September 15, 2007
Three strikes for Christie

First residency, then homestead exemptions, and now swimming pools. This is not been an auspicious campaign for Jack Christie.

It appears City Council candidate Jack Christie's residency isn't the only thing that's cloudy.

So is the swimming pool at a Memorial-area home he rented so he could run for office in Houston, according to city health inspectors.

Responding to a neighborhood complaint, an inspector issued two citations Friday, attaching them to the home's front door with red tape. The inspector alleges that the murky green water in the swimming pool isn't transparent and algae-free, as required by city ordinance.

The report also notes that the home is "vacant," a judgment that could further cloud the residency claims of Christie, a longtime Houston chiropractor who has lived in a Bunker Hill Village home since the early 1990s.

The inspector likely noted the general condition of the home or the lack of furniture inside in declaring vacancy, Health and Human Services Department spokeswoman Kathy Barton said.

You almost have to feel sorry for the guy. Apparently, all this was enough to sink his campaign, leaving us with only seven candidates in At Large #5.

Now that we've gotten this mess behind us (well, pending anything more on Zaf Tahir), perhaps we can spend a little time finding out where these candidates stand on the issues. I hope the Chronicle will devote an equal amount of energy to that as they did to the matter of residency. We're going to need to base our votes in November on something, after all.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on September 15, 2007 to Election 2007

Imagine that. Christie is a Republican.

Posted by: Dennis on September 15, 2007 12:05 PM

there is no standard for vacancy. it is a matter of opinion and constitutes harrassment.

Posted by: Charles Hixon on September 15, 2007 2:16 PM

dennis, it doesnt matter if he is dem or republ, harrassment of a candidate by functionaries poisons our democracy and the d.a. should be held accountable

Posted by: Charles Hixon on September 15, 2007 5:18 PM

Chuck - what in the sam hill are you talking about?
Harrassment of a candidate by functionaries? A standard for vacancy? Are we talking about the same subject?

Posted by: Dennis on September 16, 2007 4:58 AM

yes, Dennis. Read Kuffs writeup.

Posted by: Charles Hixon on September 16, 2007 8:13 AM

I read the post - I just have no idea what your point is.

No standard for vacancy? How about if it is obvious to an observer no one lives there?

And since when is one city inspection, enforcing city ordinances, harassment? Were I his neighbor, I would have complained as well.

Posted by: Dennis on September 16, 2007 5:42 PM