Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

May 21st, 2016:

Saturday video break: Jump

It was the year 1984, the year Van Halen gave us this:

Albums like 1984 hghlight a problem with our streaming-and-downloads music market these days. Back then, when men with hair like David Lee Roth strutted on the earth, bands made albums whose songs some sometimes interconnected. You can play “Jump” without first playing “1984” as a lead-in, just as you can play “You Really Got Me” without preceding it with “Eruption”. But you lose something when you do. I know I’m a dinosaur and the idea is archaic, but if you don’t know what I’m talking about, find a full-album upload of 1984 or the eponymous Van Halen album and see what you’ve been missing. The rest of you, you know what I mean.

Of course, no one ever covers the lead-in song. More’s the pity, but it is what it is. I have two covers of “Jump” for today. First, a very acoustic cover by Aztec Camera:

Ok, acoustic except for the hot guitar solo at the end. For something a little different, you can always rely on Big Daddy:

Can’t you see what I mean? And may I just say, as Michael Binkley once did, that the world has indeed gone to hell in a handbasket since David Lee Roth left Van Halen.

(I can’t seem to find the relevant comic via Google, but because you’ve been such good boys and girls this week I will show you this and this. You’re welcome.)

Lawsuit filed over Harris County bail practices

This could be a big deal.

An advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., challenged Harris County’s bail system on Thursday, arguing in a federal civil rights lawsuit that hundreds of offenders are unlawfully jailed for minor offenses like trespassing and shoplifting simply because they are poor and cannot afford even nominal bail payments.

Lawyers for the non-profit, Equal Justice Under Law, filed the suit on behalf of Maranda Lynn ODonnell, a 22-year-old single mother jailed Wednesday for driving without a valid license, and all other pretrial misdemeanor offenders held in Harris County, asking the court for class action status.

ODonnell, mother of a 4-year-old, has been held for two days only because she can’t afford to post $2,500 bond, according to court documents. The suit described ODonnell as one of many poor defendants who have been “subjected to the County’s unlawful and ongoing post-arrest wealth-based detention scheme.”

“She is currently being held in a jail cell solely because she cannot pay what to other people is a small sum of money,” the lawsuit says, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has “repeatedly articulated the fundamental principle that no person can be kept in a jail cell solely because of her poverty.”

Equal Justice Under Law has previously targeted what it calls “money bail” practices all across the United States as unconstitutional, filing lawsuits against 17 other cities and counties nationwide, including Ferguson, Mo., New Orleans and San Francisco, according to Alec Karakatsanis, one of the non-profit’s attorneys.

The group has obtained federal consent decrees eliminating that practice for newly-arrested offenders in eight cases involving smaller cities, including Clanton, Al., Dodge City, Kan, and Moss Point, Miss., he said. Harris County is the largest jurisdiction to face a challenge from the group.

Here’s some background on EJUL and this particular crusade; they have some other causes going on as well. The lawsuit names Harris County, the Harris County Sheriff, and Harris County Criminal Law Hearing Officers as defendants. You know how I feel about this, and you also know that this is largely self-induced on the county’s part. Harris County has recently taken a step towards reforming how bail is done, which is long overdue and still in believe-it-when-I-see-it mode. Perhaps this action will spur that along. Grits and the Press have more.

The latest good news/bad news on Texas uninsured numbers

Good news: Texas’ percentage of uninsured residents continues to drop. Bad news: It’s still higher than what the national average was in 2010, the year before the Affordable Care Act was passed.

It's constitutional - deal with it

It’s constitutional – deal with it

The percentage of Texans without insurance has dropped dramatically since the launch of the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday. In 2015, the uninsured rate fell to 16.8 percent.

While the state continues to lead the nation in the rate of people who are not covered, advocates for the health care law who have watched its implementation say the headway is undeniable. Prior to the law’s passage in 2010, the Texas rate of uninsured hovered around 25 percent, or one in four.

“This is indeed significant progress,” said Elena Marks, president and CEO of Episcopal health Foundation in Houston. She is co-author of a separate series of ACA tracking reports issued through Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Nationally, the rate of uninsured fell to a historic low of 9.1 percent last year, the National Health Interview Survey released Tuesday found. That translates to about 7.4 million people gaining coverage last year on top of the 8.8 million who signed up in 2014. It is the first time the uninsured rate has slid into the single digits.

In 2010, the national rate of uninsured was 16 percent.

“The historically low rate of uninsured in America reflects people’s desires for health coverage. Americans like having access to health care,” said Ken Janda, president and CEO of Community Health Choice, a nonprofit managed-care organization serving Harris and 19 other Texas counties.

[…]

The CDC study shows that last year adults in states that expanded Medicaid were less likely to be uninsured. In those states, the percentage of un-insured decreased to 9.8 in 2015 from 18.4 percent two years earlier. By contrast, the uninsured rate in states like Texas that chose not to expand the program decreased to 17.5 percent last year from 22.7 percent in 2013.

Raise your hand if you’re surprised that the states that have refused to expand Medicaid had the highest rates of uninsured residents pre-Obamacare. I’ve pretty much run out of things to say with these news stories, so fill in your own snarky/heartfelt/cynical comment as appropriate.

San Antonio to re-revisit its rideshare requirements

Just when you thought it was all over

Uber

With Transportation Network Company (TNC) tension looming from Austin and Houston, the City of San Antonio is preparing its push to renegotiate with ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft. And one of the officials taking the lead on the talks believes they’ll be a model for other municipalities to follow.

“It’s important that we move forward and set the example. And I think we’re about to for the entire state and possibly the entire country,” said City Councilman Roberto Treviño at a meeting of the City Council Governance Committee. Treviño has spearheaded much of the City’s negotiations with TNCs.

Lyft and Uber left San Antonio in March 2015, after City Council mandated that drivers undergo fingerprint background checks. After a spring and summer without the services, a 9-month pilot compromise was struck to bring them back: The checks were made voluntary, with the City footing the bill for those who wished to undergo them. If a driver submitted to a fingerprint background check, they’d receive a special designation on the app’s screen.

The deal was portrayed as a win for consumer choice and TNCs alike. But few drivers have undergone the voluntary checks. There’s also no way to specifically hail a driver with a fingerprint background check, so passengers who want one must repeatedly hail a ride, then cancel it until they’re picked up by a fingerprinted driver.

Councilman Joe Krier said he hadn’t heard of “a single … bad experience with Uber or Lyft” from constituents. But Councilman Mike Gallagher expressed concerns over if citizens understood how to identify whether a driver has passed the fingerprint check.

“I almost wonder if we need to strengthen the ordinance with something that says ‘Caution: Driver has not passed fingerprint background check,'” Gallagher said.

See here for the background. If you live in San Antonio, there are a couple of public meetings scheduled to discuss this; see the link at the top for more details. One such meeting has already happened, and there’s also an online survey you can participate in. The operating agreements with Uber, Lyft, and GetMe expire in the next few months, with the GetMe one the lasting until October, but it looks like they will all be allowed to go through then. For all the sturm und drang in Austin, I’d say this is the situation to watch. if SA and the TNCs can come up with an agreement that is broadly acceptable to all, including the cab companies, then that could serve as a starting point for Austin and Houston, if they are inclined to redo their own ordinances. If not, well, that will add to the impetus for the Lege to butt in. We’ll see how it goes. Texas Public Radio, San Antonio Magazine, and the San Antonio Business Journal have more.

Making the Heights a little less dry

From Swamplot:

beer

A GROUP CALLED the Houston Heights Beverage Coalition PAC is hoping to bring about a vote on allowing beer and wine sales in the technically dry section of the Houston Heights. The group published a notice on May 5th announcing an application to the city to start collecting the petition signaturesrequired to get the measure on a local option ballot.

[…]

The group’s immediate goal isn’t to do away with all alcohol restrictions, and the proposed ballot measure wouldn’t get rid of the current private-club workaround frequently employed by area bars and restaurants. But the proposal would lift existing barriers for stores trying to sell beer and wine to becarried away elsewhere — an issue that forced the recently closed Fiesta Mart at N. Shepherd and 24th St. to install its traditionally-in-the-parking-lot Beverage Mart a full 4 blocks away on the corner with 28th St. (across the northern boundary of the zone).

Here’s a map of the dry area, which hasn’t slowed the proliferation of places to dine and imbibe in the Heights. Many of them are east of Oxford, which puts them outside the zone. Others, like the Down House, do the “private club” dodge, while Torchy’s on 19th inherited a grandfathered license from a defunct icehouse. When I first read this story, I thought it would be about repealing the ban for eateries and drinkeries, but apparently not. The Press has since given some clarification about who and what is behind this.

The chair of the [Houston Heights Beverage Coalition PAC] is an attorney named Steve Reilley, a founding partner of the Thompson & Reilley law firm. He says that the main impetus for this action is that the group simply wants to have “a nice grocery store in the neighborhood.” He pointed out the recent closing of the Fiesta location in the area and says that retailers are unwilling to expand or move in owing to the inability to sell beer and wine. “They can’t make the money without the beer and wine sales. We hope we are able to bring these stores in if we are able to alter the statute,” he said. “We want the same nice stores you see in other parts of town and [to] have them be economically viable in The Heights.”

H-E-B is one of the grocery store chains that are eyeing building a store in The Heights, but nothing definitive has happened on that yet, according to Swamplot. We asked Reilley if H-E-B was one of the members of the Houston Heights Beverage Coalition. “I believe they have definitely expressed interest in it and they’re definitely going to support this,” he said. “It is my understanding that if it passes, they are going to very likely move into The Heights. To that degree, yes, they’re part of it, and I believe they will be part of it going forward.” We left a message for H-E-B’s director of public affairs in Houston to see if the grocery store chain has any comment, and will update this article if we receive a response.

Reilley said other grocery chains are part of the special interest group but said he wasn’t able to confirm that. He referred us to John Hatch of Texas Petition Strategies of Austin, a company that has been hired to oversee collecting signatures and, if the issue makes it onto the ballot, stumping for a passing vote. We left a phone message for Hatch but have not yet received a call back.

The press release says, “TPS has conducted over 300 petition efforts in 170 different Texas communities, with more than an 83% the efforts passing — including efforts in Brazoria County, Lumberton, Lubbock, Dallas and Fort Worth.”

I gather from recent activity on the Heights Kids message board that people have been out knocking on doors to gather petition signatures, with an aim of having something on the ballot this November. I also gather that some folks are not clear on the details of this issue – specifically, why part of the Heights is “dry”, what exactly that means, and why there needs to be an election to change it. That may add to their challenge. A this subsequent comment notes that there are some potentially tricky legal issues involved as well, meaning that however this shakes out someone may wind up suing over whatever the result is. Any lawyers in the crowd want to comment on that? In any event, we’ll keep an eye on this. I live outside the “dry” zone, so I (presumably) wouldn’t get to vote on this. If you’ve been asked to sign a petition, leave a comment and let us know. More here from Swamplot.