Plot twist coming, maybe. I’m skipping the first part of this story in which we rehash the 2010 ReNew Houston vote, the ways that Houston made use of the drainage fee revenue that were later challenged in court, the court rulings and settlement deal that Mayor Whitmire made with the two named plaintiffs that allowed the city to get into compliance over a couple of years by ramping up to the full amount that the city must dedicate to drainage repair and projects.
That deal will charge a percentage of that 11.8 cents to fund the city’s drainage fund incrementally over the next few years, eventually reaching the full 11.8 cents in 2028.
Officials said that using that formula, Houston will have $490 million in its drainage fund in 2026, $525 million in 2027, $540 million in 2028 and $585 million in 2029. The agreement has since been passed by the Houston City Council and Controller Chris Hollins.
But West Street Recovery, the nonprofit that filed the brief, argued the settlement violated the will of the voters.
Its members are asking the city to honor the 11.8 cent ruling in full without delay, according to a brief filed Tuesday. They argue the settlement was reached without public input or notice to affected parties and didn’t offer stakeholders to intervene.
“The injunctive settlement violates not only the Charter but also foundational principles of judicial finality, taxpayer equity, and procedural due process,” the court filing reads. “If allowed to stand, it would set a dangerous precedent whereby final court orders may be eroded through private agreement and budgetary compromise, effectively nullifying constitutional protections and voter-enacted governance structures.”
A judge in the case has yet to approve Whitmire’s settlement agreement.
But members of West Street argue it isn’t up to the two plaintiffs and the mayor to decide how the money is paid. They believe that the voters who approved the law change should have a say.
“Year after year, the City of Houston has kicked the can down the road on drainage investment — putting our homes, health, and peace of mind at risk,” reads a May 20 statement from West Street. “The Whitmire administration has had ample time to develop a thoughtful plan to comply with the court’s order, honor the will of Houston voters and keep us safe from storms. Instead, Mayor Whitmire relied on a closed-room deal with two men in a city of millions, to subvert the will of voters and kick the can down the road on life-saving infrastructure investments.”
Ben Hirsch, West Street’s co-director of organizing, research and development, said that any argument city officials made about how the denied appeal put Houston in a financial crunch was void.
He referenced the Houston Police Department’s budget, which was increased this year by $67.2 million. That amount would cover a sizable portion of the $100 million the city would have had to shell out for streets and drainage this year.
“Maybe this settlement proposal will be approved by a judge. Maybe it won’t,” Hirsch said. “But the fact of the matter is, it hasn’t been yet. So right now, the city is proposing a budget that would break the law.”
City Attorney Arturo Michel did not immediately return a request for comment.
Alice Liu, co-director of communications and organizing with West Street, said the group’s goal was to open up conversations about the rest of the budget, which she said was being pushed through without a true opportunity for feedback.
“This is something that every person who pays taxes in Houston, every person who’s impacted by flooding, has a stake in,” she said.
See here for the most recent entry in this saga; there are further links to follow if you want. I don’t know what the legal merits are here. It struck me as reasonable at the time of the deal made by Mayor Whitmire and the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit that they could do this, but that doesn’t mean that it passes legal muster. I hope it does, because we’re surely in a deeper level of doo-doo otherwise, but you pay your money and you take your chances.
The point about the raises given to HPD is a good one, one that I’s sure the Mayor won’t like. One can certainly argue that if you can defer these payments that you’re legally obligated to make, you could also defer these payments that you chose to make. Of course it’s more nuanced than that, but at a basic level there we are. I have no idea what the judge will make of it, but waiting until we know what that is looks more and more like a sound decision.