mattyt36

I.e., perpetual overtime or hire more officers? Seems like that choice is pretty clear. But perhaps that's your point.

OK that makes sense, but getting "caught in the act" still means the crime is being committed, i.e., it still counts in the rate. So I guess the underlying hypothesis, assuming this is the strategy, is that most criminals will continue "criming" until they're caught. Or more arrests deter others from committing crimes. Probably true for many crimes, but not necessarily all (murder being one, which people seem to be focused on). I wonder if HPD or HCSO have any data on number of reported crimes in which they feel an apprehension would've been made if the response time were lower.

I dunno--I'm not a criminologist. I understand how that would make intuitive sense, but surely there must be a point of severely diminishing returns, not to mention unintended (and potentially severe) consequences. Again, it would help to know more granularity about the data, what types of crimes are increasing, and some meaningful analysis as to the driving factors. Domestic abuse, for example . . . I fail to see how hiring more police officers is going to stop a husband from being abusive towards his wife. Maybe if they're doing it on the street, I suppose there's an increased chance assuming more police cars are driving around. But even then that seems like a very low probability given the region's land area. So we go from (for illustrative purposes only) a 0.01% chance that a police officer will be driving by at the exact location at the exact time when a husband is abusing his wife to a 0.02% chance if we double the police headcount? I just fail to see the reasoning. Are there not enough 911 operators? Are officers not arriving fast enough (or not at all)? Are cases not being processed quickly enough? Have police reduced patrols? And if we have information on the above, what exactly has changed since 2019? Seems to me questions like that are the place to start.

B

"Mug" would be ominous. As long as it's plural, it's OK. You can't have just one after all!

Thank you for sharing @trymahjong. I don't know if this is the first substantive article the Chronicle has written about the subject but it sure feels like it. Key points from the article: The success of the GOP approach depends less on statistical trends and more on whether crime is “visible” to voters on the nightly news, Adams said. Which is my sense--this is more about "feelings" than reality. Contrary to Young’s claim, Houston is far from the most dangerous city in the country. In 2020, the first year of the homicide surge, Houston tallied about 17 murders per 100,000 people, less than half the rates recorded by several other large cities, including St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit, Memphis and Cleveland. Either Ed Young "feels" this way, or it was deliberately political. I know what my guess is. Still, Houston has seen a sharp rise in homicides each of the last two years, starting with a 43 percent surge from 2019 to 2020 — similar to the increase measured across all of Harris County, including Houston and the other incorporated cities. Murders across the country spiked by 29 percent that year, as a number of large cities — including Chicago and New York — recorded increases north of 50 percent. Awful statistics. 43% surge 2019-2020, all on Mr Law and Order's watch, if you want to get political. I prefer not to. Seems like we should figure out what exactly is going on first before making ridiculous promises about hiring 1,000 new police officers "just because . . . feelings."

Have noticed the same. And building is completely dark at night, which either used to not be the case or I am crazy. Maybe that was related to the crane.

Somehow missed this. I went to the location in Vegas and very much enjoyed, a great French dip, great atmosphere, and plenty of TVs and bar space. Never thought it would take until April 2023 to open up. OH WELL. Guess in time for Opening Day.

“Best Governor in Texas History” as I have heard on here or ”It Could Have Been Worse”? Hopefully people wake up and realize that the current Oppositional Defiant Disorder (i.e., “Lib Owning”) style of politics is not a path to anything greater or grander, and could very well be a path to disaster. Hello Mississippi!

@Blue Dogs welfare check?

That clarification is very helpful, thank you. I'm not under any pretenses that Beto will win the gubernatorial election. Which is a good thing in at least one respect, as such an outcome may take years off my life from the overload of excitement and fluid (ocular) loss. This will be my first time voting for Lina, but my second time voting for Beto. I think he's a wonderful guy and would make a wonderful governor, and, quite honestly, Make Texas Great Again. Your comment is well taken, however, and I shall clarify my point that I am not predicting any Texas blue wave. To me, this is only about Harris County, and it will be a bellwether to me about how much the County has "evolved" (I put that in quotes because I do not want to imply a value judgment) politically . . . it would be pretty remarkable, as I personally think Hidalgo is (well, has become) a weak, weak candidate. Do I think she is a victim in some respects? Yes, but that doesn't matter in politics. I believe the State Republican Party thinks the same and is the reason they're so focused on Harris County . . . at the end of the day, it's about control of elections in the biggest county in the State to "nip it in the bud." Absolutely unconscionable from the perspective of responsible leadership, but refer above . . . that doesn't matter in politics. Look--here's my perspective--there's a global sense of anxiety (and, let's be honest, absolute hopelessness) with regard to the future. It should be no surprise that there are different ways to react to the same themes. But I believe there are a whole class of people (not the voters, per se) who see this as some opportunity for a power grab and to make a lot of money (e.g., Bannon, Steve, or the majority of the global non-democratic political "elite"--China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). I understand in theory the idea of a "leftist takeover" of the U.S. and how that would not be any more or less beneficial than a MAGA takeover. At the end of the day, as far as I'm concerned, MAGA government and leftist government means an economy entirely ruled by the government. But as much as the MAGAites want to argue that there is some impending leftist takeover, there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever based on volume of coordinated actions and just, I mean, outright lying and gaslighting so obviously orchestrated that it has become such a reflex for the practitioners that even they are beginning to believe it. Absolutely insidious stuff going on. I mean I'll go with at least a couple orders of magnitude. When it gets to just 1 order of magnitude, I’ll listen more closely. (Remember, as you would remind us, that we’re supposedly a lazy bunch, and give your guys some credit for efficiency!) I do think the above is a "reasonable" observation. Hopefully the country is awakening to it. Because once it's gone, it's gone. And it will be the ultimate definition of "waste" in the first post-apocalyptic edition of Webster's.

Augie, you have won my heart again!

Augie, your responses I must say are becoming more tiresome and rather formulaic than normal. Seems to be some derivative of "Nothing to see here," blah, blah, blah, always, when it comes to any negative news from a partisan perspective. Which, as we all know, is the standard Republican approach to things these days (at least for the ones not threatening Civil War). Journalist: "It is reported that the President stole nuclear documents?" Marco Rubio: "Hmmm, well, that's a document storage issue. Now let's talk about Hillary and the socialists and the groomers." (Note Rubio has no credibility in this example.) The poll is an update to the one posted by our friend Mr Dogs earlier this summer. It is all we have. The same group of people conducting the same poll has shown different results. Yes, I understand statistical analysis, MOE, etc. Yes, the 2016 polls were bad. The 2018 polls were not, however. The 2020 polls weren't the best, but weren't as bad as 2016. So I could say by simple powers of selective observation of patterns, which is the same logic you're using, I'm going to say, well in this rotation, these polls must be better. But, I will not, as that is hogwash. I will evaluate them in this context: -As described above, germane from a trend perspective to the polls conducted by the same group several months prior -They parallel state and national trends, which show people clearly running away from the radical Republican agenda -Mealer's announcement re the 1K new policemen indicates desperation . . . she could've announced this months ago At the very least, a reasonable response should be "Even though I don't trust polls, that's a tad bit concerning." But I will acknowledge that you still believe in a 12-year period of Republican political dominance. I agree, I think it is a real possibility, but only if they are successful at fully subverting the American democratic processes and replacing it with an authoritarian "I Know Better than You" government, which admittedly many seem intent on doing.

Well there’s a generous interpretation. Might as well get rid if all the parking then, by that rationale. Can get the Faculty and Administrators to move, too. In all fairness, I agree that some institutions elsewhere have adopted this approach. But it seems to me that there is plenty of enough parking downtown, especially these days, so I am not sure the logic holds as a matter of policy and therefore the most likely explanation is one of convenience. They can easily contract with a nearby garage for preferred monthly rates for students, faculty, and administrators, no? Seems like when the park is completed, it’ll only be more obvious that they are a “bad neighbor” (which would really be ironic if the stated goal was “urbanist,” ie to encourage people to live downtown).

Deep breath, @Blue Dogs Looks like my theory may be closer to the case than it was this summer If correct, this means Harris County will no longer be competitive Surely Mealer, Patrick, Ed Young and the Republican machine have seen the same poll results internally, which explains why Young was so embittered and angry last week and Mealer today is calling to hire 1K new police officers out of nowhere for … er … reasons? Sounds like a totally judicious use of funds. Looks like @august948’s tongue-in-cheek posting of Mealer with colleagues in fatigues saying they’re fighting crime in Houston may not be far off from how these guys see themselves … 1K new officers walking around on top of what we already have, where will she put them and what will they do all day?! (Wonder how she even came up with 1K? Because it was larger than 100 and 10K sounded a bit too ridiculous, even to these professional fearmongers?) Abbott behind similarly, I honestly would’ve expected Mealer to run ahead as she has no history and is avoiding telegraphing she is a Republican—however she’s somehow running slightly behind—this is great indication that it has little to do with Mealer and is more just anti-Republican (greatest Governor in history … I guess? … looks like your fellow Texans strongly disagree). If the voters are anti-Republican (what I believe you have referred to as a “wave” before), ain’t nothing much poor Mealer can do … maybe her campaign should’ve been something other than Mattress … Woman … Latina … Crime … War! I say thank God it looks like the majority of Harris County residents can see the Republican Party for exactly what it is and they say NO THANK YOU Of course I won’t put it past Abbott to just proclaim Mealer won anyway, and I can’t say I have much faith in the crooked Republican judges (Aileen Cannon anyone?)

Color me confused as to why you would opine so strongly initially without reading the media coverage to begin with. There is only one newspaper of record in Houston, so it’s not even a tough Google. “I think we’d have to examine the actual speech Ed Young made,” you said. Uh huh. It’s called Google if you are so obsessed about what was or wasn’t said. Seriously, dude, give me a break. Yeah, “Thanks for the link,” for sure. The rest of your response can be dismissed due to the disingenuousness with which it began.

Augie, I don't think you're dense or of the dim variety, so I must question myself, how can that be "the take" of someone who I may disagree with politically, but think is sensible. It's either you think this is all some sort of game, in which "nothing really matters" or you actually earnestly believe what you wrote. To, as you say, "paraphrase": Second Baptist pastor Ed Young calls for Democrats to be voted out during sermon (chron.com) During Dr. Ed Young's sermon to Second Baptist Church in Houston Sunday, the prominent preacher called on congregants to vote out elected officials who he considers at fault for the city's crime. The pastor argued that "delayed justice," including bail bonds, is to blame for the rising rates and is what occurs when "you put left-wing progressives in office." "If Houston and Harris County is to survive, we had better throw those bums out of office." said Young, who's served as lead pastor at Second Baptist Church since 1978. "They are not doing their job that we have called them to." That seems, er, pretty black and white. Either it happened mostly as it was described or it didn't. Maybe it was an innocent "slip of the tongue," so to speak. If it didn't happen as described, Ed Young has had a week to correct the record. He hasn't. Ergo it more than likely happened mostly as it was described. So, I ask again--very simple question--assuming the above happened (without even asking if you believe it), on a simple question of the rule of law as it exists (again, whether you agree with it or not is immaterial) . . . this is, as we say, "a question of principle" . . . do you think that guy should maintain the privileged tax-exempt status? Just say yes, absolutely, this guy has it right and I don't care. In fact, it'd be much better if the US had more religious leadership, the foundational tenet of religious freedom in the Constitution be damned. It's much easier than going on about how "we don't have the facts . . . we only know what we have read" (Surely you never thought you would be one to say such a thing, or do I have you completely wrong?) and "actually, a quick read of the IRS code says . . . " (If there's one thing I give the Republicans credit for, it's endurance, as I would find such pretzel logic beyond exhausting.)

Oh boy, Augie, I didn’t know it was THAT bad. I know people saying things and hundreds of other people hearing it directly and then it being confirmed independently has increasingly confused a certain political demographic for a long time for matters of convenience (admittedly now at a logarithmic scale since 2016). For whatever reason, said demographic is completely incapable of contemplating that things as written, which make complete sense on their face by simple powers of observation, are or even can be accurate. Are you holding that it is likely that Ed Young didn’t even make the comments alleged in the Chronicle and it is all an innocent misunderstanding? Has Ed Young clarified, or perhaps apologized in good faith for any potential misunderstanding to “advance the dialogue”? Just say “SO WHAT? I don’t care.” Instead of arguing over the circumstances, let’s start with first principles. IF the article is more-or-less accurate, why not tell us your position on the tax-exempt status? Cuz, pardon me for being presumptuous, survey says your answer is probably doesn’t matter, regardless (or, probably more likely “every tax-exempt organization is corrupt, so why does it matter?”), so why waste your time on arguing simple technicalities? Best to focus on the substance of the issue than going out of the way to employ gaslighting techniques, i.e., “Did anyone hear him say literally those things, and, if he did, did anyone ask him if he was joking? And if he wasn’t joking, did anyone ask him if he literally believed it? Because if he believed it, no matter how ridiculous it was, it’s OK.” (Same sort of logic with claiming FBI planting documents, and then saying documents were declassified, then saying the documents were in private cartons, etc, and people still thinking everything is A-OK … half the country has seem to have lost its mind trying to make excuses for the absolute obvious. OJ Simpson and Claus Von Bulow would want you on their juries … everything is all just a coincidence and so many people have it out for me, so it can’t possibly be true! It’s certainly no coincidence Trump has Dershowitz in common between those two.) Such is how propaganda works (if you even believe it to begin with, that is). But I suspect you know this. (At least the part of you that has not completely surrendered to cynicism does.)

This is why am always skeptical of this crime rhetoric, which always rears its head in election season. I really wish people like Ed Young would face consequences for being so overtly political (there are of course plenty of other and worse examples across the country). Time to yank tax-exempt status and come clean that this was all part of a deliberate political operation.

Is this some Law Enforcement Agency Endorsements=Certain Victory axiom that you read about on Breitbart? I guess someone better tell Donald Trump. (Something tells me your predictions were off in November 2020 as well. If people can’t see what an absolute cult the Republican Party has become, I’m not sure what to say.)

There are no hills in Houston

Fantastic show by my vote

Sure, well done Greg from Gregg County, I am confident he was totally behind this. Must’ve been keeping him up for nights. Likely #2 priority for him after making sure there are no dead intrafetal dead babies. (Not to worry, extrafetal totally copacetic.)

Well done TxDOT

Well when I hear “blight remediation,” a certain building comes very quickly to mind.