Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

January, 2009:

Round and round we go with City Council redistricting

Vidal Martinez made the case in yesterday’s Chron for tackling the task of City Council redistricting in time for the 2009 elections, on the grounds that this is the deal the city agreed to with the Justice Department back in 1979. Marc Campos, who suspects that the city’s reluctance to do so has everything to do with the messiness of redistricting, agrees with him. Greg gets into just how messy this is likely to be. And the Chron, in an unsigned editorial, criticizes the city for not taking action back in 2006, but argues that it would be best to aim for 2011 by starting to work on it now, to ensure we get the best result possible.

I have to say, I think the Chron’s position is pretty persuasive. They note that a whole lot of candidates have been lining up to run for office this year; to start a redistricting process now would be very disruptive to them. If that were the only consideration, you could very easily argue that the needs of the voters as a whole outweigh that. But a new set of Council districts for November could effectively moot the special election for District H that’s set for three months from now. It’s not out of the question that the winner of the May race could find him or herself living outside the district in a new map. Since everyone with an opinion on this subject is concerned about this district – my district – and its current lack of a voice on Council, I think we ought to be sensitive to such a possibility.

While I think Martinez is right to stress that a deal is a deal, he kind of loses me here:

The next census will not be completed until at least 2011, and possibly longer if history repeats itself as to the dissemination of the data compiled.

If the next census isn’t ready by 2011, we’ll have bigger problems than just the disposition of Houston City Council. The Lege wouldn’t be able to do its constitutional duty to redraw Congressional lines, which will include three or four new seats including one for Houston, under this scenario. There’s a bit more time for that process to run its course, since the effective deadline is the January 2 cutoff for the March 2012 primaries, but with some early organization as advocated by the Chron, the task for Council should be less time-consuming in 2011. At the very least, a committee can be working on this during 2010, which the Lege cannot do because it’s not in session. I feel confident that this can be done in time for the 2011 election. Given that, and given that we can’t travel back to 2006 and do this then, I think that’s the best choice. But if people want to push for this year, then as long as District H doesn’t get screwed, I can live with that, too.

Round and round we go with City Council redistricting

Vidal Martinez made the case in yesterday’s Chron for tackling the task of City Council redistricting in time for the 2009 elections, on the grounds that this is the deal the city agreed to with the Justice Department back in 1979. Marc Campos, who suspects that the city’s reluctance to do so has everything to do with the messiness of redistricting, agrees with him. Greg gets into just how messy this is likely to be. And the Chron, in an unsigned editorial, criticizes the city for not taking action back in 2006, but argues that it would be best to aim for 2011 by starting to work on it now, to ensure we get the best result possible.

I have to say, I think the Chron’s position is pretty persuasive. They note that a whole lot of candidates have been lining up to run for office this year; to start a redistricting process now would be very disruptive to them. If that were the only consideration, you could very easily argue that the needs of the voters as a whole outweigh that. But a new set of Council districts for November could effectively moot the special election for District H that’s set for three months from now. It’s not out of the question that the winner of the May race could find him or herself living outside the district in a new map. Since everyone with an opinion on this subject is concerned about this district – my district – and its current lack of a voice on Council, I think we ought to be sensitive to such a possibility.

While I think Martinez is right to stress that a deal is a deal, he kind of loses me here:

The next census will not be completed until at least 2011, and possibly longer if history repeats itself as to the dissemination of the data compiled.

If the next census isn’t ready by 2011, we’ll have bigger problems than just the disposition of Houston City Council. The Lege wouldn’t be able to do its constitutional duty to redraw Congressional lines, which will include three or four new seats including one for Houston, under this scenario. There’s a bit more time for that process to run its course, since the effective deadline is the January 2 cutoff for the March 2012 primaries, but with some early organization as advocated by the Chron, the task for Council should be less time-consuming in 2011. At the very least, a committee can be working on this during 2010, which the Lege cannot do because it’s not in session. I feel confident that this can be done in time for the 2011 election. Given that, and given that we can’t travel back to 2006 and do this then, I think that’s the best choice. But if people want to push for this year, then as long as District H doesn’t get screwed, I can live with that, too.

Senate committees

Elise Hu has the list of committees and members for the State Senate, which came out yesterday. Not much drama here – as she noted, Sen. John Carona, the on Republican vote against changing the rules for voter ID bills, got the same chairs as last time. One change was the appointment of Sen. Judith Zaffirini to the chair of Higher Education, which has been Sen. Florence Shapiro’s job in 2007. Patricia Kilday Hart looks at the politics and rumors behind that, and says it was a good choice regardless of the motives. Michael Hurta thinks Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst gave a lot of power to Sen. Dan Patrick, though as noted in the comments Patrick did not get the assignment to the Finance Committee, which is the Senate version of Appropriations, that he’s wanted since his election. Make of that what you will.

Senate committees

Elise Hu has the list of committees and members for the State Senate, which came out yesterday. Not much drama here – as she noted, Sen. John Carona, the on Republican vote against changing the rules for voter ID bills, got the same chairs as last time. One change was the appointment of Sen. Judith Zaffirini to the chair of Higher Education, which has been Sen. Florence Shapiro’s job in 2007. Patricia Kilday Hart looks at the politics and rumors behind that, and says it was a good choice regardless of the motives. Michael Hurta thinks Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst gave a lot of power to Sen. Dan Patrick, though as noted in the comments Patrick did not get the assignment to the Finance Committee, which is the Senate version of Appropriations, that he’s wanted since his election. Make of that what you will.

Healthcare Workshop

Public service announcement: Next Saturday, February 7, from 9 AM to 1 PM at Covenant Baptist Church (4949 Caroline, see map), the group Health Care For All Texas will be holding a workshop on “Health Reform: An Opportunity to Address Economy, Health and Equity”. The goals are to discuss health reform basics, to debunk health care myths, and to promote civic participation. More information is available in this flyer (Word doc).

How much would you pay for that post office?

The US Postal Service would like to make you a deal.

The U.S. Postal Service is unloading as many as 200 facilities in an effort to offset some of its huge financial losses.

In Houston, just two properties have been put up for sale. But another four could go on the market soon.

[…]

The postal service, which lost $2.8 billion last year delivering 9 billion fewer pieces of mail, asked lawmakers this week to lift the rule requiring mail delivery six days a week.

Because mail volume has declined so dramatically, the service is adjusting carrier routes and employees’ work hours within its mail processing plants and consolidating operations.

“This consolidation is going to leave us with excess properties we no longer require,” said national spokeswoman Sue Brennan.

The two properties for sale in Houston are at 1900 West Gray at Dunlavy and 2802 Timmons, near West Alabama. They are classified as “stations,” meaning they have both retail and delivery operations.

[…]

Before the commercial real estate market began to falter, the post office on West Gray might have sold for between $100 and $125 per square foot. Today, it could be worth much less.

“Is the West Gray site worth $125 per square foot? I don’t know. Is it worth $50? I don’t know, because there’s nothing to measure it against,” said David Cook of Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate firm.

Back when new developments were being readily financed, the Houston post offices might have swiftly sold to developers for apartments, condominiums, retail centers or office buildings.
Prime location

The West Gray site is particularly well-suited for retail space, Cook said, as it is surrounded by high-end neighborhoods, restaurants and shops. The building is about 18,000 square feet and sits on a 2.5-acre parcel. The Timmons office is just over 14,000 square feet on about 2.6 acres of land.

Here’s a look at the USPS annual report. They actually did better in 2008 than in 2007 – revenues were up a hair, and expenses were down; as such, their loss was much greater in 2007. But they’re now in the red on net capital, so I presume that’s why they’re looking at selling properties. For what it’s worth, the drop in mail volume was only 4.5%; it’s not clear to me that things won’t improve along with the economy. Longer term, maybe they need to scale down. But I don’t think it’s necessarily as bad as all that.

I think you’d have to be pretty desperate to try to unload the sites on Gray and Timmons unless you could be sure you were getting top dollar for them. If I were them, I’d want to hold on and try to capitalize in a stronger market. I realize everyone and his sister is asking for a bailout these days, but the Postal Service is a pretty critical part of the economy. Surely we can do something in the short term to keep them from having to make sub-optimal decisions like this.

Healthcare Workshop

Public service announcement: Next Saturday, February 7, from 9 AM to 1 PM at Covenant Baptist Church (4949 Caroline, see map), the group Health Care For All Texas will be holding a workshop on “Health Reform: An Opportunity to Address Economy, Health and Equity”. The goals are to discuss health reform basics, to debunk health care myths, and to promote civic participation. More information is available in this flyer (Word doc).

How much would you pay for that post office?

The US Postal Service would like to make you a deal.

The U.S. Postal Service is unloading as many as 200 facilities in an effort to offset some of its huge financial losses.

In Houston, just two properties have been put up for sale. But another four could go on the market soon.

[…]

The postal service, which lost $2.8 billion last year delivering 9 billion fewer pieces of mail, asked lawmakers this week to lift the rule requiring mail delivery six days a week.

Because mail volume has declined so dramatically, the service is adjusting carrier routes and employees’ work hours within its mail processing plants and consolidating operations.

“This consolidation is going to leave us with excess properties we no longer require,” said national spokeswoman Sue Brennan.

The two properties for sale in Houston are at 1900 West Gray at Dunlavy and 2802 Timmons, near West Alabama. They are classified as “stations,” meaning they have both retail and delivery operations.

[…]

Before the commercial real estate market began to falter, the post office on West Gray might have sold for between $100 and $125 per square foot. Today, it could be worth much less.

“Is the West Gray site worth $125 per square foot? I don’t know. Is it worth $50? I don’t know, because there’s nothing to measure it against,” said David Cook of Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate firm.

Back when new developments were being readily financed, the Houston post offices might have swiftly sold to developers for apartments, condominiums, retail centers or office buildings.
Prime location

The West Gray site is particularly well-suited for retail space, Cook said, as it is surrounded by high-end neighborhoods, restaurants and shops. The building is about 18,000 square feet and sits on a 2.5-acre parcel. The Timmons office is just over 14,000 square feet on about 2.6 acres of land.

Here’s a look at the USPS annual report. They actually did better in 2008 than in 2007 – revenues were up a hair, and expenses were down; as such, their loss was much greater in 2007. But they’re now in the red on net capital, so I presume that’s why they’re looking at selling properties. For what it’s worth, the drop in mail volume was only 4.5%; it’s not clear to me that things won’t improve along with the economy. Longer term, maybe they need to scale down. But I don’t think it’s necessarily as bad as all that.

I think you’d have to be pretty desperate to try to unload the sites on Gray and Timmons unless you could be sure you were getting top dollar for them. If I were them, I’d want to hold on and try to capitalize in a stronger market. I realize everyone and his sister is asking for a bailout these days, but the Postal Service is a pretty critical part of the economy. Surely we can do something in the short term to keep them from having to make sub-optimal decisions like this.

Friday random ten: Still more new music

Once more to the new music. I’ll probably take another tour through Genius-land starting next week, but for now we’re still mining the new music.

1. Fancy Footwork – Chromeo
2. Everybody Hurts – Elk City
3. Running Away – The Polyphonic Spree
4. Money (That’s What I Want) – The Beatles
5. FM – Steely Dan
6. Safety Zone – Lou Reed
7. Jenny Jenkins – Lisa Loeb
8. Sunrise – Yeasayer
9. I Hung My Head – Johnny Cash
10. Dime – CAKE

What are you listening to this week?

Friday Random Ten: Still more new music

Once more to the new music. I’ll probably take another tour through Genius-land starting next week, but for now we’re still mining the new music.

1. Fancy Footwork – Chromeo
2. Everybody Hurts – Elk City
3. Running Away – The Polyphonic Spree
4. Money (That’s What I Want) – The Beatles
5. FM – Steely Dan
6. Safety Zone – Lou Reed
7. Jenny Jenkins – Lisa Loeb
8. Sunrise – Yeasayer
9. I Hung My Head – Johnny Cash
10. Dime – CAKE

What are you listening to this week?

Critics claim camera study shenanigans

So what else is new?

The Houston Police Department tried to influence the outcome of a controversial city-commissioned study by changing how crashes at intersections with red-light cameras were counted, according to documents included in a lawsuit.

HPD’s request was refused by the study’s authors, however, who concluded the number of accidents at 50 intersections with the cameras had increased, not decreased as city officials expected, documents say.

Attorneys fighting to end Houston’s 2-year-old red-light camera program seized on the documents — released after an open records lawsuit they filed against the city — as evidence the study was tainted by a purposefully skewed methodology.

“As in other cities, the red-light camera system in Houston is increasing accidents,” said Randall Kallinen, a lawyer who represents ticketed drivers in court. “This is very dangerous for the public, and we must end the red-light camera experiment.”

I just want to point out here that by Kallinen’s logic, if the next batch of data shows a decrease in accidents at these intersections, it must also be the cameras that caused that decrease. You can’t have it both ways.

City officials and Rice University political science Professor Robert Stein, one of the study’s main authors, contend the Houston Police Department’s requests were part of an ordinary back-and-forth about how best to examine the efficacy of red-light cameras and were not a conspiracy to deliver false data.

[…]

Researchers have studied the impact of such cameras for decades, but the results are mixed and inconclusive, according to an analysis of numerous studies conducted by The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical and public health research.

The Cochrane analysis found only five studies that used statistically sound methodology to examine data from the U.S., Singapore and Australia.

The result was that red-light cameras usually reduce the number of fatal crashes but don’t necessarily reduce total collisions.

The Houston study’s authors and city officials expected that to be the result here. Instead, the review showed crashes doubled at intersections where at least one camera was installed, although the uptick in collisions happened in the approaching lanes without cameras. At the lanes with cameras, the increase was too slight to be statistically significant, the study’s authors found.

According to an e-mail included in the lawsuit, an HPD official asked Stein in April to rule out accidents if they occurred more than 100 feet from the intersection. Kallinen also said that documents he obtained indicated the department attempted to rule out crashes that did not involve a red-light violation. Either of those steps would be more likely to lead to results showing the cameras reduced crashes, Kallinen said.

Stein, whose involvement has been criticized because his wife works for White, said the study’s other authors rejected HPD’s suggested change because they were using what they believed was the best methodology.

Mayoral spokesman Patrick Trahan said the police had legitimate reasons to consider limiting the crashes that way, as they did not want the study to include collisions that had nothing to do with running red lights or the cameras.

Doesn’t seem like too unreasonable a request to me, but then I haven’t been peddling conspiracy theories about the cameras. Your mileage may vary.

Can I make a simple request here? I know there’s another study going on to gather more data about the cameras and the accident rate in Harris County as a whole. How about we make sure this study uses the statistically sound methodology that the Cochrane folks refer to? Maybe we could all even agree beforehand that if such a methodology were to be used, we’d all accept the results, whatever they are. And finally, maybe we could try to get other locations that have the cameras do the exact same kind of study, so we can see if Harris County is getting similar results as they are or not. I mean, it could be the case that we’ve just done a lousy job of implementation, and if we’d followed the example set by others we’d get better results. Or perhaps we’ll learn that there are no better results, or that what we got in the first year was a fluke. All I’m saying is, it can’t hurt to have more and better data.

Stein acknowledged that the cameras are not working in Houston as well as he believes they have been shown to work in other cities. The city and critics should be more concerned about why, he said.

“Why are these crashes going up at these intersections?” Stein asked. “Nobody really cares to get at the truth here. Cars are being damaged, people are being injured and a handful of people are dying. … What I want to know is, why they aren’t working in Houston, and what we can do to improve them?”

You know what my suggestion is. And while we’re at it, let’s please release the draft version of this first study. There’s no reason not to, and holding onto it just fans the flames.

Critics claim camera study shenanigans

So what else is new?

The Houston Police Department tried to influence the outcome of a controversial city-commissioned study by changing how crashes at intersections with red-light cameras were counted, according to documents included in a lawsuit.

HPD’s request was refused by the study’s authors, however, who concluded the number of accidents at 50 intersections with the cameras had increased, not decreased as city officials expected, documents say.

Attorneys fighting to end Houston’s 2-year-old red-light camera program seized on the documents — released after an open records lawsuit they filed against the city — as evidence the study was tainted by a purposefully skewed methodology.

“As in other cities, the red-light camera system in Houston is increasing accidents,” said Randall Kallinen, a lawyer who represents ticketed drivers in court. “This is very dangerous for the public, and we must end the red-light camera experiment.”

I just want to point out here that by Kallinen’s logic, if the next batch of data shows a decrease in accidents at these intersections, it must also be the cameras that caused that decrease. You can’t have it both ways.

City officials and Rice University political science Professor Robert Stein, one of the study’s main authors, contend the Houston Police Department’s requests were part of an ordinary back-and-forth about how best to examine the efficacy of red-light cameras and were not a conspiracy to deliver false data.

[…]

Researchers have studied the impact of such cameras for decades, but the results are mixed and inconclusive, according to an analysis of numerous studies conducted by The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical and public health research.

The Cochrane analysis found only five studies that used statistically sound methodology to examine data from the U.S., Singapore and Australia.

The result was that red-light cameras usually reduce the number of fatal crashes but don’t necessarily reduce total collisions.

The Houston study’s authors and city officials expected that to be the result here. Instead, the review showed crashes doubled at intersections where at least one camera was installed, although the uptick in collisions happened in the approaching lanes without cameras. At the lanes with cameras, the increase was too slight to be statistically significant, the study’s authors found.

According to an e-mail included in the lawsuit, an HPD official asked Stein in April to rule out accidents if they occurred more than 100 feet from the intersection. Kallinen also said that documents he obtained indicated the department attempted to rule out crashes that did not involve a red-light violation. Either of those steps would be more likely to lead to results showing the cameras reduced crashes, Kallinen said.

Stein, whose involvement has been criticized because his wife works for White, said the study’s other authors rejected HPD’s suggested change because they were using what they believed was the best methodology.

Mayoral spokesman Patrick Trahan said the police had legitimate reasons to consider limiting the crashes that way, as they did not want the study to include collisions that had nothing to do with running red lights or the cameras.

Doesn’t seem like too unreasonable a request to me, but then I haven’t been peddling conspiracy theories about the cameras. Your mileage may vary.

Can I make a simple request here? I know there’s another study going on to gather more data about the cameras and the accident rate in Harris County as a whole. How about we make sure this study uses the statistically sound methodology that the Cochrane folks refer to? Maybe we could all even agree beforehand that if such a methodology were to be used, we’d all accept the results, whatever they are. And finally, maybe we could try to get other locations that have the cameras do the exact same kind of study, so we can see if Harris County is getting similar results as they are or not. I mean, it could be the case that we’ve just done a lousy job of implementation, and if we’d followed the example set by others we’d get better results. Or perhaps we’ll learn that there are no better results, or that what we got in the first year was a fluke. All I’m saying is, it can’t hurt to have more and better data.

Stein acknowledged that the cameras are not working in Houston as well as he believes they have been shown to work in other cities. The city and critics should be more concerned about why, he said.

“Why are these crashes going up at these intersections?” Stein asked. “Nobody really cares to get at the truth here. Cars are being damaged, people are being injured and a handful of people are dying. … What I want to know is, why they aren’t working in Houston, and what we can do to improve them?”

You know what my suggestion is. And while we’re at it, let’s please release the draft version of this first study. There’s no reason not to, and holding onto it just fans the flames.

Another lawsuit filed against DPS

That makes two such suits over the new DPS policy of verifying residency status in order to get a drivers license.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the lawsuit in state district court in Austin. It’s on behalf of three men with permission to work in the country and a Lewisville landscaping business that employs seasonal foreign workers through a federal program.

The men are landscaping workers in North Texas who need to drive as part of their job but could not obtain a Texas driver’s license under the new DPS policies because their visas are valid for only 10 months.

DPS rules exclude people from receiving driver’s licenses if they have a visa for less than one year or have less than six months remaining on it, MALDEF said.

Officials also changed the appearance of driver’s licenses for persons with legal permission to be in the U.S. so that they differ from licenses given to citizens and green card holders.

MALDEF contends the Public Safety Commission, which oversees DPS, exceeded its authority and did not have Legislative approval to adopt the rules.

Another suit had been filed two weeks ago by the Texas Civil Rights Project on the grounds that the new rules were discriminatory. At the very least, we know they’re causing all kinds of grief for plenty of folks whose paperwork is all in order. I’d bet someone will win an injunction, at least for the time being, to suspend these new procedures.

Another lawsuit filed against DPS

That makes two such suits over the new DPS policy of verifying residency status in order to get a drivers license.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the lawsuit in state district court in Austin. It’s on behalf of three men with permission to work in the country and a Lewisville landscaping business that employs seasonal foreign workers through a federal program.

The men are landscaping workers in North Texas who need to drive as part of their job but could not obtain a Texas driver’s license under the new DPS policies because their visas are valid for only 10 months.

DPS rules exclude people from receiving driver’s licenses if they have a visa for less than one year or have less than six months remaining on it, MALDEF said.

Officials also changed the appearance of driver’s licenses for persons with legal permission to be in the U.S. so that they differ from licenses given to citizens and green card holders.

MALDEF contends the Public Safety Commission, which oversees DPS, exceeded its authority and did not have Legislative approval to adopt the rules.

Another suit had been filed two weeks ago by the Texas Civil Rights Project on the grounds that the new rules were discriminatory. At the very least, we know they’re causing all kinds of grief for plenty of folks whose paperwork is all in order. I’d bet someone will win an injunction, at least for the time being, to suspend these new procedures.

A SUPERTRAIN for Texas?

It could happen.

The idea of high-speed rail is being pushed again in a big way in Texas, and backers hope to have $12 billion to $18 billion high-speed trains running by 2020. This time, they say they have taken care to ensure the idea won’t fall flat the way a bullet-train push did some 15 years ago.

“In the past, high-speed rail was not completed in Texas primarily because it was a top-down model driven by lobbyists out of Austin,” former Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, chairman of the nonprofit Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corp., told lawmakers at a Wednesday transportation briefing.

This time, he said backers from the consortium — which includes elected leaders, cities, counties and two airlines among others — reached out to past opponents to try to solve their concerns. Among them: Southwest Airlines, which fought the last high-speed rail project as a potential competitor. Southwest spokesman Chris Mainz said the airline is neutral on this proposal.

The high-speed trains — with an average speed of 200 mph — would run to airports, allowing rail to work in conjunction with airlines by ferrying in passengers catching longer flights.

[…]

The rail would run along the so-called “Texas T-Bone” — from Dallas-Fort Worth through Austin to San Antonio, and branching off in Temple to Houston. More than 70 percent of Texans live in the area that would be served.

Lawmakers and those pushing the project said it’s crucial to come up with alternative transportation since the state population is expected to reach 40 million to 50 million by 2040.

You know I love me some trains, and I’ll be happy to see this come about, if it really is possible. I don’t think I’d prioritize this kind of rail construction over commuter or light rail in urban areas, and even if I did prioritize this I’d be sure to continue pushing for urban rail transit so as to take full advantage of the network effect. But I’m still happy to see this sort of thing on the drawing board, and I hope it gains traction.

(SUPERTRAIN is a registered trademark of Atrios.)

A SUPERTRAIN for Texas?

It could happen.

The idea of high-speed rail is being pushed again in a big way in Texas, and backers hope to have $12 billion to $18 billion high-speed trains running by 2020. This time, they say they have taken care to ensure the idea won’t fall flat the way a bullet-train push did some 15 years ago.

“In the past, high-speed rail was not completed in Texas primarily because it was a top-down model driven by lobbyists out of Austin,” former Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, chairman of the nonprofit Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corp., told lawmakers at a Wednesday transportation briefing.

This time, he said backers from the consortium — which includes elected leaders, cities, counties and two airlines among others — reached out to past opponents to try to solve their concerns. Among them: Southwest Airlines, which fought the last high-speed rail project as a potential competitor. Southwest spokesman Chris Mainz said the airline is neutral on this proposal.

The high-speed trains — with an average speed of 200 mph — would run to airports, allowing rail to work in conjunction with airlines by ferrying in passengers catching longer flights.

[…]

The rail would run along the so-called “Texas T-Bone” — from Dallas-Fort Worth through Austin to San Antonio, and branching off in Temple to Houston. More than 70 percent of Texans live in the area that would be served.

Lawmakers and those pushing the project said it’s crucial to come up with alternative transportation since the state population is expected to reach 40 million to 50 million by 2040.

You know I love me some trains, and I’ll be happy to see this come about, if it really is possible. I don’t think I’d prioritize this kind of rail construction over commuter or light rail in urban areas, and even if I did prioritize this I’d be sure to continue pushing for urban rail transit so as to take full advantage of the network effect. But I’m still happy to see this sort of thing on the drawing board, and I hope it gains traction.

(SUPERTRAIN is a registered trademark of Atrios.)

Let’s always elect our Senators

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, having seen what a farce the gubernatorial-selection process for replacing Senators has been this year, proposes to do something about it:

The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.

He goes into greater detail here.

I do not make this proposal lightly. In fact, I have opposed dozens of constitutional amendments during my time in the Senate, particularly those that would have interfered with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution should not be treated like a rough draft. Constitutional amendments should be considered only when a statutory remedy to a problem is not available, and when the impact of the issue at hand on the structure of our government, the safety, welfare, or freedoms of our citizens, or the survival of our democratic republic is so significant that an amendment is warranted. This is such a case.

The fact that the people of four states, comprising over 12 percent of the entire population of the country, will be represented for the next two years by someone they did not elect is contrary to the purpose of the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of Senators. That is not to say that people appointed to Senate seats are not capable of serving, or will not do so honorably. I have no reason to question the fitness for office of any of the most recent appointees, and I look forward to working with them. But people who want to be a U.S. Senator should have to make their case to the people whom they want to represent, not just the occupant of the governor’s mansion. And the voters should choose them in the time-honored way that they choose the rest of the Congress of the United States.

This proposal is not simply a response to these latest cases. Those cases have simply confirmed my longstanding view that Senate appointments by state governors are an unfortunate relic of the time when state legislatures elected U.S. Senators. This system was replaced by direct elections by the citizens of each state following the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Direct election of Senators was championed by the great progressive Bob La Follette, who served as Wisconsin’s Governor and a U.S. Senator. Indeed, my state of Wisconsin is now one of only three states (Oregon and Massachusetts are the others) that require a special election to fill a Senate vacancy. But the vast majority of states still rely on the appointment system. Changing this system state by state would be a long and difficult process, particularly since Governors have the power to veto state statutes that would take this power away from them. We need to finish the job started by La Follette and other reformers nearly a century ago. Nobody can represent the people in the House of Representatives without the approval of the voters. The same should be true for the Senate.

I think this makes a lot of sense, and even if it never gets officially ratified, I think Feingold’s actions may spur more states to change their own processes. For what it’s worth, I think Texas’ process of an appointment followed by a special election on the next uniform election date is good enough for these purposes. I’d rather have someone in office for the few months it takes for the next election date to roll around than have only one Senator represent the state. But clearly a two-year appointment, however well-intentioned and however well-qualified the appointee may be, just doesn’t cut it any more. I hope this proposal gets plenty of traction.

Let’s always elect our Senators

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, having seen what a farce the gubernatorial-selection process for replacing Senators has been this year, proposes to do something about it:

The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.

He goes into greater detail here.

I do not make this proposal lightly. In fact, I have opposed dozens of constitutional amendments during my time in the Senate, particularly those that would have interfered with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution should not be treated like a rough draft. Constitutional amendments should be considered only when a statutory remedy to a problem is not available, and when the impact of the issue at hand on the structure of our government, the safety, welfare, or freedoms of our citizens, or the survival of our democratic republic is so significant that an amendment is warranted. This is such a case.

The fact that the people of four states, comprising over 12 percent of the entire population of the country, will be represented for the next two years by someone they did not elect is contrary to the purpose of the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of Senators. That is not to say that people appointed to Senate seats are not capable of serving, or will not do so honorably. I have no reason to question the fitness for office of any of the most recent appointees, and I look forward to working with them. But people who want to be a U.S. Senator should have to make their case to the people whom they want to represent, not just the occupant of the governor’s mansion. And the voters should choose them in the time-honored way that they choose the rest of the Congress of the United States.

This proposal is not simply a response to these latest cases. Those cases have simply confirmed my longstanding view that Senate appointments by state governors are an unfortunate relic of the time when state legislatures elected U.S. Senators. This system was replaced by direct elections by the citizens of each state following the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Direct election of Senators was championed by the great progressive Bob La Follette, who served as Wisconsin’s Governor and a U.S. Senator. Indeed, my state of Wisconsin is now one of only three states (Oregon and Massachusetts are the others) that require a special election to fill a Senate vacancy. But the vast majority of states still rely on the appointment system. Changing this system state by state would be a long and difficult process, particularly since Governors have the power to veto state statutes that would take this power away from them. We need to finish the job started by La Follette and other reformers nearly a century ago. Nobody can represent the people in the House of Representatives without the approval of the voters. The same should be true for the Senate.

I think this makes a lot of sense, and even if it never gets officially ratified, I think Feingold’s actions may spur more states to change their own processes. For what it’s worth, I think Texas’ process of an appointment followed by a special election on the next uniform election date is good enough for these purposes. I’d rather have someone in office for the few months it takes for the next election date to roll around than have only one Senator represent the state. But clearly a two-year appointment, however well-intentioned and however well-qualified the appointee may be, just doesn’t cut it any more. I hope this proposal gets plenty of traction.

Blogging for “Houston Have Your Say 2.0”

I’m at KUHT along with Ree-C Murphey and Mike Reed of the Examiner newspapers, and we’re getting ready to begin doing our stream-of-consciousness thing for Houston Have Your Say. You can follow us there, and I’m sure I’ll post a longer summary here tomorrow. I’m looking forward to this discussion. If you tune in, let me know what you think, either here or there.

Blogging for “Houston Have Your Say 2.0”

I’m at KUHT along with Ree-C Murphey and Mike Reed of the Examiner newspapers, and we’re getting ready to begin doing our stream-of-consciousness thing for Houston Have Your Say. You can follow us there, and I’m sure I’ll post a longer summary here tomorrow. I’m looking forward to this discussion. If you tune in, let me know what you think, either here or there.

House adopts rules

Once again, not much drama in the lower chamber.

After an all-day debate, the House approved its rules for the 2009 legislative session in a relaxed atmosphere overseen by new Speaker Joe Straus.

The most intense squabble came when the chamber overrode the wishes of the speaker’s point man on rules, Rep. Burt Solomons, over the assignment of bills relating to the telecommunications and electric industries.

Solomons, with Straus’ approval, had first suggested eliminating the Regulated Industries Committee and spreading those issues over several committees.

However, the chamber ultimately moved the telecommunications and electrical industries into the State Affairs Committee in an 82-65 vote.

You can read the details on that debate here. The main event was over the procedure to remove the Speaker, which was the fulcrum that ultimately led to the successful overthrow of Tom Craddick before this session began.

[I]n response to attempts in 2007 to remove Craddick as speaker, the House passed a rule saying a majority — 76 members — can remove a speaker.

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, urged members to raise that number to 90, saying removing the speaker is an emotional vote that could jeopardize legislation. (Craddick himself supported that higher bar Wednesday.)

But Rep. Jim Keffer, an Eastland Republican and one of the leaders in the revolt against Craddick, disagreed.

“It’s a problem to build a firewall around a speaker who’s not doing his job,” he said.

In the end, the House voted 87-60 to allow a majority to remove a speaker.

Rep. Larry Taylor of Friendswood made a similar objection, also to no avail.

There was a move by the Democrats to pass a rule saying the House would not vote on any bill that cleared the Senate without a two-thirds procedural vote until the appropriations conference committee report is done. You know what that was in response to. The votes for it were not there, and it didn’t make it to the floor. In the end, the rules were adopted by a 147-1 vote, with Speaker Straus casting a Yes and Houston Rep. Harold Dutton being the only No. There will be 34 committees instead of 40, with some committees having more members on them. Committee assignments are still a week or more away, though the Senate should get theirs today.

House adopts rules

Once again, not much drama in the lower chamber.

After an all-day debate, the House approved its rules for the 2009 legislative session in a relaxed atmosphere overseen by new Speaker Joe Straus.

The most intense squabble came when the chamber overrode the wishes of the speaker’s point man on rules, Rep. Burt Solomons, over the assignment of bills relating to the telecommunications and electric industries.

Solomons, with Straus’ approval, had first suggested eliminating the Regulated Industries Committee and spreading those issues over several committees.

However, the chamber ultimately moved the telecommunications and electrical industries into the State Affairs Committee in an 82-65 vote.

You can read the details on that debate here. The main event was over the procedure to remove the Speaker, which was the fulcrum that ultimately led to the successful overthrow of Tom Craddick before this session began.

[I]n response to attempts in 2007 to remove Craddick as speaker, the House passed a rule saying a majority — 76 members — can remove a speaker.

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, urged members to raise that number to 90, saying removing the speaker is an emotional vote that could jeopardize legislation. (Craddick himself supported that higher bar Wednesday.)

But Rep. Jim Keffer, an Eastland Republican and one of the leaders in the revolt against Craddick, disagreed.

“It’s a problem to build a firewall around a speaker who’s not doing his job,” he said.

In the end, the House voted 87-60 to allow a majority to remove a speaker.

Rep. Larry Taylor of Friendswood made a similar objection, also to no avail.

There was a move by the Democrats to pass a rule saying the House would not vote on any bill that cleared the Senate without a two-thirds procedural vote until the appropriations conference committee report is done. You know what that was in response to. The votes for it were not there, and it didn’t make it to the floor. In the end, the rules were adopted by a 147-1 vote, with Speaker Straus casting a Yes and Houston Rep. Harold Dutton being the only No. There will be 34 committees instead of 40, with some committees having more members on them. Committee assignments are still a week or more away, though the Senate should get theirs today.

Houston Have Your Say 2.0

So last year I got to serve as an on-the-spot blogger for KUHF’s production of Houston Have Your Say, which was about immigration. I blogged some of it at Kuff’s World and some of it at a blog that was set up for the show. Tonight I’ll be back in the KUHF studios along with my compatriot from the last time, Ree-C Murphy of Lone Star Times and Chronically Right, and the topic will be growth. There’s a new blog for the occasion, which you can find here – expect to see our output there this evening.

That blog already has a few entries on it, from some of the guests who will be on the program to discuss the issues. One such entry is here, from Tory Gattis of Houston Strategies. In the spirit of kicking things off, I’m going to pick a nit about his case for why we shouldn’t fear growth, a thesis with which I otherwise concur.

Houston has a pedestrian-hostile tropical climate five months of the year. While northern transit-based cities benefit from a personal warming technology – the coat – the only personal cooling technology that exists for southern cities is an air-conditioned vehicle.

All due respect, but as someone who grew up in a northern transit-based city and spent ten years of his life walking or taking public transit to get to school, it’s cities like New York that are pedestrian-hostile for five months of the year; essentially, November through March. It’s true one can wear that magical personal warming technology Tory refers to when it’s cold, but up north we also have what’s known as “snow”, which turns into “slush”, and trust me on this – your coat only helps so much in those conditions. I’ve seen snow as early as Halloween and as late as Easter – in fact, the last snow day I recall as a student was on Good Friday, in the first week of April. Some day, when I tell my daughters that I often went to school in a foot or more of snow, I won’t be exaggerating. (The bit about it being uphill both ways will admittedly be a stretch.) You want weather that’s not fit for walking, or for waiting for a bus? Let me introduce you to the concept of the “wind chill factor”. That’s my idea of an I’d-rather-be-driving climate.

As for Houston, well, I may be more heat tolerant than some, but for the most part outside of July and August, I’ll take our weather over theirs. And you know, in a well-designed transit-oriented city, they do have a remarkable pedestrian-cooling technology available. It’s called “trees”, which when planted along sidewalks can make a big difference in the ambient temperature. You may recall a big argument over the redevelopment on Kirby Drive regarding the dispensation of its trees. And though it may not provide as much relief, unlike your car’s technology, a tree canopy won’t break down on you and require a costly repair.

Anyway. Like I say, Tory has some really smart ideas, but to me at least, the suggestion that Houston has worse walking weather than New York or Boston or Detroit is frankly ludicrous and in need of some pushback. For more on being a pedestrian in Houston, I’ll refer you back to Andrew Burleson’s recent post about walking as well as this earlier one about urban corridors and the need to value sidewalks and walking as much as we do cars and driving. May we have a lively and informative debate on all these topics tonight.

Houston Have Your Say 2.0

So last year I got to serve as an on-the-spot blogger for KUHF’s production of Houston Have Your Say, which was about immigration. I blogged some of it at Kuff’s World and some of it at a blog that was set up for the show. Tonight I’ll be back in the KUHF studios along with my compatriot from the last time, Ree-C Murphy of Lone Star Times and Chronically Right, and the topic will be growth. There’s a new blog for the occasion, which you can find here – expect to see our output there this evening.

That blog already has a few entries on it, from some of the guests who will be on the program to discuss the issues. One such entry is here, from Tory Gattis of Houston Strategies. In the spirit of kicking things off, I’m going to pick a nit about his case for why we shouldn’t fear growth, a thesis with which I otherwise concur.

Houston has a pedestrian-hostile tropical climate five months of the year. While northern transit-based cities benefit from a personal warming technology – the coat – the only personal cooling technology that exists for southern cities is an air-conditioned vehicle.

All due respect, but as someone who grew up in a northern transit-based city and spent ten years of his life walking or taking public transit to get to school, it’s cities like New York that are pedestrian-hostile for five months of the year; essentially, November through March. It’s true one can wear that magical personal warming technology Tory refers to when it’s cold, but up north we also have what’s known as “snow”, which turns into “slush”, and trust me on this – your coat only helps so much in those conditions. I’ve seen snow as early as Halloween and as late as Easter – in fact, the last snow day I recall as a student was on Good Friday, in the first week of April. Some day, when I tell my daughters that I often went to school in a foot or more of snow, I won’t be exaggerating. (The bit about it being uphill both ways will admittedly be a stretch.) You want weather that’s not fit for walking, or for waiting for a bus? Let me introduce you to the concept of the “wind chill factor”. That’s my idea of an I’d-rather-be-driving climate.

As for Houston, well, I may be more heat tolerant than some, but for the most part outside of July and August, I’ll take our weather over theirs. And you know, in a well-designed transit-oriented city, they do have a remarkable pedestrian-cooling technology available. It’s called “trees”, which when planted along sidewalks can make a big difference in the ambient temperature. You may recall a big argument over the redevelopment on Kirby Drive regarding the dispensation of its trees. And though it may not provide as much relief, unlike your car’s technology, a tree canopy won’t break down on you and require a costly repair.

Anyway. Like I say, Tory has some really smart ideas, but to me at least, the suggestion that Houston has worse walking weather than New York or Boston or Detroit is frankly ludicrous and in need of some pushback. For more on being a pedestrian in Houston, I’ll refer you back to Andrew Burleson’s recent post about walking as well as this earlier one about urban corridors and the need to value sidewalks and walking as much as we do cars and driving. May we have a lively and informative debate on all these topics tonight.

Election date set for District H

City Council has officially set the date for the District H special election. As noted in Item 42 of the Council agenda, the special election date is Saturday, May 9, which is the next uniform election date. If there are any other potential candidates out there, expect them to emerge soon.

It’s been a week of formal declarations by candidates. Jeffrey Downing made an official announcement of his intent to run for District A on Tuesday, and Ed Gonzalez and Maverick Welsh made theirs yesterday in District H. I’ve got their press releases beneath the fold. I’ve also been informed of three potential candidates in District G, one of whom I was asked not to name yet on the blog. Houtopia mentioned two of them in the comments to the earlier post, HCC Trustee Robert Mills Worsham, and attorney Oliver Pennington. I can confirm the latter’s candidacy thanks to the following message I received on Facebook from his daughter, Sarah Pennington Tropoli:

Oliver Pennington, who is a now an of counsel attorney with Fulbright and Jaworski – he has been a partner there and worked there since the 70’s – will be running for District G. Penny Butler will be his treasurer.

Tropoli mentioned that Pennington’s website, OliverPennington.com, will be up in the next few weeks. Jeff Downing also has a website in the works, but it’s not ready yet, either. Welsh’s website is MaverickWelsh.com.

We can also remove two names from consideration. In the same message to me that confirmed Pennington’s candidacy, Tropoli said “George Hittner will not be running for Council – he has accepted a job in another state”. That’s one less possibility for At Large #4. And despite my fond wishes, HCDE Trustee Roy Morales left a comment in that previous entry stating that he will not be a candidate for Houston City Council this year. Ah, well, maybe next time.

I wish I could tell you just who exactly has filed their Treasurer’s report for District H, or any other race for that matter, but according to the Houston City Secretary’s office, you have to come downtown and ask them for the list in person. They don’t give it out over the phone, and it’s not available online. I do not care for this policy, and plan to do some complaining about it.

Finally, just as a reminder to District H residents, tonight is the CIP meeting at the West End Multi Service Center on Heights Boulevard. Go see what’s in the works for the district, and scope out some hopefuls for the open seat.

(more…)

Election date set for District H

City Council has officially set the date for the District H special election. As noted in Item 42 of the Council agenda, the special election date is Saturday, May 9, which is the next uniform election date. If there are any other potential candidates out there, expect them to emerge soon.

It’s been a week of formal declarations by candidates. Jeffrey Downing made an official announcement of his intent to run for District A on Tuesday, and Ed Gonzalez and Maverick Welsh made theirs yesterday in District H. I’ve got their press releases beneath the fold. I’ve also been informed of three potential candidates in District G, one of whom I was asked not to name yet on the blog. Houtopia mentioned two of them in the comments to the earlier post, HCC Trustee Robert Mills Worsham, and attorney Oliver Pennington. I can confirm the latter’s candidacy thanks to the following message I received on Facebook from his daughter, Sarah Pennington Tropoli:

Oliver Pennington, who is a now an of counsel attorney with Fulbright and Jaworski – he has been a partner there and worked there since the 70’s – will be running for District G. Penny Butler will be his treasurer.

Tropoli mentioned that Pennington’s website, OliverPennington.com, will be up in the next few weeks. Jeff Downing also has a website in the works, but it’s not ready yet, either. Welsh’s website is MaverickWelsh.com.

We can also remove two names from consideration. In the same message to me that confirmed Pennington’s candidacy, Tropoli said “George Hittner will not be running for Council – he has accepted a job in another state”. That’s one less possibility for At Large #4. And despite my fond wishes, HCDE Trustee Roy Morales left a comment in that previous entry stating that he will not be a candidate for Houston City Council this year. Ah, well, maybe next time.

I wish I could tell you just who exactly has filed their Treasurer’s report for District H, or any other race for that matter, but according to the Houston City Secretary’s office, you have to come downtown and ask them for the list in person. They don’t give it out over the phone, and it’s not available online. I do not care for this policy, and plan to do some complaining about it.

Finally, just as a reminder to District H residents, tonight is the CIP meeting at the West End Multi Service Center on Heights Boulevard. Go see what’s in the works for the district, and scope out some hopefuls for the open seat.

(more…)

California breathin’

We may get some cleaner air to breathe here in Texas thanks to California and President Obama.

Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review the Bush administration’s refusal to allow California and 13 other states to set the nation’s toughest vehicle emissions standards.

During a ceremony in the White House East Room, Obama signed a directive requiring the agency immediately to review that December 2007 decision denying California permission to limit carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks.

“The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Obama said.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who pushed unsuccessfully for tougher car emissions standards in the 2007 legislative session, says his measure may have a better chance this session now that one key obstacle — federal opposition — is likely to disappear.

“It’s an uphill battle to get the votes in the House and in the Senate,” Ellis acknowledged. “But on my side in the Senate, members who in the past were very reluctant to consider environmental legislation have gotten much more educated, as I’ve seen in private conversations.”

Ellis’ legislation would adopt all of California’s proposed emissions standards, as the 13 other states already have and several more are considering.

Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, has filed an identical bill in the House.

The bills in question are SB119 and HB776. I don’t know that this will give them a leg up, but it does at least knock down one objection to them. We know Speaker Straus is much more open to green legislation than Tom Craddick was. If Sen. Ellis’ assessment of his colleagues is accurate, then who knows?

Adopting the California standard in Texas would cost new-car buyers about $7 more per month if they financed a car over five years, Ellis said, but they would save up to $18 per month in fuel costs based on $1.74 per gallon of gas.

Many industry groups expressed opposition to the administration’s move.

The American Petroleum Institute said it “supports President Obama’s desire to fortify the nation’s energy security with a comprehensive energy policy” and said that since 2000 the oil and gas industry has invested $42 billion in “zero- and low-carbon” research and development. But the action contemplated in Monday’s announcement isn’t the best approach, the group said.

“Creating a patchwork regulatory structure across multiple states would most likely impose higher costs on consumers, slow economic growth and kill U.S. jobs,” the trading group said in a statement.

And carmakers have complained that developing vehicles that comply would cost billions of dollars.

But if the EPA agrees to California’s standards, Texas likely will be affected regardless of whether the Legislature approves Ellis’ measure. The 14 states that have adopted the tougher emissions standards represent more than half the nation’s population, so the practical effect of EPA approval of California’s rules would be to force automakers to raise fuel efficiency standards across their fleet.

Yeah, that would seem to be the obvious answer to the automakers’ complaint. I mean, nobody is forcing them to maintain two different standards. And let’s face it, when it comes to environmental matters, these guys are a bunch of weasels who generally need to be forced to do the right thing. So forgive me if I am unmoved by their argument.

California breathin’

We may get some cleaner air to breathe here in Texas thanks to California and President Obama.

Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review the Bush administration’s refusal to allow California and 13 other states to set the nation’s toughest vehicle emissions standards.

During a ceremony in the White House East Room, Obama signed a directive requiring the agency immediately to review that December 2007 decision denying California permission to limit carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks.

“The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Obama said.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who pushed unsuccessfully for tougher car emissions standards in the 2007 legislative session, says his measure may have a better chance this session now that one key obstacle — federal opposition — is likely to disappear.

“It’s an uphill battle to get the votes in the House and in the Senate,” Ellis acknowledged. “But on my side in the Senate, members who in the past were very reluctant to consider environmental legislation have gotten much more educated, as I’ve seen in private conversations.”

Ellis’ legislation would adopt all of California’s proposed emissions standards, as the 13 other states already have and several more are considering.

Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, has filed an identical bill in the House.

The bills in question are SB119 and HB776. I don’t know that this will give them a leg up, but it does at least knock down one objection to them. We know Speaker Straus is much more open to green legislation than Tom Craddick was. If Sen. Ellis’ assessment of his colleagues is accurate, then who knows?

Adopting the California standard in Texas would cost new-car buyers about $7 more per month if they financed a car over five years, Ellis said, but they would save up to $18 per month in fuel costs based on $1.74 per gallon of gas.

Many industry groups expressed opposition to the administration’s move.

The American Petroleum Institute said it “supports President Obama’s desire to fortify the nation’s energy security with a comprehensive energy policy” and said that since 2000 the oil and gas industry has invested $42 billion in “zero- and low-carbon” research and development. But the action contemplated in Monday’s announcement isn’t the best approach, the group said.

“Creating a patchwork regulatory structure across multiple states would most likely impose higher costs on consumers, slow economic growth and kill U.S. jobs,” the trading group said in a statement.

And carmakers have complained that developing vehicles that comply would cost billions of dollars.

But if the EPA agrees to California’s standards, Texas likely will be affected regardless of whether the Legislature approves Ellis’ measure. The 14 states that have adopted the tougher emissions standards represent more than half the nation’s population, so the practical effect of EPA approval of California’s rules would be to force automakers to raise fuel efficiency standards across their fleet.

Yeah, that would seem to be the obvious answer to the automakers’ complaint. I mean, nobody is forcing them to maintain two different standards. And let’s face it, when it comes to environmental matters, these guys are a bunch of weasels who generally need to be forced to do the right thing. So forgive me if I am unmoved by their argument.

Fish farming in the Gulf?

Not sure what I think about this.

Regional fishery managers have a plan to open the Gulf to the first industrial-scale fish farms in federal waters.

The proposal — intended to help reduce the nation’s reliance on imported seafood — calls for raising millions of pounds of amberjack, red snapper and other Gulf species each year in submerged pens three miles to 200 miles off the coast.

But the plan has raised concerns from environmental and fishing interests about how to protect the Gulf’s wild fish stock and waters from disease, pollution and other threats that have troubled fish farms in other countries.

What’s more, some of the plan’s critics contend that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, which is responsible for the Gulf’s fish population, shouldn’t act before Congress establishes federal regulations for the emerging industry.

“We’re not fundamentally opposed to fish farms,” said George Leonard, director of the Ocean Conservancy’s aquaculture program. “But we need to get it right the first time, and one way of doing it is to have a national debate.”

The time is apparently now, because the plan was approved, though it still has to get past the Commerce Department.

Those against the plan say the large cages and pens that would raise fish far offshore would pollute the oceans with fish waste and chemicals. Farmed fish, which often get heavy doses of antibiotics, can also escape into the wild and interfere with native species.

“We simply do not want this,” said Avery Bates, vice president of the Organized Seafood Association of Alabama. “Do not allow this, I don’t care who’s pushing your buttons … Don’t put us out of business.”

Bates, who represents about 200 commercial fishermen in Alabama, said there was fear that foreign companies would buy permits to farm fish offshore and then sell the fish at reduced prices, undercutting U.S. fishermen.

The United States takes in about $10 billion in seafood imports a year and exports only about $2.7 billion, according to data from the Commerce Department. About 80 percent of all seafood consumed in the United States is imported.

Commercial seafood company owner John Ericsson favors the plan. He said the United States has fallen behind countries such as Greece, Norway and Chile, where offshore farming has taken off.

His said his company, Florida-based BioMarine Technologies Inc., is looking at growing fish in cages that could contain up to 60,000 cobia, also known as king fish in the Northeast, and amberjack. He said it would take about $10 million to set up an offshore fish farm.

“It’s a serious business commitment,” he said.

Besides creating jobs, fish farming is important for the nation’s food security, he said. “Just think if someone was able to wipe out our cows and other land creatures with an anthrax. Where would we get our protein from?” he said.

I have to say, neither of those arguments strike me as particularly compelling. Surely the advocates on either side can do better than that. I think I’m just going to have to read around and see what I can learn about them before I come to any judgment about this. What do you think?

Fish farming in the Gulf?

Not sure what I think about this.

Regional fishery managers have a plan to open the Gulf to the first industrial-scale fish farms in federal waters.

The proposal — intended to help reduce the nation’s reliance on imported seafood — calls for raising millions of pounds of amberjack, red snapper and other Gulf species each year in submerged pens three miles to 200 miles off the coast.

But the plan has raised concerns from environmental and fishing interests about how to protect the Gulf’s wild fish stock and waters from disease, pollution and other threats that have troubled fish farms in other countries.

What’s more, some of the plan’s critics contend that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, which is responsible for the Gulf’s fish population, shouldn’t act before Congress establishes federal regulations for the emerging industry.

“We’re not fundamentally opposed to fish farms,” said George Leonard, director of the Ocean Conservancy’s aquaculture program. “But we need to get it right the first time, and one way of doing it is to have a national debate.”

The time is apparently now, because the plan was approved, though it still has to get past the Commerce Department.

Those against the plan say the large cages and pens that would raise fish far offshore would pollute the oceans with fish waste and chemicals. Farmed fish, which often get heavy doses of antibiotics, can also escape into the wild and interfere with native species.

“We simply do not want this,” said Avery Bates, vice president of the Organized Seafood Association of Alabama. “Do not allow this, I don’t care who’s pushing your buttons … Don’t put us out of business.”

Bates, who represents about 200 commercial fishermen in Alabama, said there was fear that foreign companies would buy permits to farm fish offshore and then sell the fish at reduced prices, undercutting U.S. fishermen.

The United States takes in about $10 billion in seafood imports a year and exports only about $2.7 billion, according to data from the Commerce Department. About 80 percent of all seafood consumed in the United States is imported.

Commercial seafood company owner John Ericsson favors the plan. He said the United States has fallen behind countries such as Greece, Norway and Chile, where offshore farming has taken off.

His said his company, Florida-based BioMarine Technologies Inc., is looking at growing fish in cages that could contain up to 60,000 cobia, also known as king fish in the Northeast, and amberjack. He said it would take about $10 million to set up an offshore fish farm.

“It’s a serious business commitment,” he said.

Besides creating jobs, fish farming is important for the nation’s food security, he said. “Just think if someone was able to wipe out our cows and other land creatures with an anthrax. Where would we get our protein from?” he said.

I have to say, neither of those arguments strike me as particularly compelling. Surely the advocates on either side can do better than that. I think I’m just going to have to read around and see what I can learn about them before I come to any judgment about this. What do you think?

Don’t fear a fight with KBH

I want to take a minute to recommend Karl-Thomas’ analysis of the Governor’s race, and why Democrats seem to be working towards a self-fulfilling prophecy of Kay Bailey Hutchison’s inevitability and unbeatableness. I’ve talked about some of this stuff before, but his point about how Rick Perry’s attacks on KBH from the right can give a Democratic nominee the opportunity to box her in early on is a good one; what’s more, by having a good Democrat in the race early on, it could negatively affect her presumed strategy to lure non-traditional Republican voters into that primary to counteract Perry’s base. Good stuff, and I’m glad to see more attention focused on this. I just hope the message gets received by those who can do something about it.

Don’t fear a fight with KBH

I want to take a minute to recommend Karl-Thomas’ analysis of the Governor’s race, and why Democrats seem to be working towards a self-fulfilling prophecy of Kay Bailey Hutchison’s inevitability and unbeatableness. I’ve talked about some of this stuff before, but his point about how Rick Perry’s attacks on KBH from the right can give a Democratic nominee the opportunity to box her in early on is a good one; what’s more, by having a good Democrat in the race early on, it could negatively affect her presumed strategy to lure non-traditional Republican voters into that primary to counteract Perry’s base. Good stuff, and I’m glad to see more attention focused on this. I just hope the message gets received by those who can do something about it.

So much for the wine bar

The battle between Weingarten and its neighbors over the changes to the new River Oaks Shopping Center, which reached a resolution two weeks ago, may end up as having been over nothing.

Houston restaurateur Tony Vallone said he’s canceled plans to open an Italian bistro and wine bar in the River Oaks area because of the ailing economy.

“I’m going to wait until the economy gets better,” said Vallone, who was planning to operate the restaurant with his son Jeff.

Boy, if they’d only said that a few months ago. Anyway, we’ll see if this crops up again in the future, when and if the Vallones decide that the climate has improved. Thanks to Houstonist for the catch.

UPDATE: The River Oaks Examiner has more.

“This is not the time for expansion,” Vallone said of his decision.

Better to wait for the economy to recover, he said, and to focus on his flagship restaurant and catering business.

The spiked project was a restaurant with a patio and upstairs wine bar. It would have been an Italian restaurant, not a bistro, he said.

Meanwhile, the recent flak between neighbors and developer Weingarten Realty on such points as the building’s setbacks and the use of the patio were not factors in pulling the plug, he said, adding the discourse was full of misinformation.

Vallone said, for example, rumors were circulated that the patio would have been used, at times, as a band venue, which would not have been the case.

“I would never do anything to jeopardize the relationship with the neighborhood,” Vallone said.

So we may see this project again some day. I wonder what the neighbors think.

So much for the wine bar

The battle between Weingarten and its neighbors over the changes to the new River Oaks Shopping Center, which reached a resolution two weeks ago, may end up as having been over nothing.

Houston restaurateur Tony Vallone said he’s canceled plans to open an Italian bistro and wine bar in the River Oaks area because of the ailing economy.

“I’m going to wait until the economy gets better,” said Vallone, who was planning to operate the restaurant with his son Jeff.

Boy, if they’d only said that a few months ago. Anyway, we’ll see if this crops up again in the future, when and if the Vallones decide that the climate has improved. Thanks to Houstonist for the catch.

UPDATE: The River Oaks Examiner has more.

“This is not the time for expansion,” Vallone said of his decision.

Better to wait for the economy to recover, he said, and to focus on his flagship restaurant and catering business.

The spiked project was a restaurant with a patio and upstairs wine bar. It would have been an Italian restaurant, not a bistro, he said.

Meanwhile, the recent flak between neighbors and developer Weingarten Realty on such points as the building’s setbacks and the use of the patio were not factors in pulling the plug, he said, adding the discourse was full of misinformation.

Vallone said, for example, rumors were circulated that the patio would have been used, at times, as a band venue, which would not have been the case.

“I would never do anything to jeopardize the relationship with the neighborhood,” Vallone said.

So we may see this project again some day. I wonder what the neighbors think.