ReNew Houston

[crunchtastic]

In my stack of mail that accumulated while on vacation was a large return-postage paid mailer that was a petition for ReNew Houston.

http://www.renewhouston.org/learn.html

Any thoughts on the ballot proposal? My initital reaction is to support the charter amendment to add the fee which will fund future

infrastructure projects. My concerns are: is it enough to really create and mainitan a pay-as you go fund? How many loopholes exist

that will allow city council to divert funds away? Will there be a change in the way drainage improvement projects are prioritized?

As political promotions go, it was a very well done piece and interestingly, was addresed to both members of the household with spaces for both signatures.

As someone who thinks the COH has dropped the ball too many times on making infrastructure a priority, I want to support this but

can't help but wonder what the catch is.

Any insights??

[TheNiche]

Well, look at their website. What's missing?

People. It's a non-profit without a pages-long list of board members, without a list of officers, and without a list of staff.

Yesterday's article identified Edwin Friedrichs, a principal at Walter P. Moore & Associates as the group's president. Not much else is known about them, except to say that it is most assuredly a group of civil engineers hoping to win contracts with the City.

The various Chronicle articles keep making reference to the analogy of doctors and dentists trying to sell their services without there being a conflict of interest...but they also tend to identify who they are and where they're located. If the engineers are making a professional recommendation, I think that they all need to go on record about it and unabashedly endorse the plan. (Oh, and they need to outline a plan.)

I like Mayor Parker's reaction from an article in February. Parker would "would agree to a referendum, but only if it comes with a comprehensive plan that involves regional stakeholders. Those include the Harris County Flood Control District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."

[crunchtastic]

I know, I sort of had the same reaction. But since someone's going to get their palms greased no matter what, I'm curious as to whether as a funding mechanism, it could be viable. Master flood control plans are one thing, but does it really require the army corps of engineers' involvement

to lay new pipe and repave streets?

[TheNiche]

I know, I sort of had the same reaction. But since someone's going to get their palms greased no matter what, I'm curious as to whether as a funding mechanism, it could be viable. Master flood control plans are one thing, but does it really require the army corps of engineers' involvement

to lay new pipe and repave streets?

Drainage infrastructure affects (and sometimes is, itself) wetland environments. That's the Corps' jurisdiction, and they take it very seriously. Additionally, Mayor Parker knows that federal funds may be forthcoming for certain drainage projects and certainly wouldn't want to leave money on the table.

As a funding mechanism, it is politically viable. Lots of municipalities use impact fees for drainage and road funds. I'd argue that fees for drainage ought to be assessed in the form of a property tax on impervious ground cover by the square foot, however, and that rather than this being a City of Houston initiative, it ought to be attacked by creating special taxing districts conforming to watershed boundaries rather than existing political boundaries.

As for roads, impact fees work fine at a regional level, but can act to exacerbate sprawl if a central city adopts them when most of the growth in traffic volume is tied to growth beyond their jurisdiction. I'd think that the optimal strategy is dependent on the goal that we set. Reconstructing neighborhood streets requires a different approach to reconstructing freeways.

[KinkaidAlum]

I am very torn on this propostion. I can see the arguments both for and against it. I just really don't know how to vote on this one. Totally confused. So confused that I ditched my plan to early vote today so that maybe some of you smart posters could convince me one way or the other.

So, let's bring back this dead thread...

[sevfiv]

Other people listed in affiliation with Renew Houston are:

Jack P. Miller (President of RG Miller Engineers)

James Robert Jones (President/CEO Jones & Carter, Inc. - engineering firm)

Christina M. Lindsay (ED of Houston Council of Engineering Companies)

[TheNiche]

I am very torn on this propostion. I can see the arguments both for and against it. I just really don't know how to vote on this one. Totally confused. So confused that I ditched my plan to early vote today so that maybe some of you smart posters could convince me one way or the other.

So, let's bring back this dead thread...

I'm generally in favor of infrastructure investment, particularly flood control and roads, so my knee-jerk reaction is to be in favor of Prop 1. However, there are some things that I find disconcerting about it.

Foremost among those is that they aren't promoting the language of Prop 1. That they don't believe that it speaks for itself is a problem in my eyes. Instead of the ballot language, they advance Mayor Parker's 20-year plan. The obvious problem is that Mayor Parker is not allowed a 20-year dictatorship. Think about this. What if JFK had mandated at Rice Stadium that man would go to the moon within twenty years...instead of by the end of that same decade? How many public projects is anybody aware of that survive two decades? I can't think of one.

Of course... The other problem with Parker's plan is that it isn't a plan per se. They are principles, which are even more malleable. I really would like to see some objective outcomes, beyond what's in the current CIP, before committing to this.

The less obvious potential problem with Mayor Parker's principles are that they are not sufficiently thorough for my taste. Specifically, it is not clear to me that this wouldn't just allow for a complete offset of the existing City budget for this category of expense, allowing the city to repurpose funds that would have otherwise gone towards infrastructure to go to other as-yet-unidentified programs, or more likely, to make up for long-term pension obligations. Whether that was her intention or that's just how it ends up working out within a couple years, it's hard for me to envision a different outcome if the City has that freedom. And to me, that's just not a very honest or transparent approach to governance. (Transparency may be too much to ask, though, so I'm torn.)

The other concern I have is that municipal boundaries (and political priorities) do not conform to watershed boundaries, to topography, to the value of taxable property that is at risk, or to the areas that are most prone to new development. Drainage impact fees and property taxes should seek to equitably offset the externalities created by irresponsible up-stream development. The scope of the problem is regional and demands a regional solution. It so happens that the legislature convenes this year. That'd be the perfect opportunity to advance this as a regional issue, and I'd like to see that at least attempted. The legislature has been friendly to setting up special districts in the past. I don't see why they'd be opposed now...

...unless of course, my speculation over horse trading in the City budget has merit.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

The way I see it, we have a huge infrastructure problem here in Houston. We can either start raising money now to address it, even with a possibly imperfect plan, or we can sit and poke holes at the plan that's been offered, and keep waiting for that perfect plan.

Niche, there are many different scales of flooding...from the regional (watershed-wide) down to the extremely local (the undersized inlet and inlet lead in front of your house). Harris County Flood Control District already works on the regional approach, improving channel capacities and providing regional detention storage.

The drainage problems being targeted by Renew Houston are NOT regional problems requiring a regional tax authority (a la HCFCD), but local problems impacting sometimes just a few blocks. We're talking about storm sewer improvements and improving overland sheet flow problems...and that's what tends to impact road and house flooding more often than riverine flooding.

My simplistic opinion is that we need to control our own destiny here in the City of Houston, not try to put the problem in the hands of the State Legislature or the Federal Gov't (as some suggest with limited stimulus funding). The citizens know where the problems are, and with sufficient funding local engineers can find a solution to be implemented by local contractors.

Or we can just keep complaining about how "the government" never does anything about flooding. Maybe them genius Nobel Prize winners at Rice will invent a giant magic wand...

EDIT: full disclosure, I'm one of those rich, self-serving engineers who would stand to benefit from Renew Houston. "Original" Timmy Chan, P.E., CFM

[RedScare]

I'd argue that fees for drainage ought to be assessed in the form of a property tax on impervious ground cover by the square foot...

The Houston Chronicle endorsement claims that this is exactly how the fee would be imposed. Empty land would incur no fee.

[TheNiche]

The way I see it, we have a huge infrastructure problem here in Houston. We can either start raising money now to address it, even with a possibly imperfect plan, or we can sit and poke holes at the plan that's been offered, and keep waiting for that perfect plan.

Niche, there are many different scales of flooding...from the regional (watershed-wide) down to the extremely local (the undersized inlet and inlet lead in front of your house). Harris County Flood Control District already works on the regional approach, improving channel capacities and providing regional detention storage.

The drainage problems being targeted by Renew Houston are NOT regional problems requiring a regional tax authority (a la HCFCD), but local problems impacting sometimes just a few blocks. We're talking about storm sewer improvements and improving overland sheet flow problems...and that's what tends to impact road and house flooding more often than riverine flooding.

Sounds good to me. Commit to a plan. I'd probably vote for it.

Is that too much to ask?

My simplistic opinion is that we need to control our own destiny here in the City of Houston, not try to put the problem in the hands of the State Legislature or the Federal Gov't (as some suggest with limited stimulus funding). The citizens know where the problems are, and with sufficient funding local engineers can find a solution to be implemented by local contractors.

So...we can't have watershed-demarcated special districts that are all a mere fraction the size of the City of Houston and independent of the municipal budget because...they'd have to be legislatively authorized and would be subject to federal or state influence?

Article 11, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution states "The adoption or amendment of [City] charters is subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by the Legislature, and no charter or any ordinance passed under said charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State."

Ummm...yeah. Management Districts are the (recent past, present, and) future of public finance for a reason.

Or we can just keep complaining about how "the government" never does anything about flooding. Maybe them genius Nobel Prize winners at Rice will invent a giant magic wand...

False bifurcation. There are other options! ...such as attaching a long-term capital improvement plan to an $8 to $12 billion vote. ...or attaching reasonable limitations to the measure. ...or promoting Prop 1 verbatim because the verbiage speaks for itself.

EDIT: One clarification about all of this. I'd be less myopic about wanting to see a plan if we weren't talking about an organization as large and with so many nooks and crannies as the City of Houston. It's hard to maintain public accountability at a departmental level.

[TheNiche]

The Houston Chronicle endorsement claims that this is exactly how the fee would be imposed. Empty land would incur no fee.

I'm less concerned with vacant land than I am with size and scope of improvements. Show me the formula that we're voting on. (Parker's principles don't count.)

[LegacyTree]

From WAZ's blog: http://civcarchitect...position-1.html

(which btw I abhor when people run off to their blogs b/c they feel they cannot succinctly debate their points; it's cowardice and I will be monitoring :looking at you txpropertyrights: )

Debunking the Myths about Proposition 1

If you live in Houston, you’ve probably heard about Proposition 1 – a piece of Municipal legislation on the November 8 ballot that would create a dedicated fund for the repair of Houston’s infrastructure. I moved here in 1998, and I’ve yet to see a more desperately needed piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, a groundswell of opposition has formed to Proposition 1, and they’re hard at work spreading misinformation about it. As a supporter, I feel it is my duty to correct them.

Myth # 1: Proposition 1 is just about drainage. Actually, Proposition 1 is about ALL infrastructure under the City’s control. That includes storm sewers, and ROADS. Our City is riddled with pot holes that do severe damage to vehicles.

I’ll pause and let the first myth sink in, because it really is the most important – and the one everyone overlooks (including four members of City Council). Whenever you drive over a pot hole or have to replace the shocks in your car, think about Proposition 1 and how nice it’d be if we could FIX HOUSTON’S ROADS.

Myth # 2: Proposition 1 is a tax. In fact, Proposition 1 is an assessment on impervious cover. You might own ten acres on the outskirts of Houston, but you’ll only pay for the part that’s paved over. The reason for this is that impervious cover contributes to flooding, and also requires curb-cuts for road access to your property.

Myth # 3: We already pay a tax for the Harris County Flood Control District; we shouldn’t have to pay an assessment for the same thing.Harris County Flood Control handles big, regional stormwater detention and drainage facilities. But those big facilities are fed by a network of smaller, City owned storm sewers, open ditches and culverts. The City does an abysmal job at maintaining these facilities – and usually their excuse is that they don’t have the money. Proposition 1 would take away that excuse.

Myth # 4: Proposition 1 will place undue burden on the poor. The fees are estimated at only $5 per month for an average house. That’s the cost of a cup of coffee. For commercial properties, it’s $92 per acre of impervious cover per month – less than the cost of printing up flyers for advertisement. Bear in mind that most small businesses are on far less than an acre of land.

Myth #5: The Mayor is behind Proposition 1. Actually Proposition 1 was spearheaded by City Councilman Stephen Costello and a non-profit group called Renew Houston. Our Mayor supports Proposition 1, but it wasn’t her idea.

I don’t work for Renew Houston or Stephen Costello’s office. I am not being paid at all for writing this. I actually wish Proposition 1 weren’t necessary. But we can’t rely on City Hall to repair roads or drainage out of the general fund. They neglect our infrastructure and use our tax dollars to build new Soccer stadiums and Walmarts. We need Proposition 1, and a special fund that they can only use for roads and drainage.

[RedScare]

I was going along with WAZ's reasoning until he ruined it all with misleading or outright false statements like this...

But we can’t rely on City Hall to repair roads or drainage out of the general fund. They neglect our infrastructure and use our tax dollars to build new Soccer stadiums and Walmarts. We need Proposition 1, and a special fund that they can only use for roads and drainage.

Alas, such is the world we live in. Keep repeating misstatements until they become true. Ironically, the 380 agreement approved by Council for the area around the proposed Yale Street Walmart is for street and stormwater infrastructure improvements! Seems to me that if (WAZ claims)we cannot trust the City on miniscule $6 million 380 agreements, we'd be loathe to trust them with $8 BILLION for the same thing.

Thanks for talking me out of this vote, WAZ.

[TheNiche]

Myth # 4: Proposition 1 will place undue burden on the poor. The fees are estimated at only $5 per month for an average house. That’s the cost of a cup of coffee. For commercial properties, it’s $92 per acre of impervious cover per month – less than the cost of printing up flyers for advertisement. Bear in mind that most small businesses are on far less than an acre of land.

If coffee costs the ordinary person $1.50, but an engineer $5.00, should we expect that $8 billion will purchase $2.4 billion in infrastructure?

[kylejack]

What is the use of comparing these fees to lattes and flyers?

[TheNiche]

What is the use of comparing these fees to lattes and flyers?

I've seen Prop 1 compared to hamburger consumption in the press. The problem with this kind of rhetoric is that it can just as easily be turned against you.

Minute Maid Park cost about $250 million, so as controversial as stadia are, this proposition would fund projects equivalent to 32 to 48 new Minute Maid Parks. Or we could import labor from India and build 5 to 8 Burj Khalifa towers, at $1.5 billion each. ...all for the cost of one cup of coffee per month.

[little frau]

HISD super has already stated that teachers may be laid off if this passes.

$5 a month per average house still amounts to $60 a year and $60+ is what some retirees/home owners pay for their meds each MONTH.

Add this to the fact that there was no COLA for social security last year and will be none next year, how many old folks do they think will be voting "for" this.

[RedScare]

Not to pile on, as I do think that stormwater and road infrastructure is important, but we've just been hit with new electric meters for "just $5 per month", as well as higher water fees for water and sewer infrastructure of "just $5 per month". It starts to add up.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Admittedly I do have a dog in the hunt, so I'm in favor of improving outdated drainage infrastructure for the good of Houston's residents and businesses.

But...there's no skin off my nose if Renew Houston doesn't pass. I have flood insurance and my house is elevated 2.5' off the ground. I have full coverage auto insurance so that if I do end up in water over my headlights (TS Allison comes to mind), my car will be fixed or replaced.

Here's "an" opportunity to fix some of our ills. It's not the only opportunity...but just like a house, maintenance deferred doesn't get any easier or cheaper as time goes on, and failing infrastructure doesn't heal itself.

[KinkaidAlum]

I went with my gut and voted "no" on prop 1 today. It seems like a good idea but something just wasn't passing my smell test.

[editor]

Minute Maid Park cost about $250 million, so as controversial as stadia are, this proposition would fund projects equivalent to 32 to 48 new Minute Maid Parks. Or we could import labor from India and build 5 to 8 Burj Khalifa towers, at $1.5 billion each. ...all for the cost of one cup of coffee per month.

Sold! Can't wait to see the new skyline!

[editor]

Myth # 2: Proposition 1 is a tax. In fact, Proposition 1 is an assessment on impervious cover. You might own ten acres on the outskirts of Houston, but you’ll only pay for the part that’s paved over. The reason for this is that impervious cover contributes to flooding, and also requires curb-cuts for road access to your property.

How is a tax on certain portions of your property not a tax? Any money that flows from a citizen's wallet to the government is, by definition, a tax. Even if you call it a "fee" or a "user surcharge" or an "assessment," it's still a tax.

[ricco67]

Very interesting viewpoints on all this, but if I followed the thread properly, does that mean that if a parking lot or other development builds using "permeable" concrete, that the owner of the land would get a pass or some other break?

If so, I'm down for that.

Personally, I'm voting for all three propositions on the ballot.

[kylejack]

How is a tax on certain portions of your property not a tax?

Is a registration fee on an automobile a tax?

[TheNiche]

Is a registration fee on an automobile a tax?

It doesn't matter what you call it. When the government commits to an expenditure, it is diverting economic resources from the private sector.

If they levy a tax then everybody pays for it. If they charge a fee then only those benefiting from a project pay for it, ideally. If they issue public debt then money paying for the project comes out of private debt that would have otherwise funded other business investment or consumption; if a foreign investor buys debt then our currency devalues to reflect that we owe the foreign country goods and services. If government prints money then the purchasing power of currency held by individuals, companies, and foreigners declines.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The best we can try to do is raise money equitably, spend wisely, and manage government endeavors competently.

[kylejack]

It doesn't matter what you call it. When the government commits to an expenditure, it is diverting economic resources from the private sector.

If they levy a tax then everybody pays for it. If they charge a fee then only those benefiting from a project pay for it, ideally. If they issue public debt then money paying for the project comes out of private debt that would have otherwise funded other business investment or consumption; if a foreign investor buys debt then our currency devalues to reflect that we owe the foreign country goods and services. If government prints money then the purchasing power of currency held by individuals, companies, and foreigners declines.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The best we can try to do is raise money equitably, spend wisely, and manage government endeavors competently.

It does matter, because a fee and a tax can have slightly different purposes. A vehicle registration fee falls on those who cause wear and tear to the road. This proposed fee falls on those who cause flooding, at least in part, by having impermeable surfaces.

I don't know if this particular proposal is a good idea or not. It seems overzealous, but I wanted to dispute editor's framing it as a tax.

[TheNiche]

It does matter, because a fee and a tax can have slightly different purposes. A vehicle registration fee falls on those who cause wear and tear to the road. This proposed fee falls on those who cause flooding, at least in part, by having impermeable surfaces.

I don't know if this particular proposal is a good idea or not. It seems overzealous, but I wanted to dispute editor's framing it as a tax.

Hmmm...you got me thinking, actually.

It's a little tangential, but I have to wonder how state law will treat the drainage fee. There is already a mechanism for permitting and impact fees on new development (which is part of Prop 1), but recurring "assessments" not based on the market value of a property would not seem to be covered by the Property Tax Code. It could be treated as a utility or trash bill, except that flood control can hardly be un-subscribed to or shut off if a property owner or tenant fail to pay or desire to opt out. Is there even a credible threat established by Prop 1 or in existing law that the City could wield to try and collect on drainage fees?

The Mayor's 'Prop One Principles' seems to indicate that she would like to start off by using HCAD data to set the rates and then have an informal and formal appeal process for corrections not unlike we already have for property taxes. ...but it's not a property tax. And these "principles" aren't codified in Prop 1 or governed by state law as far as I know.

Anybody know?

[editor]

Is a registration fee on an automobile a tax?

Yes. In some countries it's called a "road tax."

[editor]

It does matter, because a fee and a tax can have slightly different purposes. A vehicle registration fee falls on those who cause wear and tear to the road. This proposed fee falls on those who cause flooding, at least in part, by having impermeable surfaces.

I don't know if this particular proposal is a good idea or not. It seems overzealous, but I wanted to dispute editor's framing it as a tax.

Property tax is still a tax, even though only those who own property pay it.

Is a car rental tax at IAH not a tax because the person renting the car will never use the hotel/stadium/other facility that it pays for?

The gas tax is used to build roads, benefiting only those who use them. Does that mean it's not a tax?

Restricting a tax's source or beneficiaries doesn't make it suddenly not a tax.

[RedScare]

If ever anyone wished to see an example of semantics in action, this thread is it. My property taxes are assessed on the value of my house. The drainage "fee" is assessed on the amount of land my house covers. Just because the way the tax is levied seems equitable does not make it not a tax.

None of this changes that there is no plan for the use of these fees/taxes. I recommend a 'NO' vote, so that the proponents can engage the City on an actual plan for the use of this money. Just as HISD had to tell us what they planned to build with the $800 million in bonds we voted for, the City should tell us what projects they plan to undertake with our $8 Billion.