John Whitmire Houston Mayor

[Sheila]

Allow me to explain some things...

The Houston Heights Association is NOT a homeowners assoc. Many members are businesses with ties to new construction. The Heights does not have a homeowners association.

Prevailing lot size- will keep out townhomes but will not keep out giant lot covering homes. And Sunset Heights tried to get PVLS and the Planning Commission denied them. Check the Chroniocle archives for a good report.

Deed Restrictions- To enact new ones takes going door to door and getting 75% signatures. We estimate it e takes 60-90 minutes to aquire ONE signature (distribute liturature, call agains, discuss topic, etc. ) That makes it a very difficult for any volunteer group. Why should there have to be a supermajority? We can legally elect a Governor this year with 20.00001 percent of the vote but it takes 75% and going door to door to get some changes in deed restrictions???? Has the deck been stacked against the citizen? Yes.

The Houston Planning Commission is a group of unpaid people appointed by the Mayor, usually in the develpment and construction business. Their decisions CANNOT be appealed. How can that be fair? How can that be democratic?

Save the Bungalows believes that the people who created and reside in a neighborhood should have some say over its future. We believe that planning should happen. What we have is whoever has the most money and gets there first does whatever they want - Planning by profiteers. What we have, in urban areas, is weak or non-existant deed restrictions, a deck stacked against us, no right to appeal. Meanwhile the developers get "one stop shopping"- Check Bill White's web site- he likes to brag on that as an accomplishment.

We think it not at all unreasonable to restrict a house as a proportion of its lot size. That is what we want. STB has no desire to be the taste police or enforce faux Victoriana. We think that restricting house size means that developers won't see the huge profits they get from starter castles and thus there will be an economic incentive to remodel and renovate. This is good in so many ways - it creates a stable neighborhood, when people think they know where prices are headed. It preserves mature tress, which are usually bulldozed to build the Hummer homes. And NO ONE at city hall will even talk about how flooding will be effected when all the green space is covered.

To pretend that the government does not engage in social engineering through economic incentives is naive. What the hell do you think tax breaks are?

[VicMan]

If the HHA is not a homeowners association, why does it have deed restrictions?

See http://www.houstonheights.org/deedrestrictions.htm

Also, I'm not sure if this qualifies as an announcement...

Edited September 2, 2006 by VicMan

[musicman]

Allow me to explain some things...

The Houston Heights Association is NOT a homeowners assoc. Many members are businesses with ties to new construction. The Heights does not have a homeowners association.

concur

Prevailing lot size- will keep out townhomes but will not keep out giant lot covering homes. And Sunset Heights tried to get PVLS and the Planning Commission denied them. Check the Chroniocle archives for a good report.

prevailing lot size will NOT keep townhomes out...it will only keep multiple townhomes on same lot out.[/i]

Deed Restrictions- To enact new ones takes going door to door and getting 75% signatures. We estimate it e takes 60-90 minutes to aquire ONE signature (distribute liturature, call agains, discuss topic, etc. ) That makes it a very difficult for any volunteer group. Why should there have to be a supermajority? We can legally elect a Governor this year with 20.00001 percent of the vote but it takes 75% and going door to door to get some changes in deed restrictions???? Has the deck been stacked against the citizen? Yes.

this is true but if you only want certain types of structures, then new deed restrictions is the only option. why should there be a supermajority? state law says that. yes the stack has been decked against the citizen however changes can be made.. my old neighorhood has enacted new deed restrictions which changed the side setbacks so it can be done.

The Houston Planning Commission is a group of unpaid people appointed by the Mayor, usually in the develpment and construction business. Their decisions CANNOT be appealed. How can that be fair? How can that be democratic?

concur totally. the only way to bypass is the enact new restrictions. they can't stop that. while it may not be fair, it is the law.

Save the Bungalows believes that the people who created and reside in a neighborhood should have some say over its future. We believe that planning should happen. What we have is whoever has the most money and gets there first does whatever they want - Planning by profiteers. What we have, in urban areas, is weak or non-existant deed restrictions, a deck stacked against us, no right to appeal. Meanwhile the developers get "one stop shopping"- Check Bill White's web site- he likes to brag on that as an accomplishment.

again i concur...it is a developer's dream. bill white does not support your cause. he is a businessman.

We think it not at all unreasonable to restrict a house as a proportion of its lot size. That is what we want. STB has no desire to be the taste police or enforce faux Victoriana. We think that restricting house size means that developers won't see the huge profits they get from starter castles and thus there will be an economic incentive to remodel and renovate. This is good in so many ways - it creates a stable neighborhood, when people think they know where prices are headed. It preserves mature tress, which are usually bulldozed to build the Hummer homes. And NO ONE at city hall will even talk about how flooding will be effected when all the green space is covered.

if everyone agrees it isn't unreasonable. that is what deed restrictions do. restricting house size does limit profits for developers so why would this be an incentive to renovate? renovation would limit profits for them. your comments about flooding are correct too. city hall is ignoring you.

To pretend that the government does not engage in social engineering through economic incentives is naive. What the hell do you think tax breaks are?

concur. the average person is screwed.

Edited September 3, 2006 by musicman

[TheNiche]

Allow me to explain some things...

OK.

The Houston Heights Association is NOT a homeowners assoc. Many members are businesses with ties to new construction. The Heights does not have a homeowners association.

OK.

Prevailing lot size- will keep out townhomes but will not keep out giant lot covering homes. And Sunset Heights tried to get PVLS and the Planning Commission denied them. Check the Chroniocle archives for a good report.

PVLS won't stop new construction and will tend to create a disproportionate amount of high-end construction, as Red has suggested in past posts. So PVLS may actually create limitations on the amount of relatively-affordable housing in the Heights. In another post, Sheila, you've talked about trying to keep the Heights affordable. But your suggested policy will have the reverse effect. Please explain yourself.

Deed Restrictions- To enact new ones takes going door to door and getting 75% signatures. We estimate it e takes 60-90 minutes to aquire ONE signature (distribute liturature, call agains, discuss topic, etc. ) That makes it a very difficult for any volunteer group. Why should there have to be a supermajority?

Perhaps because you're talking about depriving people of their property rights. You say it is difficult, but I ask why it should be easy. Successful and enduring political systems often incorporate supermajority requirements where those systems' founders anticipated that people may be too oriented toward the short term (i.e. fickle). They also anticipated that many people would most likely not be educated well enough to understand the ramifications of poor political decisions. All it takes is a precedent or law here and there, and the whole system begins to slowly unravel.

We can legally elect a Governor this year with 20.00001 percent of the vote but it takes 75% and going door to door to get some changes in deed restrictions????

The Governor's race is a poor example of election methodology. IMO the ideal approach to electing most officials would be to have each voter rank their preferences. And even that doesn't work perfectly well under every circumstance. However, Sheila, as ludicrous as the 20% rule is, it has absolutely NO bearing on the issue that concerns you. It is irrelevant.

Has the deck been stacked against the citizen? Yes.

How very presumptuous to assume that you may speak for the citizenry. As far as I (a citizen) am concerned, the deck is stacked very nicely, thank you. Your statement isn't very endearing, as it indicates your willingness to fall back on flimsy rhetoric in lieu of a viable argument.

The Houston Planning Commission is a group of unpaid people appointed by the Mayor, usually in the develpment and construction business. Their decisions CANNOT be appealed. How can that be fair? How can that be democratic?

We don't live in a world of pure democracy. It is a representative democracy. If you don't like Mayor White's policies or appointees, feel free to run against him. Or you may feel free to petition the City to revise its charter so as to reduce the Mayor's powers. Good luck with that.

Save the Bungalows believes that the people who created and reside in a neighborhood should have some say over its future.

"...people who created and reside in a neighborhood..."

The Heights was founded in 1891. Where were you?

It was incorporated into the City of Houston in 1919. Where were you?

If your organization believes that those who "created and reside" in this neighborhood should have a say, then you may be surprised to find that there are very few people out there that will put forward a say. The vast majority of those people are dead.

In all seriousness, though, of course those that "created" OR "reside in a neighborhood should have some say over its future." Seems more like you just are having a beef with the matter of 'how much of a say' is had and with 'how the say is measured'. Please be more precise in the future.

We believe that planning should happen. What we have is whoever has the most money and gets there first does whatever they want - Planning by profiteers. What we have, in urban areas, is weak or non-existant deed restrictions, a deck stacked against us, no right to appeal. Meanwhile the developers get "one stop shopping"- Check Bill White's web site- he likes to brag on that as an accomplishment.

Oh no, those dastardly "profiteers" (i.e. capitalists) are destroying a neighborhood! They have no clue what they're doing and will end up drastically reducing its value! Bad profiteers, bad!

Returning once again to the realm of seriousness, you complain about the lack of affordability of the Heights and then lash out at those that seek to increase the supply of the housing stock. It is a hell of a lot easier to keep housing prices down when there are more homes to ration to consumers, you know. Perhaps there is an optimal rate of bungalow sacrifice in order to keep those that are still around affordable to those who prefer them?

Sooner or later you're either going to have to reconcile your organization's conflicting policy stances or you're going to have to lay out an acheivable proposal that incorporates some form of subsidy. I would suggest attempting to form a special district encompassing the Heights with the power to tax and spend on projects that it deems worthy. You'll have to get it approved by the Texas Legislature, however...those damned democratic processes always get in the way of 'progress', you know.

We think it not at all unreasonable to restrict a house as a proportion of its lot size. That is what we want. STB has no desire to be the taste police or enforce faux Victoriana. We think that restricting house size means that developers won't see the huge profits they get from starter castles and thus there will be an economic incentive to remodel and renovate. This is good in so many ways - it creates a stable neighborhood, when people think they know where prices are headed. It preserves mature tress, which are usually bulldozed to build the Hummer homes. And NO ONE at city hall will even talk about how flooding will be effected when all the green space is covered.

Although I applaud your (eventual and only partial) explanation of a policy that may actually have the intended effect of 'Saving the Bungalows', you're still faced with an affordability problem. In urban economics, there is a very straightforward principle that even as a metro area's urbanized area expands outward, it also densifies from its core, outward, albeit at a slower rate on account of the barriers typically posed by all those pesky prexisting buildings and inadequate infrastructure. As those barriers are overcome, more housing units are added to a smaller area, allowing consumers to economize on the high price of land by very simply sharing it with their neighbors. If you take away the densification mechanism, thus locking in a whole community into a low-density configuration, then the Heights will maintain a long-term comparative advantage with respect to the availability of respectibly-sized yards. People value yards. As it will become increasingly uncommon to find yards of this size in such a convenient location, the market value of homes in the Heights will become considerably higher on average than in areas that have been allowed to densify in order to meet market demand.

To pretend that the government does not engage in social engineering through economic incentives is naive. What the hell do you think tax breaks are?

Although I'm not quite sure what you're referencing here, you are correct. That doesn't mean that the government is necessarily right for doing so, or for that matter, that you should utilize that precedent as a rationale for enacting your own social engineering program.

By the way, if you do wind up having any success at all in your endeavors, please do yourself a favor and consult a good Ph.D economist. History is replete with attempts at social engineering that have utterly backfired, causing damage not only in the political realm and to those vile capitalists, but also to consumers. In many cases, folks like you can even wind up doing the capitalists a favor at the expense of consumers. A good economist can help you avoid or minimize these outcomes.

[jgs1419]

The ongoing dialog regarding development restrictions and neighborhood preservation is an important one in The Heights and in other inner city neighborhoods experiencing the tension caused by redevelopment/new construction.

Normally, the dialog is peppered with comments that disparage the character of otherwise reputable builders (profiteers, sorry bastards, etc.) or call into question the motives of the existing homeowners ("now that I'm here, I don't want anything to change", do gooder ninnies, etc.).

I wanted to thank both Sheila and Niche for reducing the discussion to a cogent dialog on the issues in lieu of a rhetoric filled rant. Neighborhood redevelopment/Neighborhood protection is a very emotional issue. I think we are all well served by dialing down the vehemence. These posts are a winning example.

IMO, issues regarding neighborhood protection have to be solved by revised development ordinances. Deed restrictions, prevailing lot size, etc. are tools that have limited effectiveness. Everyone would benefit from a clear set of rules and or incentives for quality infill development that balance the conflicting need for affordability, availability, density, and neighborhood preservation.

[musicman]

IMO, issues regarding neighborhood protection have to be solved by revised development ordinances. Deed restrictions, prevailing lot size, etc. are tools that have limited effectiveness. Everyone would benefit from a clear set of rules and or incentives for quality infill development that balance the conflicting need for affordability, availability, density, and neighborhood preservation.

Deed restrictions are VERY effective if written correctly. All of Sheila's concerns could be addressed with proper restrictions.

Because every neighborhood as different issues, "a clear set of rules" cannot be written generically for neighborhoods in the City of Houston. If "rules" were developed, most if not every developer would be pounding the door of City Hall saying that "this is causing me to raise my prices", "it is making it more difficult to operate", etc.

If anyone has time, try to attend a planning meeting when issues like this are discussed. I know developers attempt to circumvent the process by replatting (name of land changes i.e. neighborhood name). You might see a name on the net and not realize that this property is next door! The Planning Commission will just push it thru because most neighborhoods don't have the manpower to protest. Currently even restricted neighborhoods are having to do more work because the planning dept still hasn't developed a means to determine which neighborhoods are restricted. Prior to Bob Lanier, deed restrictions were kept on file at the planning department so it was easy to check whether an area was restricted. Now in the electronic age, it shoujld be easy to develop a database with names of restricted neighborhoods, however this administration has continued to drop the ball on this issue.

Edited September 7, 2006 by musicman

[jgs1419]

Deed restrictions are very effective at limiting/restricting undesirable development but Sheila's point seems to be that The Heights needs to restrict development, densification, and lot size without affecting the diversity of housing stock, maintaining the broad range of price points and encouraging refurbishment/historical preservation. Generally, those aspirations work in conflict and deed restrictions address only one of the variables in the equation.

[luvtheheights]

Allow me to explain some things...

The Houston Heights Association is NOT a homeowners assoc. Many members are businesses with ties to new construction. The Heights does not have a homeowners association.

Prevailing lot size- will keep out townhomes but will not keep out giant lot covering homes. And Sunset Heights tried to get PVLS and the Planning Commission denied them. Check the Chroniocle archives for a good report.

Deed Restrictions- To enact new ones takes going door to door and getting 75% signatures. We estimate it e takes 60-90 minutes to aquire ONE signature (distribute liturature, call agains, discuss topic, etc. ) That makes it a very difficult for any volunteer group. Why should there have to be a supermajority? We can legally elect a Governor this year with 20.00001 percent of the vote but it takes 75% and going door to door to get some changes in deed restrictions???? Has the deck been stacked against the citizen? Yes.

The Houston Planning Commission is a group of unpaid people appointed by the Mayor, usually in the develpment and construction business. Their decisions CANNOT be appealed. How can that be fair? How can that be democratic?

Save the Bungalows believes that the people who created and reside in a neighborhood should have some say over its future. We believe that planning should happen. What we have is whoever has the most money and gets there first does whatever they want - Planning by profiteers. What we have, in urban areas, is weak or non-existant deed restrictions, a deck stacked against us, no right to appeal. Meanwhile the developers get "one stop shopping"- Check Bill White's web site- he likes to brag on that as an accomplishment.

We think it not at all unreasonable to restrict a house as a proportion of its lot size. That is what we want. STB has no desire to be the taste police or enforce faux Victoriana. We think that restricting house size means that developers won't see the huge profits they get from starter castles and thus there will be an economic incentive to remodel and renovate. This is good in so many ways - it creates a stable neighborhood, when people think they know where prices are headed. It preserves mature tress, which are usually bulldozed to build the Hummer homes. And NO ONE at city hall will even talk about how flooding will be effected when all the green space is covered.

To pretend that the government does not engage in social engineering through economic incentives is naive. What the hell do you think tax breaks are?

I am getting a little tired of the misrepresentations that are being made. For one, I don't think there has been an influx of Hummer vehichles in and around the Heights. Second, can we stop calling them "profiteers" and call them what they are, capitalist. Thrid, I think that restricting house/lot size may hurt your case. Some of the remodels I have seen lately actually add more rooms on the ground level and eat up more of the yard/lot. If you are going to make a case for new construction having restrictions you better do it for remodels as well.

Lastly, my wife and I bought a new construction house in the Heights about a year ago (we lived in another part of the heights for about 5 years prior). We love the neighborhood and are committed to being here long term, that's why we bought a house we could grow into. Degrading what has been done in the neighborhood by calling homes like ours "McMansions" or "Hummer Homes" does not help your case with us or with many of our friends who own new homes in the Heights. We are not inclined to support you or your organization.

[TheNiche]

Deed restrictions are very effective at limiting/restricting undesirable development but Sheila's point seems to be that The Heights needs to restrict development, densification, and lot size without affecting the diversity of housing stock, maintaining the broad range of price points and encouraging refurbishment/historical preservation. Generally, those aspirations work in conflict and deed restrictions address only one of the variables in the equation.

The only item that deed restrictions cannot conceivably encompass is the affordability issue. And that's probably for the better. If you use City ordinances to set price ceilings, you wind up with situations similar to NYC's rent controls. Waiting lists, or homes that sell to the person that happens to be the first to drive by and see the "For Sale/For Rent" sign in the front yard.

Rent controls would basically fulfill just about every goal that Save the Bungalows has, but talk about politically infeasible! Anybody that owns property in the Heights would be up in arms. That kind of political arrangement really only works in areas with a high percentage of renters.

I am getting a little tired of the misrepresentations that are being made. For one, I don't think there has been an influx of Hummer vehichles in and around the Heights.

In all fairness to Sheila, I was driving up Studewood last night around midnight with one Hummer in front of me and one Hummer behind me. I had the same doubts that you have, but am very glad that I didn't make the point that you did...would've had to have eaten my words.

[jgs1419]

The only item that deed restrictions cannot conceivably encompass is the affordability issue.

To clarify, I wasn't addressing rent controls or subsidy when I made the previous post. My point was that deed restrictions that limit lot division or a change in density don't allow for the lower price per unit that usually results in dividing a 'full size' lot in half and building two houses in lieu of building one house on the same lot. Were it not for the 25x132 lots and 33x132 lots that many builders are using in the Heights, the only new construction available in the Heights would be $600k plus.

Likewise deed restrictions don't do anything to prevent the demolition of houses.

[TheNiche]

Likewise deed restrictions don't do anything to prevent the demolition of houses.

They certainly can have that effect, if only by putting up enough barriers to new construction so as to remove the incentives to demolish.

[lilyheights]

I am getting a little tired of the misrepresentations that are being made.

Lastly, my wife and I bought a new construction house in the Heights about a year ago (we lived in another part of the heights for about 5 years prior). We love the neighborhood and are committed to being here long term, that's why we bought a house we could grow into. Degrading what has been done in the neighborhood by calling homes like ours "McMansions" or "Hummer Homes" does not help your case with us or with many of our friends who own new homes in the Heights. We are not inclined to support you or your organization.

My husband and I also bought an offending home three and a half years ago. We plan to stay; so stability has nothing to do with the size and shape of our home either.

Between us and luvtheheights, that's two objectionable-home-families that plan to stay.

I think my next door neighbors plan to be in their house for quite some time.

Oh, come to think of it, the lady building down the street who has had enough of NOLA and sold a perfectly flood-free house to move here, I think she's not interested in ever moving again.

There are four-objectionable-home-families planning to stay for as long as possible.

I understand how passion can lead one to jump to conclusions. Things just aren't always how they seem. Just a thought.

[musicman]

To clarify, I wasn't addressing rent controls or subsidy when I made the previous post. My point was that deed restrictions that limit lot division or a change in density don't allow for the lower price per unit that usually results in dividing a 'full size' lot in half and building two houses in lieu of building one house on the same lot. Were it not for the 25x132 lots and 33x132 lots that many builders are using in the Heights, the only new construction available in the Heights would be $600k plus.

Likewise deed restrictions don't do anything to prevent the demolition of houses.

wow I didn't realize lots were 25' wide. You might as well move a trailer in there. Deed restrictions will definitely prevent that. I definitely would be in favor of keeping existing lot size. But making the lot smaller to make the cost lower would be something I would be against. If you can't afford the home, then find another neighborhood. I know I want to live in River Oaks but i'm a realist and won't live beyond my means. Too many people are in way over their heads now.

[west20th]

wow I didn't realize lots were 25' wide. You might as well move a trailer in there. Deed restrictions will definitely prevent that. I definitely would be in favor of keeping existing lot size. But making the lot smaller to make the cost lower would be something I would be against. If you can't afford the home, then find another neighborhood. I know I want to live in River Oaks but i'm a realist and won't live beyond my means. Too many people are in way over their heads now.

To clarify. 25' lots were the norm when the Heights was platted. That was the developers intention.

[RedScare]

To clarify. 25' lots were the norm when the Heights was platted. That was the developers intention.

Are you sure about that, west20th? I think Houston Heights was 50x132, while Sunset Heights was platted as 25 feet wide. In fact, the prevailing 25 foot lot size is part of what doomed Sunset Heights' Lot Line petition. They were actually trying to change the prevailing lot size to a BIGGER lot! Sheila omitted that fact from her response.

[west20th]

Are you sure about that, west20th? I think Houston Heights was 50x132, while Sunset Heights was platted as 25 feet wide. In fact, the prevailing 25 foot lot size is part of what doomed Sunset Heights' Lot Line petition. They were actually trying to change the prevailing lot size to a BIGGER lot! Sheila omitted that fact from her response.

Well I shouldn't say "all" of the Heights. My block/subdivision definitely was and most of the Heights West of the Blvd. near Sunset was also. Actually, I think most of the Heights West of the Blvd. was intended as 25' lots w/alley access.

Let me re-state the above. My area (20th near Shepherd) definately was platted for 25' lots. I'm just making assumptions on other areas in the Heights west of the Blvd.

Edited September 7, 2006 by west20th

[aggie92]

Saw the posting for SJL's follow up meeting for Height's crime and remembered a brief mention of her possibly going to the State Department working for Hillary. Did a quick search on HAIF with no mention but found numerous mentions 2 weeks old on the web. Does anyone know if this is going to happen?

Here's one post:

http://carey2.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-shei...g-to-state.html

IS SHEILA JACKSON LEE MOVING TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT?

WHO SHOULD REPLACE HER IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT?

Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston) will leave her post in Congress to work in the U.S. State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, sources tell Capitol Annex.

Jackson Lee was among Clinton

[JLWM8609]

Saw the posting for SJL's follow up meeting for Height's crime and remembered a brief mention of her possibly going to the State Department working for Hillary. Did a quick search on HAIF with no mention but found numerous mentions 2 weeks old on the web. Does anyone know if this is going to happen?

Here's one post:

http://carey2.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-shei...g-to-state.html

IS SHEILA JACKSON LEE MOVING TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT?

WHO SHOULD REPLACE HER IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT?

Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston) will leave her post in Congress to work in the U.S. State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, sources tell Capitol Annex.

Jackson Lee was among Clinton

[plumber2]

I've always had a jaded opinion of Ms. Lee because she always seemed to be looking for a camera to step in front of. This was most evident during the Rita/Ike evacuation dances.

The one time that I did meet to her face to face was much different. It was like meeting a different person altogether. I was at a state democratic convention, several years ago up in Ft. Worth, standing in front of the convention center waiting for a person from my delegation to show up. An old clunker car pulled up to the curb and out stepped SJL from the passenger side. She walked up to me, introduced herself and after a few brief pleasantries asked, "Is there another entrance to the auditorium? I'm supposed to speak these evening, and was hoping I could get on inside without having to make too many stops." I directed her to an entrance that I assumed was used for that purpose. She thanked me and walked off, unescorted into the hall.

I was impressed by her low key demeanor and casualness. Later on, as I heard her speaking on stage, it seamed like a different person altogether.

[rsb320]

I've always had a jaded opinion of Ms. Lee because she always seemed to be looking for a camera to step in front of. This was most evident during the Rita/Ike evacuation dances.

The one time that I did meet to her face to face was much different. It was like meeting a different person altogether. I was at a state democratic convention, several years ago up in Ft. Worth, standing in front of the convention center waiting for a person from my delegation to show up. An old clunker car pulled up to the curb and out stepped SJL from the passenger side. She walked up to me, introduced herself and after a few brief pleasantries asked, "Is there another entrance to the auditorium? I'm supposed to speak these evening, and was hoping I could get on inside without having to make too many stops." I directed her to an entrance that I assumed was used for that purpose. She thanked me and walked off, unescorted into the hall.

I was impressed by her low key demeanor and casualness. Later on, as I heard her speaking on stage, it seamed like a different person altogether.

Funny! Even Brian Williams (NBC) mentioned that we could expect SJL to get into a shot as the prez assended. Sure enough, she got up in there, as he predicted.

I've spoken with her briefly at fundraisers, etc. and found her to be very personable.

[Blue Dogs]

Good Morning HAIF Family. I've started discussion megathread on the upcoming 2023 Mayoral election for Houston Mayor in the race to succeed outgoing Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner (D), who's term limited from seeking a 3rd consecutive term.

 

The obvious frontrunner is longtime State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston), who's the brother-in-law of former Houston Mayor Kathy Whitmire (D), who held the office for 5 2-year terms from 1982 to 1992.

 

Whitmire's pledges if elected:

*Solve the homeless crisis.

*Vastly improve Houston's tattered streets & dramatically improve flood control.

*Uniting law enforcement & citizens against rampant crime.

*Negotiating fair deal with HFD firefighters. 

*Repairing Houston's dysfunctional & chaotic relationship with state leaders in Austin.

Any thoughts on the upcoming 2023 Mayoral election & I've got some questions:

1.) Will this go into a runoff ?

2.) Do you think any of the GOPers (Kubosh or Knox) will jump in ?

3.) Does Whitmire win outright to avoid a runoff ?

 

[mattyt36]

3 hours ago, Blue Dogs said:

Whitmire's pledges if elected:

*Solve the homeless crisis.

*Vastly improve Houston's tattered streets & dramatically improve flood control.

*Uniting law enforcement & citizens against rampant crime.

*Negotiating fair deal with HFD firefighters. 

*Repairing Houston's dysfunctional & chaotic relationship with state leaders in Austin.

Colorful and ideologically loaded language as always, @Blue Dogs.  

Maybe we should discuss that?

3 hours ago, Blue Dogs said:

1.) Will this go into a runoff ?

What kind of question is that?!

[editor]

On 12/4/2022 at 7:50 AM, Blue Dogs said:

Whitmire's pledges if elected

Pledges are meaningless to me, without very detailed plans to back them up.  But politicians only put out vague lists of promises as they campaign, for fear of alienating one-issue voters.

I no longer base my voting decisions on what people say they will do, but rather on what they've done so far.

[mattyt36]

3 hours ago, editor said:

Pledges are meaningless to me, without very detailed plans to back them up.  But politicians only put out vague lists of promises as they campaign, for fear of alienating one-issue voters.

Well in fairness, I can't really see that what has been presented as his "pledges" are his actual pledges (which adds a whole other layer about voting for people based on how others represent their pledges), but are rather someone's paraphrasing, but maybe they exist somewhere other than the guy's actual campaign website.

Why I am running - John Whitmire for Mayor

3 hours ago, editor said:

I no longer base my voting decisions on what people say they will do, but rather on what they've done so far.

Which, quite honestly, is rather silly in the context of the other dime store wisdom (pedantry?) ("I don't vote for politicians based on what they say they're going to do, but rather based on what they actually do," i.e., "I judge people based on their actions, not based on their words," so said everyone ever, all while thinking they were actually saying something of substance--it's not by definition a truism, but might as well be one based on human nature, regardless it's so well-worn it is hollowed out and now empty).  In any case, holding the office of Texas State Senator and Mayor of Houston are two entirely different positions.  I don't think it is illogical to think that somebody could make a great senator, for example, but not a great governor and vice-versa.

How could you, for example, evaluate Mealer as a prospective candidate for County Judge by this standard when she had never held government office?  On the other hand, you could evaluate Hidalgo.  So who do you choose if you think Hidalgo has done a flurfty job and judge her by her actions, yet you have nothing to judge whether or not Mealer can do a thing to decrease crime as she literally has no track record and therefore is all talk?

The truth of the matter is such decisions are not so cut-and-dried, but boy do we like to self-rationalize (self-deceive?) that they are.

Edited December 6, 2022 by mattyt36

[editor]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

How could you, for example, evaluate Mealer as a prospective candidate for County Judge by this standard when she had never held government office?

I don't think it's impossible. 

• Fictional Candidate A has 30 years of experience in public office, but has his sister on the payroll, and his brother-in-law's construction company keeps getting government contracts.
• Fictional Candidate B has no government experience, but has been a business leader and active philanthropist for a decade, and takes an interest in his community.

Two different people with different backgrounds.  But it is certainly possible to weigh one against the other.

To pretend that people can only be measured and compared by measuring talking points and checklists is folly.

[mattyt36]

13 hours ago, editor said:

I don't think it's impossible. 

• Fictional Candidate A has 30 years of experience in public office, but has his sister on the payroll, and his brother-in-law's construction company keeps getting government contracts.
• Fictional Candidate B has no government experience, but has been a business leader and active philanthropist for a decade, and takes an interest in his community.

Two different people with different backgrounds.  But it is certainly possible to weigh one against the other.

To pretend that people can only be measured and compared by measuring talking points and checklists is folly.

At the end of the day, that is a decision based on one's individual judgment of character as defined by one's actions, not one's actions relative to their "pledges." 

Often one can make decisions about one's character based on what one says, or how one says it.

And the instances in which the choice are as explicitly cut-and-dried as the above are few and far between.

And I am sure you agree that it is entirely possible that an individual can have a good character, but also be bad (or inferior) at a job.

All the above is stated simply as an example that the choice is not as black-and-white as originally presented.

But it remains a great cliché.  (Such is the definition of clichés, I suppose.)

[BeerNut]

I wonder what Chris Hollins chances are.  His execution of the 2020 election was so good and out of the box the state GOP passed laws to ensure it could never happen again.  Whitmire is just another 70+ year old politician and his agenda is just tired talking points until I see plans to back them up... overall none of this excites me.

[mattyt36]

On 12/8/2022 at 10:10 PM, BeerNut said:

I wonder what Chris Hollins chances are.  His execution of the 2020 election was so good and out of the box the state GOP passed laws to ensure it could never happen again.  Whitmire is just another 70+ year old politician and his agenda is just tired talking points until I see plans to back them up... overall none of this excites me.

Is it fair to characterize Whitmire as the traditional "consensus" candidate for 2023 and Hollins as more aligned with the Hidalgo/more "progressive" style of politics, sort of like Boykins and Lovell represented more "liberal" choices in the 2019 general election?

I didn't realize Amanda Edwards launched her campaign back in March, and I assume she'd be in the latter bucket, too:

Amanda Edwards for Houston Mayor

[kennyc05]

49 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Is it fair to characterize Whitmire as the traditional "consensus" candidate for 2023 and Hollins as more aligned with the Hidalgo/more "progressive" style of politics, sort of like Boykins and Lovell represented more "liberal" choices in the 2019 general election?

I didn't realize Amanda Edwards launched her campaign back in March, and I assume she'd be in the latter bucket, too:

Amanda Edwards for Houston Mayor

Thumbs down on Whitmire and Hollins the Edwards lady seems cool 😁

[Blue Dogs]

On 12/12/2022 at 12:26 PM, kennyc05 said:

Thumbs down on Whitmire and Hollins the Edwards lady seems cool 😁

Whitmire is the early front-runner though & he's got the $$$$$$. 🤔