TheNiche

Victim blaming.

I blame every deserving party. If a prostitute gets raped, you'd better believe I'm going to bring up her career as a risk factor. And if an asshat gets out-asshatted, well that's just the nature of things. When you play with fire, you're going to get burned. There is no completely blameless party and nothing that comes out of this story is likely to make our country less oppressive.

Translation: If you are going to exercise your 1st Amendment rights near government agents, don't be surprised when government agents violate your civil rights.

Further translation from between the lines: cops and bureaucrats don't have to care. Or at least, enough of them don't care, and so the pragmatic solution is to not be an asshat. Those who ask for trouble are prone to find it. And then what? You take risks and exert energy and time to bust asshat cops for the sake of catharsis...and then what? There will still be asshat cops around, and they might even know you and resent you.

There are more enjoyable endeavors in life than antagonizing the police. Like beer. And you probably shouldn't be doing both of those things (beer and the antagonization of cops) at once, anyway. They are mutually exclusive activities, but only one has consistently enjoyable consequences.

If you're going to be an asshat to cops when they try to do their job, then don't be surprised if they are asshats back at you. That is the lesson in this.

In my opinion, someone will have to budge here. If METRO can't reclaim the full one-cent sales tax, then it needs to pursue additional revenue through other sources like the FTA or another tax that's just on Houston residents. If they can recover it, then Houston and the multi-cities need to stop bitching and raise their own taxes.

METRO and every other local entity should always be pursuing outside funding, whether its from the state, the FTA, or pretty much anywhere.

Does anybody know what the mechanism would be for one of the other member cities, say West U, Bellaire, Taylor Lake Village, or El Lago, to pull out of METRO?

Our tax rates in this country, especially in Texas, are at historic lows. Eventually someone needs to stand up and make people realize that taxes have a purpose. If paying higher taxes improves my transit, the education of our kids, and the overall quality of life, then I say raise 'em.

At the federal level, expenditures are elevated. It's just that they've been financed with debt and by issuing new money. But the thing is...when an investor buys federal debt, they aren't buying mortgages or corporate paper. The issuance of additional debt is a tax directly against the supply of loanable funds, or the investment part of the GDP equation. Likewise, when the government prints new money, the effect is inflation and the depreciation of currency relative to other currencies, making all goods and especially imports more expensive. Expenditure in any given year is an indirect tax upon the economy; it is still a tax.

Also, I posted an analysis of state revenues last year which indicated that the tax burden has gradually increased since 2000 (when Rick Perry took office as governor). My data was adjusted for inflation and population growth, as well.

Around that same time, I had also posted data comparing educational achievement and education spending, broken down by race. It turned out that Texas performs quite well once you isolate groups of students based on ethnicity. (For instance, even though Iowa spends more money per student, their test scores are lower than Texas' for white, black, and hispanic students...but Texas has more black and hispanic students, and so on the face of it, it only seems like we're not doing as well. Adjusting for these factors, we were solidly middle-of-the-pack in terms of student performance and we were were at or near the top in terms of bang for the educational buck. That doesn't necessarily mean that Texas shouldn't be spending more money on education, but it does imply that being judicious in our expenditures is also wise. For instance, where transit is concerned, I might point out that a water taxi along Buffalo Bayou would be cool and enhance the quality of life, but it would also just be stupid. That money could be put to better use elsewhere, whether by providing more bus routes or by providing for better technology in schools.

Looks like punctuation is also a problem for Walmart shoppers.

It would appear that pronouns are a problem for Wal-Mart haters.

Stop. What about the billions spent on highways?

What about them? They're built and maintained by a state entity, TXDoT, funded by a gasoline tax that does not adjust for inflation such that they have scant funds with which to do anything except maintain the highways that we've got. Just like METRO, the pace of new agency-funded expansion has decelerated to a relative creep. However, unlike METRO, TXDoT cannot issue bonds. It is constrained in that way.

The only difference is that farebox recovery for a highway can often be above or near 100% of operating and capital costs, allowing local toll road agencies to pick up the slack, keep building, and charge the cost to the actual user. That would not be possible with most forms of transit, although some longer-range bus operators have run commuter routes out of Conroe and Brazoria County, IIRC. But then, such for-profit transit agencies wouldn't be feasible without TXDoT's old freeways and without competition in those geographic areas from a subsidized agency. (Perhaps this should serve as a reminder that a flat ribbon of concrete actually does more than just to provide a guideway for single-occupant automobiles and that mobility is the goal; the mode of technology that enables mobility should be irrelevant. Damn the coolness factor.)

largeTEXAS, that was very random.

FWIW, I suggest Craigslist. Mattresses depreciate very rapidly with use. I bought mine from random French chick. It was a little awkward sniffing at her mattress to check for freshness issues the way a dog sniffs a crotch just for fun (with her and her brother in the room, watching), but the price was just ridiculously good.

New coordinates show Debbie as a tropical storm. Predictions now expect it to reach hurricane strength by Tuesday evening, and reach Texas shores by Thursday or Friday.

That is one ridiculously slow-moving storm system. A lot could happen between now and Friday.

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.

I don't really understand that. I work in oil and gas, and although I'm not an engineer, I'm surrounded by them and they tell me oil is not going anywhere. The architecture firm we deal with solely works with our company and they are busy out the wazoo. I don't understand what all the fear is about.

What if China turned out to be a Ponzi scheme?

Engineers and architects make poor economists. Your company's corporate finance professionals are also poor economists. Even the outside economic consultants that they are hiring aren't especially good economists. Kool-Aide comes in many flavors and readily masks the steamy aroma of BS.

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.

The Hanover proposal is for a midrise in the middle of a commercial area whereas the Ashby proposal is for a skyscraper in the middle of two of the most historic and deed restricted neighborhoods in Houston.

How can the Ashby site be 'in the middle of two neighborhoods' at the same time? I don't think geometry works that way.

Nope. It's on a boundary between multiple neighborhoods, on unrestricted land with a non-conforming use along a major thoroughfare that has numerous other parcels with non-conforming uses.

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.

Huh? I haven't talked about trees. Please explain.

Red made a conditional statement, which is preceded by the word if.

If your fight is crying about tree size, then he's probably right but that statement may not apply to you. If you plan to make the Wal-Mart explode (a la King of the Hill, Season 2, Episode 23), then perhaps the fight is not over -- but all bets regarding tree size would be off, that's for sure.

Of course, we don't know what your fight is. You have made no credible or recent statements regarding your fight or an intent to fight. It's entirely possible that Red made a statement that wasn't directed at you.

Austin has never been weird, only self-important. There's a difference.

Woolie, everywhere has a set of problems, but Kinkaid is right. Honolulu is especially problematic.

To be well-educated or a professional in Houston, you more or less have to get past any sort of social hang-ups. We've done it especially well, as cities go. And the people from different cultures that moved here tend to be similarly open-minded, reinforcing a belief that what lies beyond should be pretty much like what you've seen and experienced here. But there's sample bias present. Your co-workers are atypical. They emigrated! It takes balls and some intellectual curiosity to will oneself to do that.

You're talking about placing yourself into a bi-cultural area with a stupendously messed up social heirarchy. There will be people there that go out of their way to make you feel unwelcome, but far more that are simply passive-aggressive, not doing anything to make you feel welcome (which is different from the former, more pervasive). And in addition to the issues that Kinkaid brought up, there's not much of a sense of ambition or a will to improve oneself among the natives. The ambitious natives emigrate. If you'd like to live in Honolulu, then you may as well go live in Brownsville; a lot of the same sociological patterns are at play there, too. It's also far more affordable, closer, and the beach is close enough.

(Please note, my perspective on the matter is that I lived with a Samoan emigre for a couple years, and he and I had talked about this. He hated Hawaii for pretty much all the same reasons that Kinkaid stated, citing lots of examples from within his own family.)

Niche- That photo was my FB status for well over a month. I loved that she rode in a banana. I knew Annise way back in the 80s when I was doing some PFlag speakers bureaus. Trust me, while she doesn't appear "hip" she knew full well what she was stepping into. She scored some bonus points in my book...

Mine too. ...both Facebook and for the bonus points, actually. There was no way that she would've been blind to the joke, and I respect any politician that is willing to troll the majority of their own constituency. That was awesome.

Did y'all notice how she and her partner were simultaneously riding a giant motorized banana in the art car parade? This was done in public! That should've merited some Daily Show action, right there. I even went so far as to look for a way to submit the photo to Jon Stewart, but couldn't find a way to do so.

Many people (including myself) would like to live in a city that has a little more lively downtown.

The difference between our downtown and many other cities with respectable downtowns is that ours is solely a place for designed for work. Many other cities' downtowns are places that are designed for working and living, therefore creating a much more desirable downtown.

Our downtown has quite a few abandoned buildings actually. And an enormous amount of parking lots which suck the life out of downtown. If you're fine with having a dead one-dimensional downtown, then that's fine. But I would like for downtown to be more desirable, lively, aesthetic, and livable. Is that too much to ask for the 4th largest city in America?

Quite a few? Any such buildings of significance could probably be counted on one hand. And as for the parking lots...you know, I kind of define the edge of downtown according to where the buildings are, not where the buildings aren't...even if some vacant land is encompassed by the same inconsequential freeway loop. (After all, when we think of the inner loop, nobody thinks of the tank farm north of McCarty and south of the North Loop as qualifying for that designation. Ever heard of Pleasantville? That's inner-loop, too. Did you know?)

I'd bet that there will be a TON of opposition to that idea. People won't like the idea of paying tolls pretty much every major street they drive on.

On the plus side, you're right that would really change our car oriented culture in the city, encouraging more pedestrian friendly development, transit use, and other positive externalities.

Yeah, I'm sure of it. This is my pipe dream. The funny thing is that if you replace the gas tax with a congestion-priced toll, then gas prices appear to go down and people spend less time sitting in congestion, thereby lowering their out-of-pocket costs and saving them their time (even before they realize the effect of market-priced infrastructure and begin factoring in the full cost of a commute into their lifestyle). It works out in so many ways... Oh well...

Sounds interesting, but I'm having trouble understanding where all of this money would come from. Why would the private sector be so interested in funding this? Most sections in your proposal will still most likely lose money, especially considering how sparse most of Texas is.

This could also lead to a divided city (literally). For example, one neighborhood might have good transit, and another one might have good roads, etc. but I wouldn't imagine that there would be good connectivity. Unless you envision entire cities being "segments," there would have to be some type of master plan for major cities.

Each segment of roadway would generate a stream of revenue. A regional transportation authority could own it and administer congestion pricing, then, once the process has been established and stabilized and a revenue-appropriate MTFP agreed upon, the rights to those streams of revenue could be sold off to private investors. I'd suggest that those rights be limited to something like ten-year increments, but bids could be solicited for many different terms; we'd sell to the bidder with the highest spread between our forecasted rate of return and returns on treasury securities.

As for rural Texas, if there will no doubt be many roads for which revenue cannot possibly match the costs--at any pricing scheme. When there aren't bidders, the state should yield responsibility for upkeep to the counties. (I do think that there are many rural highways that should never have been paved. Gravel should've been well enough.)

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

Kinkaid, why didn't you look over where I specifically identified there being a problem in the afternoons, at Fannin & 610? Why didn't you look at Almeda & OST this morning?

Subdude, since there is no coherent proposal, I stick with the theory that traffic congestion exists in certain places at certain times (as is my direct observation), that that is generally undesirable, and that a study of the circumstances and the alternatives would be worthwhile. Also--I actually quite like the idea of a toll road through Memorial Park, properly implemented...meaning that it'd probably be very expensive, and probably wouldn't fly. It's still an alternative worth thinking about.

Hmm well I for one believe that toll roads should only be used in situations where there is a lot of traffic. In most instances, toll booths are a measure to control traffic (or so I've been taught). Freeways should be free for the most part, but for high traffic areas, tolling can be effective.

I really don't care how much traffic there is. If the cost of the infrastructure will be paid for directly by users and can be externally financed, then by all means, build it.

Interesting idea though. If I remember correctly, you are in favor of converting all freeways to tollways? So, in essence, every highway would be their own entity? Interesting idea.

THAT should require a referendum. But...yes, and I'd even be willing to implement that idea as it pertains to surface thoroughfares. This would replace the gas tax (and then some). I believe that it would encourage commuters and companies to adopt more flexible schedules, spread out the peak traffic load, encourage carpooling, bicycling, walking, and transit use, and the geographic matching-up of workplaces with households in terms of distance.

If you stop socializing the high cost of transportation, people will live more efficiently. But the other part of it is that by defining each segments within the regional Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan as individual candidates for toll financing, a HUGE amount of money could be raised very quickly from the private sector. I'd like to see that money put into as an endowment managed by the state and allocated to the localities impacted by the toll conversion on the pro rata basis of revenue. Let the localities figure out what they want to do with the money. Perhaps they want transit, perhaps they want parks, perhaps they want flood control improvements, perhaps they want aid for the poor, perhaps they want lower taxes. Whatever. Different parts of Texas have different priorities; it should be up to them.

Honestly, I'm confused about this too. On multiple levels. This was not a very clear article, and it goes against my understanding of toll road finance. (Not that I couldn't be wrong or anything. Its happened before.)

And please don't construe my statement about infrastructure as only applying to highways. It could just as easily apply to light rail lines, water line replacements, or flood control projects. Financial analysts have to make quantitative estimates to justify a project. Sometimes they get it very wrong.

I'd like to see HCTRA changed up a little so that each toll facility is operated and financed independently as separate bankruptable entities, whereby the risk is isolated and obtaining external financing requires the harsh scrutiny of an investor exposed to project-specific risks. On the one hand, I think that that would increase HCTRA's cost of capital; on the other, it would make their analyses more trustworthy relative to an entity that is financially backed-up by the entire county's tax base.

As for referendums, I question their appropriateness in many many circumstances. Unless we're fundamentally changing a system of governance, I'd much rather leave these kinds of decisions to elected officials.

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?

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.

Traffic flow in and out of the TMC isn't an issue despite what Niche is trying to claim. Sure, the Med Center is bigger now that it was before, but it's also more spread out (new South Campus, the move of the UT dental school, the opening up of MD Anderson's admin tower on the southside of Braeswood, the Baylor Eye Clinic on Cambridge, etc...) and there's a light rail that moves thousands of people a day through the area without the use of their cars that didn't exist back when he wast taking classes at UH.

I've been on every major road in the area at all times of the day and night and traffic jams are simply not an issue unless people have totally unrealistic expectations. Flow into and out of the TMC works just fine. There is ZERO need to add an elevated tollroad extension from 288. None. If you don't believe, go sit on MacGregor at the corner of Cambridge St and watch the flow right after shifts let out. You'd then see the ridiculousness of this proposal.

Again, at a time when other cities are removing elevated freeways from their central core and adding parks (Boston, Dallas, LA, San Fran, etc...) we're actually thinking about doing the opposite? That's nothing short of insane. Hermann Park just went through a multi million dollar renovation making it one of the finest urban parks in America and now this? As Seth and Amy would say, "Really. Really? Really!"

I would respectfully disagree. There was congestion. The TMC has grown since then (both up and out). Aside from the Cambridge bridge, there are no new roads. (To be clear, I lived there both during the construction of light rail and after it began operating.) Therefore, I would think that there should be more congestion. This logic should be fairly straightforward.

Perhaps our disagreement relates to what is a reasonable or unreasonable amount of congestion. To that end, I would suggest that an unreasonable amount of congestion exists when people caught in the congestion become willing to pay out of their own pockets for infrastructure to abate congestion and the externalities generated by that infrastructure. I would think that the value of the externality caused by cutting through Hermann Park would be extraordinary and insurmountable, however (instead of going on a tirade against developers and commuters, the 'nefarious other') I am suggesting alternative alignments (to an alignment that none of us has actually seen).

TxDOT certainly could use those funds for something better. There are much more urgent projects in the Houston area IMO.

By statute, neither TxDOT or any other transportation agency can be granted revenues generated from a toll road except to the extent that HCTRA can quantify that a third-party agency's project would improve the marketability of the toll road such that it would generate additional revenue in excess of the revenue signed over to the other transportation agency.

HCTRA is also not as limited in terms of their budget because they use revenue-backed bond financing to pay for the up-front capital costs. TxDOT does not have that option, and so their budget is far more constrained and their priorities must reflect that.

Oh, and not all toll roads pay for themselves, even with the tolls. In fact, most don't. The Sam Houston tollway does IIRC, but the Hardy Toll Road doesn't.

HCTRA has learned a thing or two about the folly of building spokes that parallel easy alternatives. It's true that they are not infallible, but that is a criticism that would apply to any transportation agency. The possibility of making an error in judgment is not an excuse to give up on the development of Houston's infrastructure.