ReNew Houston

[sevfiv]

Here's the email from Bob Jones to Council Member Wanda Adams:

From: Bob Jones BobJones@jonescarter.com

To: "adamsforcitycouncil@yahoo.com" adamsforcitycouncil@yahoo.com

Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 4:09:49 PM

Subject: RE: Let's start over on Proposition 1

Dear Wanda,

I am flabbergasted by the position that you and three of your fellow council members have taken on Proposition 1. Listening to your press conference last week and reading the editorial below confirms my concern that we do not have any leadership from our African American council members.

The idea that you would all place your own political interests above the needs of the citizens of the City is appalling. Proposition 1 is the ONLY effort that I have seen in the past 40 years that provided a solution and help for ALL neighborhoods in the city. This is your only chance to help your neighborhoods. Without Prop 1, we will be back to small bond issues and no predictability to our system. Most neighborhoods will be left out of the bond issues.

The idea that you are concerned City Council has not adopted an ordinance detailing all of the things you want to know is comical. That’s the job of city council. In fact, it could have been the job of City council without the charter amendment, except for the fact that we don’t have a council, now or in the past, with any political will to solve these problems. After this amendment passes, as a council member, you will be charged with the responsibility of determining how to set the rates and who, if anyone, you want to exempt within the limits of what the law allows.

When your term is up and you haven’t provided a solution for your neighborhoods I’m sure that I will hear you say “It’s not my fault!” Right or wrong, your neighbors will continue to live on decaying streets without adequate drainage, and that will be your fault.

Hopefully your community and your district will be able to find some leadership. It is certainly lacking right now.

Bob

J. R. (Bob) Jones, P.E.

President

bobjones@jonescarter.com

JONES & CARTER, INC.

ENGINEERS · PLANNERS · SURVEYORS

6335 Gulfton, Suite 100

Houston, Texas 77081-1169

Tel 713-777-5337 Ext. 604

Fax 713-777-5975 Direct 713-353-7300

aaaaaaaaand then an apology from ReNew Houston:

http://carey2.blogspot.com/2010/10/renew-houston-issues-apology-to-council.html

[sevfiv]

Oh, and the "Problem With Prop 1" information site:

http://www.theproblemwithprop1.com/

[Original Timmy Chan's]

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.

First, where do the $8 billion - $12 billion figures come from? My recollection is that the program is intended to raise $125 million per year for 20 years = $2.5 billion. Maybe I missed it somewhere.

Anyhow, the Mayor and Renew Houston state that the projects to be implemented include the current 5-year CIP plus the projects identified by the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan, the most recent of which has identified $1.6 billion of projects.

Of course, any 20-year plan will change with time, and it should, as better data and methods are implemented. The topographic data, software and computing power available today to do these drainage analyses are light years ahead of what we were using just 5-10 years ago. In another 5-10 years we'll probably be running real-time continuous 1-D/2-D models on our cell phones.

[TheNiche]

First, where do the $8 billion - $12 billion figures come from? My recollection is that the program is intended to raise $125 million per year for 20 years = $2.5 billion. Maybe I missed it somewhere.

I can only recall having seen $8 billion, $10 billion, and $12 billion used in various press articles and op-eds.

Anyhow, the Mayor and Renew Houston state that the projects to be implemented include the current 5-year CIP plus the projects identified by the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan, the most recent of which has identified $1.6 billion of projects.

The ballot language is vague (and I think disingenuous). The charter amendment itself is also extremely vague. Renew Houston has no political authority over how the money will be spent (thank goodness) and Mayor Parker is term limited. You're asking every individual voter to have confidence in the competence voters as a whole and the politicians that happen to be running for City office, going forward twenty years. That's asking way too much.

Of course, any 20-year plan will change with time, and it should, as better data and methods are implemented. The topographic data, software and computing power available today to do these drainage analyses are light years ahead of what we were using just 5-10 years ago. In another 5-10 years we'll probably be running real-time continuous 1-D/2-D models on our cell phones.

So you'll be able to put that technology to use using the existing level of funding to do more with less money, right? Very good, very good. All the more reason to deny you access to a dedicated cash fund.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

I can only recall having seen $8 billion, $10 billion, and $12 billion used in various press articles and op-eds.

Fair enough.

Renew Houston has no political authority over how the money will be spent (thank goodness) and Mayor Parker is term limited. You're asking every individual voter to have confidence in the competence voters as a whole and the politicians that happen to be running for City office, going forward twenty years. That's asking way too much.

How is that any different than any other capital improvement plan? Plans can and do change over time as the whims of voters and their representatives change.

Besides, there is at the very least a 5-year CIP plan with specific projects and costs associated, on the city's website: http://www.swmp.org

So you'll be able to put that technology to use using the existing level of funding to do more with less money, right? Very good, very good. All the more reason to deny you access to a dedicated cash fund.

Not exactly. We now have the tools to recommend better solutions. That doesn't make topographic survey, engineering and drafting any easier/cheaper, and it doesn't make land acquisition/easements and construction any cheaper.

[TheNiche]

How is that any different than any other capital improvement plan? Plans can and do change over time as the whims of voters and their representatives change.

Prop 1 is a guarantee of dedicated funding, a concept that is not compatible with plans that can and do change over time as the whims of voters and their representatives and the circumstances change. Maybe we would want to scale back funding at some point, or hold an elected official accountable to excessive spending. With Prop 1, we won't have that option. And it's always worth asking on these long-term initiatives, what if Detroit had done this ten years ago? All it would take is for some of that ever-improving technology of yours to make oil go bust, and Houston shifts into a no-growth scenario with fewer infrastructure needs.

Not exactly. We now have the tools to recommend better solutions. That doesn't make topographic survey, engineering and drafting any easier/cheaper, and it doesn't make land acquisition/easements and construction any cheaper.

Exactly. If the solutions are better, then you can do more to prevent flooding with less money. And if the solutions aren't any better, then...what was your point?

[WAZ]

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: )

It's nice to see my blog quoted here - even if I have chosen not to cross post here any more.

I've edited out the snide remark about WalMart. 380 agreements actually do relate to infrastructure repairs, so it's not fair to say that a 380 agreement is money that was taken away from infrastructure repairs. Thank you RedScare.

And the quip about coffee was just meant to illustrate a point - Niche/ Kylejack.

[WAZ]

First, where do the $8 billion - $12 billion figures come from? My recollection is that the program is intended to raise $125 million per year for 20 years = $2.5 billion. Maybe I missed it somewhere.

We asked exactly the same question when Bob Jones came to a Super Neighborhood meeting. His answer was that the City is set to grow, and cover more land with impervious cover, and thereby the fees will grow as time goes on.

[WAZ]

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.

It'd be nice if it were that way. But I don't think so.

If I were writing Prop 1, developers could get exemptions if they limit stormwater runoff from their sites. It'd be simple to enforce: just have them CC the City with LEED documentation for the stormwater credits. If they got the credits, they get the exemption. No LEED credits; no exemption.

I actually brought this up at a Super Neighborhood Alliance meeting once. Unfortunately, Mayor Parker has said NO EXEMPTIONS to Proposition 1.

[ricco67]

It'd be nice if it were that way. But I don't think so.

If I were writing Prop 1, developers could get exemptions if they limit stormwater runoff from their sites. It'd be simple to enforce: just have them CC the City with LEED documentation for the stormwater credits. If they got the credits, they get the exemption. No LEED credits; no exemption.

I actually brought this up at a Super Neighborhood Alliance meeting once. Unfortunately, Mayor Parker has said NO EXEMPTIONS to Proposition 1.

That is actually a shame, the possibility to be able to entire parking lots and sidewalks to allow water to go straight into the earth and help reduce flooding. The effect of this over decades would be substantial.

[TheNiche]

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."

^ Whatever happened to Mayor Parker's well-reasoned stance?

[TheNiche]

It'd be nice if it were that way. But I don't think so.

If I were writing Prop 1, developers could get exemptions if they limit stormwater runoff from their sites. It'd be simple to enforce: just have them CC the City with LEED documentation for the stormwater credits. If they got the credits, they get the exemption. No LEED credits; no exemption.

I actually brought this up at a Super Neighborhood Alliance meeting once. Unfortunately, Mayor Parker has said NO EXEMPTIONS to Proposition 1.

LEED is a racket. I don't blame Mayor Parker from distancing herself from that. Besides, there's already a calculation that the City goes by for new construction to determine whether a new project has sufficient on-site stormwater detention or whether a developer has to pay a particular drainage impact fee to the City. And that seems fair and equitable enough to me, to go on, if they were going to implement a tax assessment. The only shortcoming is that it'll confuse the hell out of most property owners.

[WAZ]

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.

So, what if the Renew Houston people made a detailed plan, got their proposal passed, but then due to attenuating circumstances had to change parts of the plan? Would you then cry "bait and switch" and circulate petitions - like you are in the Historic Districts and Historic District Repeal Petitions threads?

I say, vote YES on Proposition 1 - and let's get to work FIXING our ROADS and DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE!

[TheNiche]

So, what if the Renew Houston people made a detailed plan, got their proposal passed, but then due to attenuating circumstances had to change parts of the plan? Would you then cry "bait and switch" and circulate petitions - like you are in the Historic Districts and Historic District Repeal Petitions threads?

Wow. Horrible analogy.

I say, vote YES on Proposition 1 - and let's get to work FIXING our ROADS and DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE!

I think that this has a lot more to do with allowing the City to phase out their spending from the general fund on these items so that they can accommodate unfunded pension obligations and keep up with debt service without making it appear that they've significantly raised the tax rate. And the engineers only really like it because their source of funding is dedicated, unlike many other programs. (You might point out that Annise Parker has said that CIP spending from the general budget wouldn't be cut...but I've pointed out where she said that she wouldn't back Prop 1 without a specific plan. And she is.)

[kylejack]

I've looked through a few of the links posted, but is there something a little more objective? I'm leaning to voting against it, because it apparently doesn't even earmark these funds for the spending it is supposedly for. If it goes into general revenue, they're just going to spend it on whatever they want, making it a pointless tax increase. In theory I like the idea of taxing factors which contribute to flooding and then spending the money to improve water flow infrastructure. I'm kinda libertarian and like taxes that are more use-oriented in nature.

[gto250us]

VOTE NO

The folks who put this thing together are the engineers and construction folks who will benefit the most from the contracts. Also, look at the numbers. Thye do not add up. You think that the typical homeowner will get by with only $60 additional a year in taxes. Think again. The $1000 or so that businesses will pay will only be passed down to you an I. That $60 will grow dramatically. It is all a scam.

The factors that contribute to flooding in Houston are: IT IS FLAT HERE and it TENDS TO RAIN LIKE HELL AT TIMES. I guess you need to go and tax God.

[kylejack]

And the fact that our city is covered with city-mandated parking lots impervious to water aside from the drainage points.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

I've looked through a few of the links posted, but is there something a little more objective? I'm leaning to voting against it, because it apparently doesn't even earmark these funds for the spending it is supposedly for. If it goes into general revenue, they're just going to spend it on whatever they want, making it a pointless tax increase. In theory I like the idea of taxing factors which contribute to flooding and then spending the money to improve water flow infrastructure. I'm kinda libertarian and like taxes that are more use-oriented in nature.

The funds would go to an "enterprise fund" separate from the general fund, and that money could only be spent on drainage projects. One of the major causes of the current lack of infrastructure maintenance is the fact that it's paid for out of the general fund...it's been too easy to push aside maintenance till a later date. We can only do that so long.

VOTE NO

The folks who put this thing together are the engineers and construction folks who will benefit the most from the contracts.

Who else would you suggest should plan and build storm water infrastructure?

Anyhow, it's not the fault of the engineers and contractors that the infrastructure has beyond the end of its service life. Think about how old our infrastructure is...the Heights is what, nearly 100 years old? Much of the East End is around 100 years old. Sharpstown is 50-60 years old? Much of the "newer" parts of Houston like Clear Lake City and Kingwood are 30-40 years old.

These storm sewers don't just fix themselves. Just like your home or your car, our infrastructure won't last forever without replacing a few things.

The fact is, we've got more infrastructure repair cost than the city can afford on its current income. We either implement the fees, raise taxes, cut services, or just wait for things to completely fall apart and deal with the (more expensive) consequences.

Most people like to take the preventive maintenance approach for homes and cars...why do we always wait for our public infrastructure to completely collapse before fixing it?

[gto250us]

VOTE NO VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

[totheskies]

Too late... I already voted yes

[TheNiche]

VOTE NO VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

VOTE NO

I agree with your point, but your ethos is abominable. The last thing that HAIF needs is the equivalent of political bandit signs.

[TheNiche]

Most people like to take the preventive maintenance approach for homes and cars...why do we always wait for our public infrastructure to completely collapse before fixing it?

Always? I'm as much of a fan of 'Engineering Disasters' on the History Channel as the next guy...but let's not blow things out of proportion. We all know about the I-35 bridge in Minnesota, but what about the >99.99% of bridges that haven't collapsed since then?