Saint Arnold Brewing, called it a critical step toward passage of the state’s most significant beer-related legislation in 20 years.

“We still have a path to follow,” he said.

Metzger watched via his office computer at Freetail Brewing as the Senate voted 31-0 to approve two bills promoted by the Texas Craft Brewers Guild. An economic impact study Metzger prepared for the guild predicts the measures will spark even stronger growth for the state’s burgeoning craft beer industry.

[…]

Rick Donley, president of the Beer Alliance of Texas distributors group, which supported SB 515 and 518 from the beginning, called it “a good day for the craft-brewing industry,” including manufacturers and wholesalers.

As Metzger noted, SBs 516 and 517 were not taken up because the Senate can only vote on so many bills on a single day at this point in the session. They were subsequently passed unanimously on Wednesday. SB639, the Carona bill, was also approved after some modifications were made that settled most of the objections to it. All bills now await hearings in the House, and signs look good for passage. Put some beer in the fridge in anticipation of it finally happening.

Metro’s bus strategy

Mar 28th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

We know that the 2012 Metro referendum was intended to help Metro boost ridership by improving and expanding its bus service. Metro Board member Christof Spieler explains what that means.

First, in many cases, transit doesn’t go to the right places. Over time, Houston’s population has shifted as the urban core has redeveloped, older suburbs have changed, and new areas have appeared. But the local bus system, with routes that trace their origins to Houston’s streetcar network of the 1920s, has not changed. Nor has it adapted to a city that now has multiple job centers: It connects well to downtown and the Texas Medical Center, but not as well to Greenway Plaza and Uptown.

Second, our bus system discourages new riders. Where routes are frequent and clear, as on West­heimer, buses are packed. But buses on most routes are infrequent, so you need to plan your life around their schedules. They’re complicated, jumping from one street to another and branching to multiple destinations rather than following straightforward, predictable paths. They’re also hard to understand: Nothing at a typical bus stop tells you which destinations a route serves, which direction a bus is going, or how frequent the buses are.

The system works well for people who make the same trip at the same time every day. For everyone else, it can be intimidating. As a frequent bus rider, I understand why people who want to use public transportation can’t figure out how to use the local bus system.

So, we are starting with a blank sheet to create a more effective bus system. Rather than follow past practices of just tweaking today’s routes, we’re going to look at where people live and where people work, and then design the system that serves them best.

The first step is defining what our goals are. This isn’t simple. It appears obvious that we want to move as many people as possible and serve as many places as possible. But those are actually contradictory goals. To cover as much area as possible, we would need to reduce the bus frequency in the areas with the highest number of potential riders. This dramatically reduces ridership. These are not easy policy trade-offs, but we need to acknowledge them and make thoughtful decisions.

We can’t make those decisions without involving the public. We’ll talk with the community to learn what their priorities are, then develop a network to address those priorities. A task force representing neighborhoods, employment centers, educational institutions, health care facilities, local governments and other stakeholders will drive the process. At every step, we’ll have opportunities for public participation – including surveys and online forums.

This is all very sensible, and if you get a chance to hear Christof talk about this stuff in person as I have, I guarantee you’ll come away a believer. I’d like to see some metrics established along the way so we’ll know what Metro’s goals are for ridership and how they’re doing with them. If you get the chance, try to attend one or more of the upcoming engagement sessions, since this affects you whether you ride buses or just benefit from the lower traffic that would result from more people riding them.

On a related note, the Chron approves of Uptown’s plan for a BRT line.

Without traffic solutions, Uptown’s new offices and residences will undermine the area’s livability. So it makes perfect sense that Uptown Houston is taking matters into its own hands, and we’re pleased that Metro is on board – viewing the plan as a partner rather than a competitor.

The $177.5 million project will create an exclusive right-of-way for large buses that will act more like light rail, without the rail, running from the planned Westpark Transit Center near U.S. 59 up to the Northwest Transit Center at Interstate 10, traveling along feeder roads and an expanded Post Oak Boulevard. These paths could even eventually be upgraded to rail.

Linking the system with the Metro transit centers will provide some much needed transportation options for Uptown commuters, who are distinctly underserved by Metro’s park-and-ride system. Uptown has 15 percent of Houston’s Class A office space, but only three percent of Metro’s daily park-and-ride buses.

See here for the background. I hope Uptown makes some accommodation for bicycles on the BRT vehicles, and in general as part of a balanced solution for dealing with all that traffic. And as the Chron notes, I hope the completion of this line serves as a catalyst and a pressure point for getting the University Line going.

Texas blog roundup for the week of March 25

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

The Texas Progressive Alliance roots for underdogs regardless of the bracket effect as it brings you this week’s roundup.

(more…)

The politics of refusing Medicaid expansion

Mar 27th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

Ron Brownstein posits that by his stubborn and increasingly isolated resistance to Medicaid expansion, including via the Arkansas option, Rick Perry is putting Republicans in electoral danger in Texas. Brownstein runs through the economic arguments and touches on the legislative action so far, then gets to the big finish:

It’s constitutional – deal with it

Rejecting the federal money might not pose an immediate political threat to Texas Republicans, whose coalition revolves around white voters responsive to small-government arguments. But renouncing the money represents an enormous gamble for Republicans with the growing Hispanic community, which is expected to approach one-third of the state’s eligible voters in 2016. Hispanics would benefit most from expansion because they constitute 60 percent of the state’s uninsured. A jaw-dropping 3.6 million Texas Hispanics lack insurance.

Texas Democrats are too weak to much affect the Medicaid debate. But if state Republicans reject federal money that could insure 1 million or more Hispanics, they could provide Democrats with an unprecedented opportunity to energize those voters—the key to the party’s long-term revival. With rejection, says Democratic state Rep. Rafael Anchia of Dallas, Republicans “would dig themselves into an even deeper hole with the Hispanic community.”

In 1994, California Republican Gov. Pete Wilson mobilized his base by promoting Proposition 187, a ballot initiative to deny services to illegal immigrants. He won reelection that year—and then lost the war as Hispanics stampeded from the GOP and helped turn the state lastingly Democratic. Texas Republicans wouldn’t be threatened as quickly, but they may someday judge their impending decision on expanding Medicaid as a similar turning point.

Color me less than overwhelmed. I agree that Perry’s intransigence is a dilemma for the Republicans in the Legislature and at local levels that want to get something done, and I certainly agree that Democrats should hammer him for it. I’m sure Battleground Texas would love to start off the 2014 election season with a Democratic base that’s already fired up and ready to vote on this. But that sort of motivation can work for both sides, and if it becomes a matter of tribal identity then all the rational arguments go out the window. A more interesting question is whether Perry’s strident opposition would affect Greg Abbott’s candidacy if Perry steps aside. Abbott is of course as violently opposed to all things related to the Affordable Care Act as Perry is, but he’s just not as visible. As we saw in 2010 and 2006, there’s a not-insignificant number of Republicans willing to vote against Perry in a November election. I presume most of them would switch back for Abbott, and it’s not clear to me if this issue would affect Abbott in any significant way. Maybe Tom Pauken can stir things up by being Mister Pragmatic and making a play for the Ed Emmett types – it’s a longshot strategy to say the least, but he’s not going to out-wingnut either Perry or Abbott, so what the hell. It would undoubtedly help him if Republicans would figure out just what it is they want out of a Medicaid deal, but there is time for that.

Anyway. I just don’t know how this plays out. Among other things, the Dems need to find a credible candidate for Governor who can make the case that Perry and Abbott’s obstruction is hurting the state. Without that, this is all so much trivia. Ed Kilgore and Burka have more.

SCOTUS same-sex marriage cases likely won’t affect Texas

Mar 27th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

Not yet, anyway. But it’s a matter of time.

On the right side of history

Charles “Rocky” Rhodes is a professor at South Texas College of Law. He says the case that involves the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is narrowly focused.

“The provision of DOMA that’s under challenge here is the aspect of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from providing any kind of federal benefits or federal recognition to a couple who is married legally, a same sex couple, married legally under that state’s law.”

Rhodes says the other provision of DOMA that gets a lot of attention, the one covers how states deal with gay marriages performed elsewhere, is not in dispute in this particular case.

“So it will not invalidate Texas’ prohibition right now on recognizing any kind of marriage from another state in which there are legally-married same-sex couples.”

That’s even if the court decides the federal government has to give the same benefits and recognition to married gay couples as it does to married straight couples.

[…]

Rhodes says the main issue in the Prop 8 case is whether California violated the federal Constitution by outlawing same-sex marriages, after those marriages had been allowed for period of time.

“Other arguments focus on the fact that there really isn’t any reason to have a domestic partnership or civil union law that gives all the rights of marriage, without actually going ahead and granting same-sex marriage rights to same-sex couples. So those narrow arguments wouldn’t apply to Texas.”

But Rhodes says there is one, albeit unlikely, scenario in which the Prop 8 case could change the way Texas handles same-sex marriage. And that’s if the justices decide gay couples have the right to marriage under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which would apply to all states.

“And, therefore, anything contrary in the state laws, or the state constitutions, would be null and void. If that broader holding was adopted, Texas would have to start granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and grant divorces to same-sex couples.”

See SCOTUSBlog on the Obama administration’s position regarding DOMA and on the Court’s five options for the Prop 8 case, and Wonkblog for more. The Justice Department is arguing for a ruling that would affect California and the eight other states that provide same-sex couples with basically all of the rights of marriage in the latter. At this point, the most likely outcome in the Prop 8 case appears to be SCOTUS deciding that the Prop 8 proponents had no standing to appeal the lower court ruling, meaning that Prop 8 stays dead without any effect outside California; the DOMA case is to be argued today. But assuming that SCOTUS does strike down DOMA and Prop 8 in some fashion, I believe that it’s just a matter of time before some other lawsuit gets filed that will bring about the death of anti-gay marriage laws in Texas and elsewhere. While bills have been filed in this legislative session to remedy the situation in Texas, I don’t see that happening any time soon, if ever. Despite the greatly improved standing for marriage equality in Texas, the sad fact that this bit of bigotry was carved into our constitution means that it can’t be repealed by a simple majority vote in the Legislature. It will take another constitutional amendment, which means that a one-third minority in either chamber can kill it. I think the next generation of litigation will hit the Supreme Court before attitudes have changed enough to overcome that. Again, though, let’s see what the Court actually does with these cases first. We’ll know what the next steps are once these steps have been taken.

Endorsement watch: Planned Parenthood gets an early start

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

From the inbox on Friday:

Today the Board of Directors of the Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast ACTION FUND Inc, (PPGCAF) voted to endorse the following candidates for the November City Election. Each of the endorsed candidates has demonstrated a strong commitment to the health and well being of Texas women and families. PPGCAF encourages all Houston registered voters to cast their ballot for candidates who support women’s health education, information and services. 

 

  • Annise Parker for Mayor
  • Ronald Green for Controller
  • Stephen Costello for Houston City Council At-Large Pos. 1
  • C.O. Brad Bradford for Houston City Council At-Large Position 4
  • Jerry Davis for Houston City Council District B
  • Ellen Cohen for Houston City Council District C
  • Ed Gonzalez for Houston City Council District H
  • Mike Laster for Houston City Council District J
  • Larry Green for Houston City Council District K
  • Anna Eastman for HISD Board of Trustees District I

A copy of the release is here. I’m still a little too focused on the legislative session to pay that much attention to the city elections, but I’m not going to let a slate like this pass by without notice. The only mild surprise on this list is CM Costello, who started out as a Republican in good standing but who has been a pragmatic moderate in office. He drew a challenge from the right in 2011 and will likely draw another this time around, but he was still viewed with considerable skepticism by left-leaning groups despite winning numerous endorsements from Democratic clubs. It’ll be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out this time around.

The PPGCAF will likely have more endorsements to make as the open seat contests come into greater focus; it’s possible they’ll take a side against an incumbent or two, depending on who files for what. I’ll be curious to see if they take a position in At Large #2, where CM Andrew Burks is a Democrat but will almost surely face a strong challenge or two. The same is true for HIDS Trustee Larry Marshall. Speaking of HISD, Anna Eastman now has an opponent, Hugo Mojica, who ran in the special election for District H in 2009. As I noted before, there are currently no open seats in HISD. Campos had an update on who’s filed designations of treasurer so far. Needless to say, that list is a work in progress. This is as good a time as any to ask what rumors and rumblings you’ve heard lately. Leave a comment and let us know.

From the “What’s it to you”? department

Mar 27th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Freshman Rep. Drew Springer likes meddling in other people’s business.

Ironically, the mask was made from recycled plastic bags

Austin’s recycling director urged the Legislature on Wednesday night to allow the city’s plastic bag ordinance to continue without state interference.

Bob Gedert, director of Austin Resource Recovery, told the House Committee on Urban Affairs that he had visited 300 store managers in the past three weeks and that the ban on using the bags is going smoothly.

“They are adapting very well,” Gedert said.

The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2416 that the author, state Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, calls the “Shopping Bag Freedom Act” because it would outlaw bag bans such as the one passed by the Austin City Council.

“This is a decision by a local community,” Gedert said. “Please respect that.”

What business is it of the Legislature, you may wonder, to tell the city of Austin – or any of the other Texas cities that have passed bag bans – that they cannot deal with their litter problem in this fashion? Why, it’s all about your God-given freedom to clog your city’s drainage system. The Observer explains.

You’ve probably heard about Rep. Drew Springer’s ”Shopping Bag Freedom Act” by now. Springer’s proposal to outlaw local plastic shopping bag bans has gotten plenty of attention in Texas and from national media.

Springer filed his bill days after Austin began banning plastic shopping bags earlier this month, following the environmentalist lead of cities like San Francisco. Tonight, Springer had a chance to sell his bill to the House Urban Affairs Committee. If we let cities ban plastic bags, he wondered, what else might they do away with?

In a conversation with the Observer before the hearing, the Republican freshman from Muenster said he thinks the government has “crossed the line” of what local control should allow.

“The city, I believe, has overstepped their role and my bill brings in freedoms back to the individuals to make that choice with their merchant,” he said. “So it actually creates freedom, rather than imposing more on people.”

See? He’s manufacturing freedom! Just try to outsource that.

I have enough of a problem with legislators meddling in the affairs of their own hometowns. Messing with other cities just flabbergasts me. What’s it to Rep. Springer how Austin conducts its business? And as BOR and I have noted, it’s not just Austin, as Rep. Springer wants to deny Plfugerville ISD the right to extend domestic partner benefits to its employees. Last I checked, the people of Austin and Pflugerville elected the representatives who made those decisions. They’re free to replace them with representatives who will reverse those decisions if they want to. Pflugerville ISD arguably violated state law, though that will hopefully be mooted by SCOTUS, but Austin did nothing provocative. Why is this any of Rep. Drew Springer’s concern?

One more thing:

John Horton, a University of Texas student and chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas, testified for Springer’s bill.

“When you start to ban stuff, it creates a slippery slope,” he said. “What are we going to ban next?”

Well, let’s see, there’s abortion, birth control, Planned Parenthood, sex education, three-term Governors, ethnic history courses, federal gun control laws…I’m sure I’m forgetting a few things. Are you and I watching the same session, John?

Don’t forget about apartments

Mar 26th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
3 comments

On the subject of how Battleground Texas can achieve its aims, Greg adds a note and some numbers about apartment complexes.

I opted to look at one of the most GOP-friendly places in Harris County: HD130 in the northwestern corner of the county. Simply put, this district won’t be turning blue with anything short of multiple miracles. But part of the approach outlined by Bird, and one that I feel like I’ve been beating my head against a wall on, is that it is just as important to raise some areas from 25% Dem to 35% Dem in order to improve the overall showing. Having driven through HD130 on the way to/from Austin, I noticed that there were a few new apartments along Highway 290. I’m also familiar enough with the area to know that there are some hubs of apartments full of kids moving out from mom & dad’s place.

In just a quick scan of apartment complexes, I ended up with four quick sample studies. One was a Senior complex, but I opted to leave it in to prove a point that any perceived GOP tilt among seniors in a heavily GOP district wouldn’t harm the overall showing. The five units I ended up with had a score of 67% Dem based on Clarity‘s partisanship score for 2012. For all apartments in HD130, the score came to 52.4% Dem. So while there are certainly good and mediocre targets within the district, comparing this to a district that gave Obama 23% of the vote in 2012 shows a far healthier target for where to improve.

Furthermore, we have some valuable data from apartments: namely how many units there are in each. For the five complexes I identified, the turnout clocked in at 25% of apartment units turning out to vote. The traditional metric of turnout comes in at 45.3% turnout of registered voters. How to increase these numbers comes down to what you believe. If you believe that the registered voters track pretty closely with actual, current residents in the complex, then you face a turnout issue. But if you’re like me and believe that the registered voters track significantly less with actual, current residents, then you have to add a voter registration component to the mix in order to capture the new voters and replace the old, out-of-date information.

Good stuff, and a reminder that a lot of the voters we want to target need to be registered first, and will need to be registered again in the future. I haven’t seen Jeremy Bird specifically address the matter of apartment dwellers in the various interviews I’ve seen so far, but as Greg notes this fits well with the overall philosophy of Battleground Texas. In an interesting coincidence of timing, David Jarman of the Daily Kos does related research showing how apartment renters correlate with the Democratic-ness of a Congressional district. As it happens, three of the five districts with the highest percentage of renters that happen to be held by Republicans are in Texas. File this away for future reference and comparison.

Carl Whitmarsh

Mar 26th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

From the inbox:

Here’s the donation link. I sent a check, because I’m just old-fashioned. Carl has done a lot for Democrats in Harris County for a long time, and he deserves our support in his time of need. Please help if you can. Thanks very much.

Businesses say they want Medicaid expansion, too

Mar 26th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

This really comes down to two things.

It’s constitutional – deal with it

Chambers of commerce representing companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Kimberly-Clark Corp. (KMB) are challenging Texas Governor Rick Perry and lawmakers to expand health care for the poor in the state with the highest percentage of uninsured people.

The chambers of five cities are sending lobbyists to press Republican leaders to increase Medicaid coverage under President Barack Obama’s health-care law.

Businesses are often allied with Perry, a failed contender for last year’s Republican presidential nomination. The chambers, however, argue Texas shouldn’t pass up $100 billion over the next decade to cover 1.5 million adults. Obama’s plan would pay all costs until 2016, then the state’s share would gradually increase to 10 percent in 2020. Perry says that’s too expensive.

“This may be the only time that we have taken an actual formal position that is opposite that of the governor,” said Richard Dayoub, chief executive officer of the El Paso Chamber of Commerce. “I don’t know of any issue that has created so much concern across the state and has amassed so much support across party lines and throughout the business sector.”

Chambers supporting expansion in Dallas, San Antonio, Fort Worth and Arlington include members ranging from publicly traded companies to small shoe stores and family restaurants, many of them strained by health costs.

[…]

About 29 percent of Texas citizens lack insurance, according to a March 8 poll by Gallup Inc. The state ranked 40th in health last year because 30 percent of residents are obese and one of every four children lives in poverty, according to United Health Foundation, affiliated with UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH)

Hospitals have urged expansion because it will reduce expensive and ineffective emergency-room visits, said Stephen Mansfield, chief executive of Methodist Health System in Dallas and next year’s chairman of the 2,100-member Dallas Regional Chamber.

“The eight other Republican governors were just as opposed to this initially as Rick Perry,” said Mansfield, who met with him in February. “They came to understand the economics.”

Chamber lobbyists from Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio have discussed Medicaid with legislators during the current session in Austin, officials said. Dayoub of the El Paso chamber spoke with Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus, both Republicans, and about 35 legislators of both parties.

As a reminder, Progress Texas‘ list of all the groups that have endorsed Medicaid expansion is here. I keep harping on this theme, but it all comes down to whether any elected official feels like they might lose support for their position, and I just don’t see the evidence for that. Chambers of commerce don’t necessarily speak for their member businesses, as anyone who has followed the exploits of the increasingly hard-right US Chamber of Commerce can attest, so it’s not clear how much pressure they could apply to the likes of Rick Perry or Greg Abbott if the wanted to. Maybe they can put some heat on certain individual legislators, but I’m not holding my breath for that, either. People are going to have to lose elections over this, and that’s much easier said than done right now.

Business groups “are looking short term,” said Republican Senator David Duell (sic), a Greenville physician who met with chamber representatives. He said he doubted the Obama administration’s commitment “with the long-term viability of the federal government in question.”

Such opposition is “idiocy,” said Margaret Jordan, a former Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas director who is president of Dallas Medical Resources, a consortium of hospital executives and businesspeople headed by billionaire oilman Ray Hunt. “Medicaid expansion is a win-win for everybody.”

[…]

The tension is evident 330 miles (531 kilometers) west of Dallas in Lubbock, a wind-swept city of 230,000 that is the hometown of 1950s rock ’n’ roll pioneer Buddy Holly and Texas Tech University. Medicaid divides the chamber of commerce, which favors expansion, and Republican Senator Robert Duncan, a lawyer who has served in the legislature since 1989.

After officials at the city’s UMC Health System explained how Medicaid expansion could cushion cost increases, chamber directors unanimously approved a resolution, said Chairman Carlos Morales.

“It’s a lot of money we’d be missing out on,” said Morales, who is executive vice president of Caprock Home Health Services Inc., a company that employs 2,200 in 12 Texas offices.

Duncan, however, says Texas can’t afford the deal because Medicaid crowds out spending for education, parks and other priorities.

“It’s not a free lunch,” Duncan said. He said he was unconvinced by studies by former deputy State Comptroller Billy Hamilton and Waco economist Ray Perryman suggesting expansion would boost the state’s economy by increasing business activity and productivity.

So on the one hand, you have people like Sen. Bob Deuell, who thinks we’re going bankrupt despite trillions having already been cut from the deficit, Medicare costs trending downward, and the entire basis of our medium-term debt-to-GDP ratio being a function of a temporary glut of old people. On the other hand, you have Sen. Robert Duncan, who doesn’t care what a bunch of high-falutin’ economists think when he just knows in his gut that spending money can only be a zero-sum game. Yeah, good luck changing that dynamic. In the meantime, the fanatics at TPPF present their never-gonna-happen case for Medicaid block grants so they can more efficiently deny access to health care to all those shiftless poor people, and the Democratic Congressional delegation chides Rick Perry for his continued mulishness on this topic. EoW and BOR have more.

Why we need flexibility in our parking regulations

Mar 26th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Here’s the story of Coltivare.

Coltivare and the vegetable garden space

As many of you know, we are in the process of opening Coltivare, our interpretation of an Italian-inspired, American, neighborhood restaurant, at the corner of White Oak and Arlington Streets.

Undoubtedly, one of the most unique aspects to Coltivare, is the potential to have a 3,000 square foot, fully-functioning vegetable garden, directly to the East of our building.

From day one, we envisioned the green space as having the potential to become that, but knew we faced a few hurdles with the City of Houston, fulfilling our parking code requirement. We didn’t let ourselves get our hopes up just yet.

Many of you have probably noticed a lot of “not much” going on with the construction process. This is because we’ve been going through the variance process with the City of Houston Planning Department.

The variance that we are seeking is one allowing us to utilize parking lots that we have leased adjacent to Coltivare, as spaces to count towards our code requirement.

The warehouse space

Across Arlington Street on the North side of White Oak, sits a warehouse space that has been in existence since 1938, best we can tell. Dating back to the 50’s, via Google satellite images, those same spaces have been used for parking. They are used for parking today as they will continue to be used for parking tomorrow. Over the last 80 years, as White Oak’s right-of-way has widened, it has slowly encroached on the depth of these spaces. They sit between 15′-16′ deep now. The City likes 19′. However, there is another 13′ from the back of the spaces to the actual street, leaving plenty of room to maneuver safely. These spaces are already legally being used by the warehouse during they day; we simply want to use them at night.

These spaces are what we are trying to get the Planning Commission to approve regarding our variance. Spaces that are already in existence and being used for parking.

We have historically had a very good relationship with the Planning Commission and do not envy their jobs. Given everything that is thrown at them, they do a phenomenal job keeping the City moving in the right direction. The idea of turning existing green-space into another parking lot does seem counter intuitive to Mayor Parker’s green initiatives though.

Regarding our variance, they have afforded the Heights community an opportunity to voice your support in their approving our parking plan.

Warehouse parking spaces

In a perfect world, we would love for you to inundate their emails with a quick note saying you support our variance to utilize existing parking, rather than turn one of the few green-spaces the community has, into another ugly parking lot.

Contact Planner Dipti Mathur [email protected]

Dipti has been graciously reading through all of these emails, but she needs to hear from you.

Also wouldn’t hurt to cc:

[email protected]

[email protected]

We also would like to invite you to the Planning Commission hearing, March 28th, at 2:30pm, to verbally support the variance. We will send a follow up email as that date approaches, with more details.

Thank you all in advance for your support. We at Coltivare look very forward to serving you for years to come, and cannot imagine doing this in another neighborhood in Houston. The Heights is our home too.

Best Regards,

Morgan Weber & Ryan Pera
Owners, Revival Market & Coltivare Houston

Here’s some background on Coltivare, and here’s a mention of the story on Eating Our Words. For what it’s worth, the neighborhood seems to support Coltivare – I’ve seen emails about this on two separate Heights discussion groups. Embedded in the post are some photos I took of the space in question. The first, if I’ve read all the emails and whatnot correctly, is where the restaurant itself would be, on the northeast corner of White Oak and Arlington. To the east of the building is the grass lot that they want to use as a vegetable garden but which current rules say needs to be used for parking. The second picture is the warehouse across Arlington, where Coltivare would lease parking space. The third photo is the view down White Oak of those parking spaces – there are a few more on Arlington as well. Where I stood to take the picture is basically where the line between the sidewalk and the parking spaces would be. One could argue that any full-size vehicle would be too long for the parking spaces, and would partially block the sidewalk. This is true, but there would still be enough room to walk around such vehicles, and this western end of White Oak has much less pedestrian traffic than the section between Oxford and Studewood does. The inconvenience for pedestrians would be minor, especially if this were only used at night by Coltivare. All in all, I see a lot of merit to their variance request. I hope the city gives it all due consideration; you of course can help with that, as noted above.

One more thing: The blue structure to the east of the Coltivare site and proposed garden is the Blue Line Bike Shop. The Heights Bike Trail is a block away to the north and to the east. I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere, but surely Coltivare will take advantage of the recent changes to the off-street parking ordinances and max out their bike parking in return for a smaller car-park-space requirement. It would just be wrong not to do so.

City response on “One Bin For All”

Mar 25th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Last week, I asked several environmental groups for feedback on the city’s One Bin For All proposal. I said I would follow up on that with the city. I have their response here, but before I get to it I want to report that I got some further feedback from David Weinberg of the Texas League of Conservation Voters:

TLCV has revised our position on this issue. We have taken no position on Houston’s “One Bin For All” project. We are not deferring to any other organization on the merits of this project. The board of directors is evaluating the project and we will take a public position at a later date.

With that out of the way, here is what the city has to say about the One Bin project.

One Bin for All

By Laura Spanjian, Sustainability Director, City of Houston

The City of Houston is very proud to have won the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayors Challenge and Fan Favorite contest for One Bin for All. Houston won $1 million for our idea (one of 5 winners out of 305 cities), after working through a challenging and thorough vetting process by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

The City of Houston is excited to work on this game changing technology and make it successful for all Houstonians.

Houston is shaking up the status quo in so many areas:

  • Houston a bike friendly city? Yes, with our voter approved $100 million Bayou Greenway and almost $2 million expansion of Bike Share.
  • Houston a city that couples historic preservation with sustainability? Yes, the renovated historic Julia Ideson Building and Houston Permitting Center are both LEED Gold.
  • Houston a cutting edge forensics hub? Yes, the City is leading the nation in creation of an independently managed Forensic Science Center.
  • Houston a city with a growing public transportation system? Yes, we are currently investing more than $4.1 billion to expand the current 7.5 mile urban light‐rail system toa 39‐mile system.
  • Houston a recycling leader? Yes, with the potential of One Bin for All, we can transform how people think about trash, making “trash” extinct.

These initiativesare transforming our City. As Mayor Annise Parker has said, “If you can dream it, you can achieve it here.”

The best part of exploring a new idea is to work with people to try to make it happen. There is so much opportunity to work towards something that could have huge positive benefits for Houston, the region and the nation. We appreciate the large positive response we have received in support of this idea, as well as the 15k people who voted for One Bin for All as their favorite idea. We also appreciate the questions and suggestions we have received about the idea, and look forward to continuing our many dialogues and a robust public process as we begin a competitive process to solicit a partner to work with the City. There are many process steps to be undertaken before anything is finally decided. Our Advisory Committee will also be launching soon to provide expert advice as we continue our work.

One Bin’s powerful metaphor is that everything is a resource and everything can be repurposed.

This innovation is in some ways a natural progression for the recycling industry. When recycling first started, it began for a single commodity and then it changed and more commodities were deemed to have value beyond their original use. This change caused these materials to have to be separated (plastics from aluminum from paper). Then, technology advanced again and could handle all recyclables commingled. The waste/recycling industry is constantly figuring out new and different ways that additional materials can be put into this “single-stream” recycling bin. Now, we believe technology has advanced again and is ready to address full commingling and the bulk of the remainder of the waste stream. Thus, the cycle continues its natural progression from dual-stream to single-stream to One Bin.

Unfortunately, what is not very well known is that recycling rates are still very low in the US. According to EPA estimates, after 40 years of recycling education cities only effectively recycle about 30 percent of their trash.The traditional sorting approach to recycling produces low rates of recycling and generally leads to multiple bins, multiple routes, increased operating costs and increased greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). We believe it’s worth our effort to try to find a better way to address resource recovery. And in the process, we will educate residents about the value all materials have. The concept of trash will be extinct and replaced by an understanding that all discarded material has value and can be recycled or repurposed. Nothing will be “thrown away” any longer.

Will the technology work to achieve high waste diversion?

Many of the individual components contemplated to be deployed have long been used in the waste, mining, food or refining industries. Currently, no facility integrates all of the technologies, processes and systems in the manner envisioned for One Bin for All—but, that’s the innovation. One Bin for All will expand on successful projects in California, Canada, Greece, Germany and England. City staff members have visited several of these facilities, and have seen that residential commingled materials can be processed into valuable resources.

Houston will have a robust and transparent competitive RFQ process and rely on an RFQ Review Committee, leveraging its technical and financial expertise to evaluate critical components of the RFQ responses. To enhance implementation and scalability, an Advisory Committee will provide guidance and recommendations to the City regarding technology evaluations, partnerships, education and outreach.

During negotiations, the City will work to include guarantees for equipment uptime performance and diversion rate and will require escrow funds to compensate the City if there is a breach of contract or default.

Plus, Houston will continue its expansion of its current single-stream recycling program until

One Bin for All is fully implemented. The recycling bins will be used as the One Bin, reinforcing the idea that trash is extinct and all discarded materials have value.

Can the facility be financed?

Raising capital and providing a location lies with the successful proposer. However, Houston can guarantee the city’s residential waste stream and a per ton processing fee for a long-term period, thus providing investors with the assurance they require as well as a reasonable rate of return. Houston can also cultivate commercial and regional partnerships to broaden the reach of the program. Houston will not proceed with a technology that requires the City to pay additional costs than what it is currently paying. The program will be designed to save costs, and by treating all trash as assets with value, generate revenue to the City.

What are the environmental benefits?

As Houston is able to recover and recycle more material from its waste stream, the City will have a reduction in GHGs. The principal source of the reduction will come from diverting organic material (primarily food) away from the landfill, because its decomposition releases methane. Methane is estimated by EPA to be 21 times more potent, in terms of its ability to warm the earth, than the more common carbon dioxide.

According to EPA’s Waste Reduction Model, by diverting 75% of the mixed municipal solid waste to reuse/recycling and composting processes, Houston will reduce roughly 3.72 metric tons of carbon equivalent per ton of MSW diverted.

Houston has been designated a non-attainment area for ozone, a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act. One Bin for All will allow solid waste collection routes to be optimized resulting in the removal of the equivalent of 5,000 vehicles off the road each year. The associated emissions reductions in ozone precursors (nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds) will benefit Houston in its ongoing efforts to achieve attainment status. The City will buy and maintain fewer trucks and residential bins, and will have fewer truck routes to develop, manage, and operate. The current system requires two entirely separate truck routes, crews and equipment (in addition to yard waste and heavy trash pick-up, which the new program might also be able to address).  The volume of recyclables in the dual and single-stream is fairly consistently less than a bin full.  The One Bin for All proposal lets that inefficient volume of material join the routine weekly stop at the residence to be more efficient, removing VMT and the related emissions.

Beyond these localized effects on air quality, One Bin for All will provide regional and global benefits because reclaimed material will replace virgin raw materials for manufacturing. Using reclaimed material as feedstock reduces or eliminates the energy used in extraction and manufacture of new products.

Why is the One Bin for All process different than a “dirty” materials recovery facility (MRF)?

This innovation is a highly adaptable series of technologies and process innovations. It is unique in that it will process unsorted curbside residential waste, treating all materials as recyclables or valuable assets.

Remove contamination: This innovation will remove 2-inch minus (very small) material early in the sorting process to minimize contamination.

New Design: The innovation has an optimized design which will allow it to be capable of mining all conventional recyclable commodities (paper, plastics, ferrous metals, non-ferrous metals and glass), while producing compost or carbon neutral fuel streams from the remaining low-value wet and dry organics.

Technology: The innovation will utilize only field tested and proven components (ballistic shredders creating 3-D chunks, optical scanners, density separaters, eddy currents, etc.), arranged in a unique order to maximize system productivity and guarantee uptime and high diversion rates without a thermal element.

Organics: The innovation will divert virtually all organics from landfill disposal, turning them into compost or methane (via anaerobic digesters).

Highly specialized sorting: The innovation will separate inbound residential waste into as many as twenty highly concentrated material streams. Separated food and green waste will be further processed with a highly productive, yet passive, biological process to produce large quantities of bio-methane, compost, which is virtually weed seed and pathogen free, and a concentrated, natural, nutrient rich fertilizer. The clean bio-methane will be used to produce electricity, bio-diesel or natural gas through licensed technologies. Lower value, dry organics (wood and textiles) could provide a consistent feedstock ideal for processing using catalytic conversion to drop-in fuels (gasoline and diesel).

Some responses from civic, environmental, waste and industry leaders:

  • Michael R. Bloomberg, New York City Mayor and philanthropist, has said, “Recycling has often been treated as an individual responsibility, like paying taxes. But Mayor Parker’s innovative One Bin for All idea turns that notion on its head. Achieving a 75% recycling recovery rate in Houston would represent a huge leap forward in urban sustainability practices.”
  • Brian Yeoman, City Director Houston, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, says, “The processing technology for Houston’s proposed One Bin for All system is an innovative new integration of improved existing technologies. However, such integration has not been implemented commercially in the United States and only partially in Europe. The City of Houston should continue to follow strict due diligence as it works toward implementation of this alternative to traditional recycling. Special attention should be put forth when drafting the performance requirements, fee structuring, revenue sharing and GHG emissions accounting. C40 believes that there is significant merit in the City of Houston pursuing further and deeper due diligence for this game-changing system. The benefits to the national and international waste industry could be tremendous.”
  • Elena Craft of Environmental Defense Fund has said: “I think the One Bin proposal is an interesting and innovative approach to the issue. The City of Houston needed to take a proactive step to deal with its low recycling rate. This proposal beat out many others from other cities to win the Bloomberg Philanthropies grant, and I would like to see it succeed. I believe the concerns that have been raised by others can be addressed.”
  • Drew Sones, former director of the Bureau of Sanitation for the City of Los Angeles, has said new sorting technology is already working and that if he were director today, he would use Houston’s approach. “People don’t recycle everything or don’t recycle at all and don’t participate.”
  • Alan Del Paggio of CRI Catalyst Company, a Houston subsidiary of Shell, is now turning biomass into gasoline and diesel. “We’re well on our way to demonstrate to the world that this is not just wishful thinking but, in fact, this is a technical reality and an economic reality.”

Other groups supporting our work to move this forward and continue due diligence include: Rocky Mountain Institute; William McDonough + Partners; Houston-Galveston Area Council; Houston Advanced Research Center; University of Houston; Keep Houston Beautiful; Air Alliance Houston; the Greater Houston Partnership; and the Johnson Space Center/NASA.

Republic Services, a waste industry giant, has partnered with Bulk Handling Systems and the City of San Jose to operate a facility that takes all commingled commercial dry waste, using a process similar to what Houston is proposing. And Lancaster, CA, is also considering a one bin type solution. The Lancaster City Council approved a plan to move this idea forward. Overall, companies are very interested in working with the City to try to implement our idea or are interested in learning more. And as reported in Resource Recycling, other waste industry leaders such as Waste Management are neutral. Large recyclers such as the Newark Group would take material from a commingled source if it met their criteria.

Our vision is to obtain the highest possible diversion rates, greatest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality, reduced operations costs, increased revenue and easiest to use program for residents. Let’s work together on what could be an innovation that helps all cities achieve their recycling rates and diversion goals.

Together we can accomplish anything if we work cooperatively, keep an open mind and support new ideas that are trying to do something better, if different. Change is hard, but together we can achieve great things.

That answered a lot of my questions about this project. I hope it answered yours. My thanks to Laura Spanjian for all the information.

UPDATE: Per his request, David Weinberg’s statement has been updated.

Lawsuit against anti-feeding ordinance dropped

Mar 25th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

From last week:

The plaintiffs suing the city of Houston over its charitable feeding ordinance have abruptly dropped a suit they filed over the issue, just hours after the judge in the case recused himself.

The ordinance, which requires property owners’ advance written permission for the charitable feeding of more than five people, was one of the most passionate issues debated at City Hall last year. City officials said the measure would help control litter associated with feedings of the homeless and allow for better coordination of such efforts. Opponents decried the ordinance as criminalizing charity.

Paul Kubosh, of the bailbondsmen Kubosh brothers who are reliable opponents of Mayor Annise Parker, was the plaintiff in the suit, filed in December, which alleged the ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates the Kuboshes’ Constitutional rights. The Kuboshes religious beliefs, the suit states, encourage them to share food with the homeless in ways that violate the ordinance.

The Kuboshes collected 34,000 signatures on a petition that sought to overturn the requirement only on city-owned land, not on private property. The city said they had turned in the petition too late for it to be voted on last fall, a move the Kuboshes said was against the law.

Several preliminary motions had been filed in the case by both sides, but last Tuesday the issue took an odd turn when U.S. District Judge Ken Hoyt recused himself from the case without offering a reason and, hours later, Kubosh’s attorney dismissed the suit.

Kubosh said he had to dismiss the case because the judge assigned to pick it up was U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, with whom the Kuboshes dealt in a similar episode in 2010 and 2011 in which they sought to intervene in a lawsuit related to the city’s red light cameras. The Kuboshes had led the ultimately successful charge to place the cameras on the ballot and have them rescinded.

“After litigating with the city in Judge Hughes’ court on things that deal with charter amendments and the people’s right to vote, I didn’t think it was in the citizens’ best interest, the people we’re trying to help, for us to continue in Judge Hughes’ court,” he said. “We couldn’t go back into that bear trap again. We’re not abandoning this, but we have to regroup.”

You may be saying to yourself “Wait, what lawsuit? I don’t remember a lawsuit being filed”. I didn’t remember one being filed, either, but it was filed just before Christmas.

The plaintiffs are members of Champions Forest Baptist Church and have given and shared food for free “with more than five people at a time on Houston public property” since about 2008.

According to the suit, the city passed the ordinance about six months ago and was not open to efforts to get it placed on the previous election’s ballot.

More than 34,000 people signed a petition in opposition of the ordinance, however, the city was not swayed, the original petition says.

The ordinance carries a jail sentence and a $200 fine for any violations.

The suit claims the ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague”, stating the term “those in need” has no clear definition and “in its broadest sense can refer to anyone.”

It additionally asserts that the complainants’ First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were infringed upon through the passing and implementation of the ordinance.

A jury trial is requested.

Attorney Randall L. Kallinen with the Law Office of Randall L. Kallinen PLLC in Houston is representing the plaintiffs.

The case number is 4:12-CV-3700, if you want to look it up. The only mainstream news coverage I found of this when I googled “Kubosh homeless lawsuit” was on KTRH. That and the timing of the suit is probably why you and I might not have heard of it before now. The last update I had in my blog was from August from when petition signatures were turned in to force a referendum on the ordinance. The problem was the timing – the ordinance had gone into effect on July 1, meaning the 30-day window for a repeal petition had passed, and on top of that the deadline for any item to be placed on the ballot was only a few days afterward, which gave the City Secretary very limited time to verify the signatures. This was the first I’d heard of anything relating to the ordinance since then.

Now as you know, in Judge Hughes’ ruling on the red light camera lawsuit, he wrote that that referendum should not have been on the ballot since it was an attempt to repeal an ordinance, which requires petitions to be submitted within 30 days of the ordinance going into effect. However, the city settled with the camera company before a final ruling went into effect, so that question was not actually settled. I sent an email to Paul Kubosh to ask if this lawsuit intended to bring that matter up again, but he said “No, we filed the lawsuit to try and get the ordinance declared unconstitutional. I did not attempt to re-litigate the charter amendment issue in Federal Court.” I asked for a comment about the status of this lawsuit, and this is what he said:

“We chose to dismiss the case. However, the issue is not over. Currently, we have not gotten any word from the administration as to the status of the petition count. They are ignoring the petition. I still think I have the remedy of Mandamus to force the City Secretary to count the signatures. This ordinance will die. Its just a matter of time.”

So there you have it.

It’s good to be a payday lender

Mar 25th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

Bleah.

Earlier this legislative session, a chief of staff for a senator noted that the $4 billion Texas payday and auto-title loan industry would soon grow powerful and lucrative enough that the Texas Legislature would be unable to take it on. That time may have already come.

At a legislative hearing this morning, state Sen. John Carona, the Dallas Republican who’s leading the payday “reform” effort in the Senate, basically said the industry had bought off lawmakers. Carona was defending the latest version of his payday loan legislation, which most advocates derided as unacceptably weak. Senate Bill 1247 would scuttle the efforts of most of Texas’ big cities—Austin, San Antonio, Dallas and El Paso—to rein in payday loan excesses and codify the industry’s loan products in statute.

“You have to get the most you can get with the political support that you have,” Carona said. “This industry is in business and this industry has amassed enormous political support at the Capitol.”

He urged opponents to consider that the votes were lacking in both the House and the Senate to pass anything more.

Yesterday, campaign finance watchdog Texans for Public Justice released a report that “loan sharks” had poured almost $4 million into Texas politicians during the past two election cycles.

Carona blamed the industry’s stroke for the hobbled proposal he laid out in committee this morning. In almost every respect it’s weaker than the filed bill.

[…]

“None of this will meaningfully change the market,” said Ann Baddour of Texas Appleseed.

The latest version would also allow a one-year, multi-payment auto-title loan that would cost a borrower $5,000 to pay back a $1,000 product. The previous version had capped the length of such a loan at 270 days.

“They’ve basically created new uncapped loan products,” Baddour said.

Bishop Joseph Vazquez said the legislation “offers a few positive measures while it ultimately endorses predatory lending practices.”

“Current industry practice, which would be given state sanction, only rewards borrower failure with lender profit.”

Perhaps most galling to reform advocates is that the legislation would wipe out existing city ordinances, which almost uniformly provide stricter lending regulations. While Carona lamented that legislators had been persuaded by lucre to abandon whatever conscience they might have, a city councilman from San Antonio made a salient observation.

“While they’ve amassed a significant amount of political capital here, outside of Austin there is not anywhere a component of constituents that are on their side.”

The San Antonio City Council member in question is Diego Bernal, who pushed the San Antonio effort to curb payday lending excesses and who made his feelings about the industry quite clear. Any legislation that rolls back the local efforts to regulate payday lending is not only unacceptable, it’s unconscionable. Any legislator that votes in favor of such a bill should be ashamed of themselves. Thankfully, this weakened bill may get killed in the House.

But the compromise reached with industry groups may have cost Carona his House sponsor. Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, said he does not believe “the version presented in the Senate committee today provides adequate protection for consumers.”

He left open the possibility that further negotiations would produce a stronger version. “I know Chairman Carona would like to strengthen the bill,” Villarreal said. “I’m hopeful we can pass a balanced bill. But I’d rather pass no bill than legitimize usury.”

Amen to that.

Another reason why bike parking matters

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

This comment of the day on Swamplot points out a salient fact about bike parking.

In all honesty, I only ride my bike for fun with the family on the weekends. However, after a couple of very frustrating attempts to park around White Oak to go out to dinner, I recently rode my bike down there with the family for dinner at BBs. While there is a dearth of bike racks, it was so easy to just hop on the bike path, lock up the bikes and go to dinner than weaving in and out of parking lots and side streets trying to find a space for parking. And that is why cycling will eventually become an essential for Houston. We are piling people inside the loop at an unprecedented rate. There is not enough parking in a number of hot spots (Montrose, White Oak, Washington Ave, etc.). People now live close enough to ride their bikes to go out to eat in these areas but don’t because bike amenities are woefully lacking. Or, to put it another way, if you love your car, you should support cycling so there are more parking spaces available for you.

Public House on White Oak

That comment was left on this post. Like this person, my preferred way of getting to White Oak establishments is by bike. I live close enough that driving there should be the exception, but I totally agree about the convenience of bike parking versus the hassle of car parking. The point, though, is that for places on White Oak and Washington and other high-traffic/crowded parking areas, there are basically two types of people: Those that can get there by means other than cars, and those that can’t. It’s very much in the interest of those who have to drive and park to make it as easy and convenient as possible for those that don’t have to drive so that as many of them as possible choose not to. Every one of them who chooses to walk or bike is one less car taking up a parking place, after all. The same is true for places like the Medical Center and midtown, where everyone who arrives via light rail is one less person competing with you for a parking place. The people who have to drive to these places should be the most vocal supporters of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access to them, and the steady progress of rail line construction should should be taken as especially excellent news. It’s for their own good even if they never use those arrival methods themselves.

Along those same lines, the arrival of more bike share kiosks is as good a thing for the drivers as it is for everyone else.

With the opening of the Ensemble stop and the additional bikes, riders can for the first time check out or return a bike to a station outside the central business district. Previously only three locations — City Hall, Market Square Park and the George R. Brown Convention Center — featured a B-cycle kiosk.

According to a map on the Houston B-cycle website, a station at the Houston Zoo is coming soon.

Hair Balls has more on this. The point I’m trying to get at here is that being an occasional bicyclist is a good thing in and of itself. It’s good for you, and it’s good for the people who are driving to the places you are biking. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing. Along those lines, if you look at those two Swamplot posts above, you’ll see the inevitable comments from those who claim it’s too hot in Houston to ride bikes. Well, it’s not too hot right now. In fact, it’s not too hot about nine months out of the year. Personally, I find that even when it is hot out, the nice thing about riding a bike is the cool breeze you get while riding, and at no time were you sweltering in a car that had been left out in the sun. I would also note that one of the most successful B-Cycle cities in America is Minneapolis, and their winters are at least as long and unfriendly to biking as our summers are. But so what? Like I said, this isn’t all or nothing. Bike when the weather is agreeable to you. It’s all good.

Weekend link dump for March 24

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

I understand there may be a basketball game on TV right about now…

First and foremost, what Charlie Pierce says.

“Can we challenge ourselves to come up with some new or adjunct language for mean girl? How about angry girl? Fearful girl? Insecure girl? Perhaps this would shift our conversation to one of less judgment and more compassion.”

Maybe we should just issue every little girl a superhero costume, and hope that takes care of it.

“This should not be complicated. It only becomes complicated if we make the mistake of imagining that the proper “stance” is more important than who we’re standing with.”

Don’t go to law school. It’s not a good deal any more.

How to calculate the value of pi by throwing frozen hot dogs.

“As a female blogger, I can absolutely vouch that there are men who feel horrifyingly comfortable telling me about all sorts of violent fantasies they wish to act upon my person because they’ve disagreed with something I’ve written.”

I am now counting down the days until Digg releases its replacement for Google Reader.

I sometimes feel like it should be mandatory for everyone to work in food service for at least a summer while they’re young so that later in life they can treat food workers decently. If we’re not going to pay them decently, that’s the very least we can do.

TBogg continues to be America’s foremost interpreter of Sarah Palin.

RIP, Ruth Ann Steinhagen, the woman who inspired “The Natural” by shooting baseball player Eddie Waitkus.

“Senators basically never have poor kids. That’s something members of Congress should think about. Especially members of Congress who know personally that realizing an issue affects their own children changes their thinking.”

And there’s no one for whom that lesson is needed more than Ted Cruz.

I’m not sure what kind of whim would make someone register the PopeFrancis.com domain name several years ago, but clearly it was a prescient whim.

“Yeah, if your goal is to make a bazillion dollars working for Goldman Sachs, your path to that goal will be easier if you go to Harvard or Williams, but if your goal is to have a rewarding career and live a good life, you have a lot more options.”

“Let’s make one thing clear: Fixing our cars, tractors, and cellphones should have nothing to do with copyright.”

“So what have we learned? There are a lot of options in our products that are used by very few people, and some of them can have disastrous effects.”

Some day we’ll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers, and me.

Michelle Shocked speaks about that bizarre, reportedly anti-gay tirade she made.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we have a yoga pants scandal on our hands.”

Of course, it never would have occurred to me that there was such a thing as objectivist yoga pants.

“STANDARD REMINDER: [Michelle] Bachmann was briefly considered a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. Just in case anyone has forgotten that.”

Voyage I was supposed to have exited the solar system by now, but apparently they’ve been stopped at the border. OK, maybe not.

This is why the MLB Players’ Association fought for so long against random drug testing.

Dark Side Of The Moon, forty years later.

“Indeed, [the PyCon/Adria Richards] firestorm is a classic example of how the distance between people on the web can sometimes make us less understanding and empathetic to each other, not more”. The even bigger tragedy is that none of it had to happen.

Kindergartners ask the best questions.

House Appropriations releases its budget outline

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

Better news for schools in this version.

The House Appropriations Committee voted unanimously Thursday to boost funding for public schools by $2.5 billion in the next two-year budget period.

Schools would get an additional $500 million in the current fiscal year, which ends Aug. 31, under a second proposal by Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts that is likely to be approved by the committee as part of a separate spending bill.

That $3 billion total is twice the increase approved so far by senators. But Senate leaders have said they want to give schools a bigger increase than the $1.5 billion in their two-year budget proposal.

House lawmakers are eager to put a dent in the $5.4 billion cut from public education two years ago, Pitts said. Budget cuts were made in 2011 because Comptroller Susan Combs projected a severe revenue shortfall. A rebounding economy instead has given the Legislature billions more to spend than expected.

“It is a priority of the Texas House – Republicans and Democrats – to fund public education. We challenge the Senate to have that same priority,” said Pitts, R-Waxahachie.

[…]

Houston ISD’s Jason Spencer said the district didn’t yet know what the House committee proposal would mean for its funding, but that Thursday’s move was a positive step.

“We’re encouraged to see that state lawmakers seem to be moving toward restoring the cuts that were made two years ago,” Spencer said. “We’d like to see the cuts fully restored, and we expect that is what is going to happen as a result of school finance litigation. Nonetheless, we are encouraged by this. We need to see how the numbers shake out.”

Given that HISD has talked about raising the tax rate to make up for a $50 million shortfall in the next fiscal year, this is good news. Still not a full restoration of funds, but getting closer, and this might help nudge the Senate a little farther. On the downside, the total amount of spending in the House budget is less than that of the Senate budget, so where they’re giving here they’re taking away there. They have only released a framework, not a complete document, so we don’t know the details just yet. The bill will come to the full House for a vote on April 4. Stace has more.

Why do we give tax breaks to country clubs?

Mar 24th, 2013
by Charles Kuffner.
4 comments

As you know, I’ve talked before about sunsetting tax expenditures. Sens. John Carona and Rodney Ellis have filed a bill to require a periodic review of the many exemptions, exceptions, and other special cases in the tax code, with the aim of requiring legislative approval to renew or extend them. This is a good idea for many reasons, and State Impact Texas highlights one of those reasons.

Whaddya mean we have to pay our fair share?

One break Sen. Ellis says could be targeted right now is one used by country clubs. Ellis will be the first to tell you what a lovely time one can have on the links of the exclusive River Oaks Country Club in Houston.

“I have a lot of good friends who are members there, have had the benefit of being able to play once or twice, would like to get invited again, may not get invited the day you run this story,” Ellis told StateImpact.

Two decades ago as a newly-elected legislator, Ellis saw a news article about how some local country clubs took advantage of a big break and avoided paying millions in property tax. Known as the Greenbelt Act, it gives enormous property tax discounts to owners of tracts of green space that is used only for recreation.

[…]

Ellis’s staff found that in the 10 most-populated counties in Texas, a total of 36 clubs took advantage of the break (some counties had no clubs that used it including those in Dallas, Fort Bend, Travis and Bexar counties).

Harris County had by far the most clubs utlilizing the break with 22 of 26 private clubs saving millions in taxes. Ellis’s office found that the River Oaks Country Club had the biggest savings, about $2 million a year from getting its golf course’s market value of about $80 million marked down to only $4.2 million. A call to the club did not result in obtaining a comment.

OK, I’m open to suggestion here. What’s a good public policy rationale for giving this tax break to the River Oaks Country Club? Are we afraid they might lay off a groundskeeper or something if they paid taxes based on the actual appraised value of their property? Make your case in the comments, I’d love to hear it.

On managing health care costs

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

Fascinating story in the Statesman on one approach they are taking to manage health care costs in Travis County.

A new world of health care is unfolding for some chronically ill Austin-area residents like [Marshall] Kettelhut, who was a cook at Long John Silver’s before he became too sick to work in 2010.

Health care providers are being nudged to change by a convergence of events: the 2010 federal health care law; efforts to overhaul government health coverage by innovating; new government payment schemes that reward — and punish — hospitals for performance; and a realization by health care providers that a system of ever-rising costs that pays based on procedures is unsustainable.

Kettelhut is among the first to experience changes that might one day touch almost everyone who receives health care. The treatment he is receiving from two Seton Healthcare Family clinics provides a glimpse into the future of a system being tugged toward paying for quality, not quantity.

“If we are able to spend more time with the patient, their costs are going to go down,” said Dr. Norman Chenven, CEO of Austin Regional Clinic. “They won’t go to the ER and won’t have to be hospitalized. It doesn’t take very much to avoid that admission.”

Toward that end, major hospital systems in Central Texas have paired up with providers such as Austin Regional Clinic to help patients avoid costly and preventable ER visits and hospitalizations. They are targeting the biggest hospital users: chronically ill people, elderly patients and low-income people with complicated health problems.

“What medicine is looking for is value,” said Dr. Ernest Haeusslein, Kettelhut’s cardiologist and medical director of the Seton Heart Specialty Care and Transplant Center.

Right now, the value is in targeting patients like Kettelhut, Haeusslein said.

[…]

Temple-based Scott & White Healthcare has long had a system of integrated electronic patient records, and “doctors and hospitals (are) working with patients to decide what care is appropriate and what care is redundant and has no value,” said Dr. James Rohack, director of the hospital system’s Center for Healthcare Policy.

Like Seton’s work with Kettelhut, Scott & White and St. David’s are experimenting with programs that shower resources and attention on the sickest patients. At Scott & White, frail and vulnerable patients meet with an aide before they leave the hospital and are seen afterward at home for a week or two, said CEO Dr. Robert Pryor.

Scott & White also is keeping its clinics open later to prevent overuse of the ER, he said. And it has opened a free clinic.

“We are focusing on the 20 percent of the population that causes 80 percent of the health care costs,” Rohack said.

Basically, this is the same approach that Harris County is taking with its Chronic Consumer Stabilization Initiative, and it’s based on the idea espoused by Malcolm Gladwell several years back. It’s an eminently sensible way of going about the business of managing costs, and as Harris County has shown it can be a real cost-saver, but it’s also politically risky since it depends of devoting a fair amount of resources to people who are otherwise powerless and generally not terribly sympathetic. The fact that an even greater amount of resources are expended on these people, in a much less effective and efficient fashion, in the absence of such programs, is almost never acknowledged in the arguments against them, but that’s how it goes. I wish Travis County a ton of success, and I hope of a lot of other entities follow their lead, because we’re going to need this example duplicated all over the country if we’re going to get our hands around the health care cost problem.

We’re exporting feral hogs

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

You’re welcome, neighboring states.

Feral pigs have already taken over Texas and are expanding their numbers in other states, but federal and state land managers think they have a chance to tip the balance in New Mexico. They’re willing to bet $1 million in federal funds on a yearlong pilot project aimed at eradicating the pigs and using what they learn here to keep them from gaining a foothold elsewhere.

It marks the first time the U.S. Department of Agriculture has teamed up with a state to develop a comprehensive plan for getting rid of the pigs.

A small army of state and federal employees has been trained to stalk, trap and kill New Mexico’s feral pigs. Various techniques have been used by wildlife managers and landowners for decades in the fight against feral swine, but the New Mexico team is focusing on determining what combination works best in which circumstances and how effectively helicopters can be to track the pigs across vast landscapes.

“We’re trying to get ahead of the curve with this so we can prevent a lot of the damage that we know will be coming if we don’t do anything about it,” said USDA Wildlife Services state director Alan May. “Sport hunting pressure alone won’t be enough to stop a population from spreading.”

You can say that again.

In Mississippi, peanut farmers often wake to find uprooted plants. In Texas, where there are an estimated 2.6 million pigs, the animals have moved from destroying pastures and crops to tearing up suburban gardens.

Texans spend about $7 million a year on trying to control pigs and repair some of the damage, said Billy Higginbotham, a professor and wildlife specialist at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center.

“We’re not like New Mexico, Nebraska or Kansas, for example, where we’re just beginning to get a few and can probably think in terms of eradication,” he said. “What we’re simply trying to do here is not even use the “e” word — eradication — but to think in terms of managing the damage.”

SciGuy reminds us how challenging that is.

In 2010, an estimated 750,000 pigs were harvested, or 29 percent of the population. That sounds harsh, but it’s really not.

The scientists estimate with such a harvest the feral hog population will still double every five years. Even a high harvest — 41 percent of the population, annually — will allow the wild pig population to actually grow by 12 percent a year.

An annual harvest rate of 66 percent is required to hold the feral hog population in check, the scientists believe.

That’s something like 1.8 million of the beasties a year, at current population levels. There aren’t enough helicopters in the state for that. Good luck controlling your hog invasion, New Mexico.

← Earlier Posts