METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion

[Slick Vik]

So...after spending beyond our means forcing undesirable tradeoffs in the level of service, then (many years later and presuming that we still have those buses or that they still run) we can spend even more beyond our means on vastly more services. No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

Horrific comparison, but nice try.

I'm pretty sure the period is intended to come after the word 'transit' (i.e., Ordinary people support transit[.] [P]eople that have a vendetta are against it.)

About 95% of the people wanted to get rid of general mobility payments. The only people were against it were former councilmen and leaders of "coalitions" and the chamber of commerce, one of the most corrupt organizations around. All ordinary people want the funds for more transit.

[infinite_jim]

The folks wanting to keep the status quo of the GMP were quite direct that no matter the referendum vote outcome they would go to Austin to resolve the issue (assuming if the GMP was not renewed). Time and again the board would corner each speaker that wanted to keep the status quo GMP and made them answer to that fact.

The board made it clear that they were going to use the public input from the meeting to determine the ballot language, however it was a wash in terms of support and arguments for either side. There was a suggestion that the board find some compromise in funding the GMP but no one elaborated on would that might entail.

Also maybe someone here can explain what is the "cap" for the GMP being proposed and how does the current apportionment work as "uncapped?"

[Slick Vik]

The folks wanting to keep the status quo of the GMP were quite direct that no matter the referendum vote outcome they would go to Austin to resolve the issue (assuming if the GMP was not renewed). Time and again the board would corner each speaker that wanted to keep the status quo GMP and made them answer to that fact.

The board made it clear that they were going to use the public input from the meeting to determine the ballot language, however it was a wash in terms of support and arguments for either side. There was a suggestion that the board find some compromise in funding the GMP but no one elaborated on would that might entail.

Also maybe someone here can explain what is the "cap" for the GMP being proposed and how does the current apportionment work as "uncapped?"

I stayed until the very last speaker finished, and I disagree that it was a wash. There was significant support to get rid of the GMP payments, particularly from ordinary people with no hidden agenda.

I agree that METRO made it seem like a compromise was the most likely outcome. The fear mongering by certain speakers was rather disgusting and sickening; the fact they wouldn't even answer the judge when he asked if they would go against the will of the voters was hilarious.

[TheNiche]

I'm pretty sure the period is intended to come after the word 'transit' (i.e., Ordinary people support transit[.] [P]eople that have a vendetta are against it.)

Are we even speaking the same language?

To simply characterize people as pro-transit or anti-transit strikes me as an exaggerated misnomer, a sinister element of rhetoric. There's more to it than that. Likewise, the word vendetta implies revenge-seeking behavior. I wasn't there, but when I've been to similar events, I'm more likely to describe input (from both sides) as "concerned" with valences for "reasonable/unreasonable" or "passionate/dispassionate".

This kind of rhetoric concerns me deeply. It signals that we're to a point where one or both sides have characterized the opposition as inherently unworthy of consideration, that it has more to do with winning the argument or saving face than with being correct in the first place.

-----------------------

On a slightly off-topic note, I've seen these same attitudes crop up on HAIF and Swamplot lately, as well as within my own professional discourse, wherein people have become polarized and defensive toward their way of life. On here, its usually affluent urbanites that resent suburbanites; offline, rural residents are resentful of urbanites. Suburbanites are a mixed bag. Some of them are quite uppity and socially cloistered; others just live where they do because it provides them an affordable lifestyle that would be unaffordable to them in the City and unavailable to them in the countryside.

These are just my observations. Your mileage may vary. But that's not the point. The point is, there are all kinds of different people with all kinds of perspectives. But we all pay taxes, we all have a say, we all can have flashes of brilliance and reason, and we are all subject to human frailties. We all try to make the best of our circumstances within the scope of what we know and how we feel.

I would hope that as we have these discussions, we can all try to understand where the other person is coming from, drop the defensiveness, narcissism, and toxic rhetoric, and try to relate to each other to arrive at some kind of reasonable and equitable compromise. It isn't even as though such a compromise has to be wholly distributive.

Granted, there are dishonest people and special interests seeking to usurp property rights and the democratic process. There are also highly effective trolls lurking in the darkness. (The Heights Wal-Mart thread and the Ashby thread come to mind.) Let them speak. Shine the harsh light of reason and truth upon them. They shall wither and melt away. They can only win, however, when people become so highly polarized that the arguments become personal, and not real. There's been so much controversy in the past couple of years, I'm afraid that damage has been done to that balance of things. And frustratingly, I'm not sure how to heal these wounds.

[Slick Vik]

Are we even speaking the same language?

To simply characterize people as pro-transit or anti-transit strikes me as an exaggerated misnomer, a sinister element of rhetoric. There's more to it than that. Likewise, the word vendetta implies revenge-seeking behavior. I wasn't there, but when I've been to similar events, I'm more likely to describe input (from both sides) as "concerned" with valences for "reasonable/unreasonable" or "passionate/dispassionate".

This kind of rhetoric concerns me deeply. It signals that we're to a point where one or both sides have characterized the opposition as inherently unworthy of consideration, that it has more to do with winning the argument or saving face than with being correct in the first place.

-----------------------

On a slightly off-topic note, I've seen these same attitudes crop up on HAIF and Swamplot lately, as well as within my own professional discourse, wherein people have become polarized and defensive toward their way of life. On here, its usually affluent urbanites that resent suburbanites; offline, rural residents are resentful of urbanites. Suburbanites are a mixed bag. Some of them are quite uppity and socially cloistered; others just live where they do because it provides them an affordable lifestyle that would be unaffordable to them in the City and unavailable to them in the countryside.

These are just my observations. Your mileage may vary. But that's not the point. The point is, there are all kinds of different people with all kinds of perspectives. But we all pay taxes, we all have a say, we all can have flashes of brilliance and reason, and we are all subject to human frailties. We all try to make the best of our circumstances within the scope of what we know and how we feel.

I would hope that as we have these discussions, we can all try to understand where the other person is coming from, drop the defensiveness, narcissism, and toxic rhetoric, and try to relate to each other to arrive at some kind of reasonable and equitable compromise. It isn't even as though such a compromise has to be wholly distributive.

Granted, there are dishonest people and special interests seeking to usurp property rights and the democratic process. There are also highly effective trolls lurking in the darkness. (The Heights Wal-Mart thread and the Ashby thread come to mind.) Let them speak. Shine the harsh light of reason and truth upon them. They shall wither and melt away. They can only win, however, when people become so highly polarized that the arguments become personal, and not real. There's been so much controversy in the past couple of years, I'm afraid that damage has been done to that balance of things. And frustratingly, I'm not sure how to heal these wounds.

Unfortunately, based on Houston's pathetic transit situation, either you are for progressively moving forward, or against it. It might be ugly, but it is the way it is. Based on last night, the ONLY people against transit were those with special interests. Ordinary people are sick and tired of the games and politics. They want a modern, efficient transit system. PERIOD.

[TheNiche]

Unfortunately, based on Houston's pathetic transit situation, either you are for progressively moving forward, or against it. It might be ugly, but it is the way it is. Based on last night, the ONLY people against transit were those with special interests. Ordinary people are sick and tired of the games and politics. They want a modern, efficient transit system. PERIOD.

"Either you're with us or you're against us." -George W. Bush

------------------

This is a logical fallacy called a false bifurcation (or sometimes, false choice). There is a third way; there is also a fourth way, a fifth way, and so on to the n^th way.

Ordinary people want lots of things. It's good to want things. The hard part is balancing what is wanted with what can be afforded, and also the mechanism by way of which it will be afforded. (Property taxes have hugely distortional impacts, after all.) Public finance is a poorly understood subject matter. Debates are worth having. If we just impulsively and hedonistically approved everything we wanted, it wouldn't last very long. Greece has national sovereignty that the City of Houston does not; and even Greece eventually gets its come-up'ins.

[Slick Vik]

"Either you're with us or you're against us." -George W. Bush

------------------

This is a logical fallacy called a false bifurcation (or sometimes, false choice). There is a third way; there is also a fourth way, a fifth way, and so on to the n^th way.

Ordinary people want lots of things. It's good to want things. The hard part is balancing what is wanted with what can be afforded, and also the mechanism by way of which it will be afforded. (Property taxes have hugely distortional impacts, after all.) Public finance is a poorly understood subject matter. Debates are worth having. If we just impulsively and hedonistically approved everything we wanted, it wouldn't last very long. Greece has national sovereignty that the City of Houston does not; and even Greece eventually gets its come-up'ins.

Niche, you're very smart and knowledgable. But I get the sense from your history of posting you always find a way to leave the status quo. This mindset has left us where we are. Just like I said last night, the time of the dinosaurs like Bob Lanier is over. We don't care what it takes, we want a great transit system. Period. If you're in the way get out of the way. We will get what we want, it might take a while, but we will get it. When the 4th largest metro area has a putrid system, it must be fixed.

[infinite_jim]

The folks wanting to keep the status quo of the GMP were quite direct that no matter the referendum vote outcome they would go to Austin to resolve the issue (assuming if the GMP was not renewed).

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-developers-vow-to-fight-cap-on-mobility-3643044.php

[Slick Vik]

http://www.chron.com...ity-3643044.php

That was funny when the judge asked if they would go against the will of the voters. "No comment."

[mfastx]

I honestly don't see how this is a debate. Voters approved the FULL 1 cent tax to go towards METRO. End of story.

If Bob Lanier wanted more money to go to roads, he should have created a new tax and have people vote on that.

[TheNiche]

Niche, you're very smart and knowledgable. But I get the sense from your history of posting you always find a way to leave the status quo. This mindset has left us where we are. Just like I said last night, the time of the dinosaurs like Bob Lanier is over. We don't care what it takes, we want a great transit system. Period. If you're in the way get out of the way. We will get what we want, it might take a while, but we will get it. When the 4th largest metro area has a putrid system, it must be fixed.

I still feel like we're not speaking the same language. (Never mind that the word "putrid" is a rhetorically loaded word strongly implying an offensive olfactory sensation, and was inappropriate in that context.)

You're telling me that I always find a way to leave the status quo, and yet you seem intent on aligning me with establishment figures, "dinosaurs," like Bob Lanier. Isn't that a contradiction?

In the same spirit of things, I could turn around and label fixed-guideway rail-based transit as being a "dinosaur" technology, declare Park & Ride service, HOV/HOT lanes, and vanpooling as innovative and successful projects that have been spearheaded by a forward-thinking budget-conscious METRO. And actually, that is my opinion. I do not pretend that mine is a popular opinion (and it certainly is not very sexy, as these things go), however it is also not one that a lot of people have considered or researched. Nevertheless, it is an opinion that I would promote as being worthy of consideration.

So let us consider it. What's so wrong with having a discussion? What's wrong with weighing the options? What's wrong with educating ourselves regarding public finance and attempting to quantify and optimize the burdens of taxation?

[infinite_jim]

I honestly don't see how this is a debate. Voters approved the FULL 1 cent tax to go towards METRO. End of story.

If Bob Lanier wanted more money to go to roads, he should have created a new tax and have people vote on that.

This is a debate.

Please elaborate as to why Metro should not have to pay for road maintenance its buses use and how the Metro member cities should/could recoup the loss infrastructure monies.

Conversely, why should Metro pay for road maintenance for roads that already have a funding mechanism and how the Metro member cities should/could be spending the monies they have received.

Convince me; this was my main point of frustration with the pro-rail now crowd in that there were many anecdotal appeals to emotion but quite sparingly devoid of details versus the status quo GMP crowd who were nakedly antagonistic but concerned none the least (even if the board had to correct some of their "factual" statements).

Compromises were made in the 2003 referendum, what sort of compromise would you like see going forward for the 2013 referendum.

I'm all ears.

[mfastx]

This is a debate.

Please elaborate as to why Metro should not have to pay for road maintenance its buses use and how the Metro member cities should/could recoup the loss infrastructure monies.

Conversely, why should Metro pay for road maintenance for roads that already have a funding mechanism and how the Metro member cities should/could be spending the monies they have received.

Convince me; this was my main point of frustration with the pro-rail now crowd in that there were many anecdotal appeals to emotion but quite sparingly devoid of details versus the status quo GMP crowd who were nakedly antagonistic but concerned none the least (even if the board had to correct some of their "factual" statements).

Compromises were made in the 2003 referendum, what sort of compromise would you like see going forward for the 2013 referendum.

I'm all ears.

It's not a debate because voters approved METRO's funding when it was created. End of story.

Was there a vote to create the general mobility funds?

If the answer is no, then it should'nt be a debate.

Are you going against the will of the voters?

I'm all ears.

In my eyes a good solution would be to give METRO their full tax back, AND to create a whole new general mobility tax that people pay. METRO's responsibility is not to provide roads, but to provide public transportation.

This new general mobility tax would only be available to reconstruct and build streets in the city of Houston, and whichever other city wants to be included in the tax.

[infinite_jim]

It's not a debate because voters approved METRO's funding when it was created. End of story.

Was there a vote to create the general mobility funds?

If the answer is no, then it should'nt be a debate.

Are you going against the will of the voters?

I'm all ears.

From last night's meeting the board confirmed that the GMP apportionment was part of the 1988 referendum (which included for it to be voted upon again in the 2003 referendum).

http://www.houstonpress.com/content/printVersion/217170/

Also at this point we don't know what the will of the voters is precisely b/c we do not know the ballot verbage.

I asked you to convince me not harangue me for not knowing what you know.

[Slick Vik]

This is a debate.

Please elaborate as to why Metro should not have to pay for road maintenance its buses use and how the Metro member cities should/could recoup the loss infrastructure monies.

Conversely, why should Metro pay for road maintenance for roads that already have a funding mechanism and how the Metro member cities should/could be spending the monies they have received.

Convince me; this was my main point of frustration with the pro-rail now crowd in that there were many anecdotal appeals to emotion but quite sparingly devoid of details versus the status quo GMP crowd who were nakedly antagonistic but concerned none the least (even if the board had to correct some of their "factual" statements).

Compromises were made in the 2003 referendum, what sort of compromise would you like see going forward for the 2013 referendum.

I'm all ears.

Isn't there already a drainage fee in effect? Also Christof noted that GMP is a very small percentage of overall road funds. So its effect on transit is much bigger than on roads. That alone is enough to say it should go back to METRO.

[mfastx]

From last night's meeting the board confirmed that the GMP apportionment was part of the 1988 referendum (which included for it to be voted upon again in the 2003 referendum).

http://www.houstonpr...Version/217170/

Also at this point we don't know what the will of the voters is precisely b/c we do not know the ballot verbage.

I asked you to convince me not harangue me for not knowing what you know.

I edited my previous post to include more information sorry for sounding confrontational:

In my eyes a good solution would be to give METRO their full tax back, AND to create a whole new general mobility tax that people pay. METRO's responsibility is not to provide roads, but to provide public transportation.

This new general mobility tax would only be available to reconstruct and build streets in the city of Houston, and whichever other city wants to be included in the tax.

According to the article you posted, METRO has payed well over their 25% share to GM payments.

It is incredibly obvious that there are many anti-rail people here in Houston (for whatever reason) and they'll do anything, including manipulating ballot language, to ensure that no rail would be built.

I believe that METRO is the victim of special interests and that the GM payments were proposed not as a way to improve city streets, but to prevent METRO from building rail.

That is why I believe that they should receive their full transportation tax back.

[Houston19514]

I honestly don't see how this is a debate. Voters approved the FULL 1 cent tax to go towards METRO. End of story.

But that is NOT the end of the story.

Voters also approved diverting part of the 1 cent tax to the cities for general mobility project.

[mfastx]

But that is NOT the end of the story.

Voters also approved diverting part of the 1 cent tax to the cities for general mobility project.

If you keep reading, you'll notice that I was unsure if voters approved the diversion, and was informed.

However, Lanier took more money from METRO than voters approved.

[IHB2]

About 95% of the people wanted to get rid of general mobility payments. The only people were against it were former councilmen and leaders of "coalitions" and the chamber of commerce, one of the most corrupt organizations around. All ordinary people want the funds for more transit.

I'm an ordinary person. I am not at all interested in absorbing a tax increase from the municipality I live in once that municipality has to make up the funds it is giving to METRO. I suspect there are a significant number of ordinary people that feel the way I do.

You might also look into the idea that METRO is giving a % of it's tax revenue to the municipalities rather than the other way around. The mayors of every municipality in METRO's tax capture zone are on the record as saying it is the other way around, and they have declared a tax increase will be necessary to make up the loss.

[mfastx]

I'm an ordinary person. I am not at all interested in absorbing a tax increase from the municipality I live in once that municipality has to make up the funds it is giving to METRO. I suspect there are a significant number of ordinary people that feel the way I do.

You might also look into the idea that METRO is giving a % of it's tax revenue to the municipalities rather than the other way around. The mayors of every municipality in METRO's tax capture zone are on the record as saying it is the other way around, and they have declared a tax increase will be necessary to make up the loss.

I don't understand why these "municipalities" expect METRO to pay for their street and infrastructure improvements though. How does that make sense?

The mayors need to understand that if you want to have better infrastructure, then the city needs to create it's own tax. Not free load off someone else's.

[LTAWACS]

I don't understand why these "municipalities" expect METRO to pay for their street and infrastructure improvements though. How does that make sense?

The mayors need to understand that if you want to have better infrastructure, then the city needs to create it's own tax. Not free load off someone else's.

Interesting point. Or better yet... we should ANNEX them.

[TheNiche]

I don't understand why these "municipalities" expect METRO to pay for their street and infrastructure improvements though. How does that make sense?

The mayors need to understand that if you want to have better infrastructure, then the city needs to create it's own tax. Not free load off someone else's.

If you were a partner in a corporation and you and all of the other partners were in agreement that the corporation would make an annual distribution back to the owners of 25% of that corporation's revenue, and that corporation had cleared multiple audits for solvency and financial stability under the assumption that such a distribution scheme would continue for perpetuity, then the partners would probably go ahead and do exactly what they want to do. It's their company. It's theirs to bleed dry, not a METRO executive's with which to build an empire and his resume.

Now consider if the partners were actually trustees elected by shareholders, and those trustees appointed board members to elect executives to manage the organization. All of the trustees, directly elected, still believe that there should be a 25% distribution to owners. Should that change the owner/manager dynamic, though?

I'm not saying that METRO is a model of efficient governance. On the contrary, I think that it is far too insulated from the ire of constituents and is also impacted by mayors' understanding not to ever raise their percentage tax rates. I'd suggest that METRO's board members or a strong CEO should be elected directly by the people. But...until that pipe dream comes to fruition, and we both know it won't because it would mean the downfall of built-up municipal feifdoms...this is our reality.

[mfastx]

If you were a partner in a corporation and you and all of the other partners were in agreement that the corporation would make an annual distribution back to the owners of 25% of that corporation's revenue, and that corporation had cleared multiple audits for solvency and financial stability under the assumption that such a distribution scheme would continue for perpetuity, then the partners would probably go ahead and do exactly what they want to do. It's their company. It's theirs to bleed dry, not a METRO executive's with which to build an empire and his resume.

Now consider if the partners were actually trustees elected by shareholders, and those trustees appointed board members to elect executives to manage the organization. All of the trustees, directly elected, still believe that there should be a 25% distribution to owners. Should that change the owner/manager dynamic, though?

I'm not saying that METRO is a model of efficient governance. On the contrary, I think that it is far too insulated from the ire of constituents and is also impacted by mayors' understanding not to ever raise their percentage tax rates. I'd suggest that METRO's board members or a strong CEO should be elected directly by the people. But...until that pipe dream comes to fruition, and we both know it won't because it would mean the downfall of built-up municipal feifdoms...this is our reality.

I understand why municipalities want to keep up the general mobility payments, I bet if I were a mayor I'd want to keep them too. But if there can be a referendum to create GM payments, then there should be one to get rid of them.

I'm not sure if you agree with me on this but I believe METRO is underfunded, and that they can run a better transit system if they recieve more funds.

Now whether those funds come through additional taxes, or allowing METRO to keep a larger percentage of their tax, it doesn't really matter to me, I would be in favor of additional funding for METRO regardless.

We will see what happens in the November referendum (I'm assuming the GM payments issue will be voted on, or am I wrong?).

[TheNiche]

I don't like referendums in general. If the mayors effectively control METRO and they unanimously want GM payments, then they should get GM payments.

However, I also don't like the METRO charter or its organization pursuant to state law. I don't think that we should allocate METRO any additional money because they're too likely to blow it, too disconnected from the electorate. There are scant consequences for failure.

[samagon]

Interesting point. Or better yet... we should ANNEX them.

This is a great idea.

[august948]

How about a little truth in taxation? Reduce METRO's tax rate to 3/4% and let it keep all the money. Let each municipality raise taxes as needed. Then METRO can go to the voters and let them decide if it deserves a tax increase to fund more projects.

[mfastx]

I don't like referendums in general. If the mayors effectively control METRO and they unanimously want GM payments, then they should get GM payments.

Well that doesn't make much sense to me. That's like saying "screw the people, if the mayor wants 'x' amount of money, he should get it." If a majority of people want to give METRO more funding, then it should happen. Mayors don't ride METRO. People do.

However, I also don't like the METRO charter or its organization pursuant to state law. I don't think that we should allocate METRO any additional money because they're too likely to blow it, too disconnected from the electorate. There are scant consequences for failure.

Well with that line of thinking you're effectively killing any chance that METRO will provide a good thorough service to the City of Houston.

I do kind of agree that we shouldn't have referendums though. Remember, without referendums, METRO would have constructed a heavy rail system/subway similar to Atlanta's MARTA. And they would have been able to afford it due to the fact that in those times they got their whole tax.

We for sure would have much higher transit ridership if that happened.

[IronTiger]

Niche, you're very smart and knowledgable. But I get the sense from your history of posting you always find a way to leave the status quo. This mindset has left us where we are. Just like I said last night, the time of the dinosaurs like Bob Lanier is over. We don't care what it takes, we want a great transit system. Period. If you're in the way get out of the way. We will get what we want, it might take a while, but we will get it. When the 4th largest metro area has a putrid system, it must be fixed.

Let's not try to get ahead of ourselves: yes, a great transit system is needed, but "don't care what it takes" implies that you would do anything, money and quality of life be damned. Let's make I-45 have nine lanes in any direction. That would be great for inflow and outflow for Houston. And let's make it underground. So you'd have to rip out all those neighborhoods to build a temporary I-45, then replace it with the underground system.

Would you like your home to be demolished for a highway or rail project?

[TheNiche]

Well that doesn't make much sense to me. That's like saying "screw the people, if the mayor wants 'x' amount of money, he should get it." If a majority of people want to give METRO more funding, then it should happen. Mayors don't ride METRO. People do.

If a majority of people want to give METRO more funding, then they should weigh their priorities and perhaps vote for the mayoral candidate that will promote that policy...or that they believe will make appropriate sacrifices to one budget item or another, when that action becomes necessary.

We live in a representative democracy, and that is a good thing. Voters do not understand public finance.

Well with that line of thinking you're effectively killing any chance that METRO will provide a good thorough service to the City of Houston.

I do kind of agree that we shouldn't have referendums though. Remember, without referendums, METRO would have constructed a heavy rail system/subway similar to Atlanta's MARTA. And they would have been able to afford it due to the fact that in those times they got their whole tax.

We for sure would have much higher transit ridership if that happened.

Tradeoffs are a necessity of good governance. There's far more to life than the sheer quantity of transit riders.

[samagon]

How about a little truth in taxation? Reduce METRO's tax rate to 3/4% and let it keep all the money. Let each municipality raise taxes as needed. Then METRO can go to the voters and let them decide if it deserves a tax increase to fund more projects.

Why do that? Give metro their full 1% that was voted on a long time ago, let the municipalities raise their rates.

Maybe if they don't want to have high road degradation, they'll lobby metro to add rail?