METRORail Purple Line

[Houston19514]

It was silly that METRO had not reached out to UH to finalize an agreement in the design process, before breaking ground.

It was $1.5 million dollars of silliness, plus legal costs and whatever delays may have been incurred. I'm not sure that I'd call it a win for UH, though. They should've gotten more out of it IMO.

It's silly to assume Metro had not reached out to UH during the design process. Regardless, there were a lot of public hearings and more than ample opportunity for UH to participate in the design process and raise their concerns long before this point.

[TheNiche]

UH had years to make their issues known. UH and METRO had negotiated about the rail long before this. METRO did reach out to UH. UH just out of nowhere came up with this mid-construction. Don't see how you can blame this on METRO.

That's right. The whole thing was ridiculous.

I think they should have made their issues known in the first place. Considering the fact that they randomly brought this up mid-construction, they shouldn't have gotten diddly squat for it.

METRO reaches out to everyone...halfheartedly. They don't really care what anyone says. It's pathetic how little they care! UH probably had been voicing these concerns for a long while, getting nowhere. Go look up the original petition in the courthouse. That should provide some indication.

As big a stakeholder as UH is to METRO, there should've been a few draft MOU's, finalized engineering plans, and eventually a signed-off agreement between the parties.

Kroger on Cullen?

Is that within walking distance of UH or the Southeast Line? I don't think so if you're lugging around a bunch of groceries.

[IHB2]

It was silly that METRO had not reached out to UH to finalize an agreement in the design process, before breaking ground.

It was $1.5 million dollars of silliness, plus legal costs and whatever delays may have been incurred...

that is the common thread running through all of these LRT discussions on HAIF - METRO seems incapable of getting all the ducks in a row before it charges ahead and spends the public's money, then spends/wastes more taking care of some detail that should have been taken care of in the engineering phase.

UH is not some NIMBY homeowner...

[kylejack]

Is that within walking distance of UH or the Southeast Line? I don't think so if you're lugging around a bunch of groceries.

.4 miles to Phoenicia (Rail stop Capitol @ ~Chenevert)

.5 miles to Kroger (Rail stop Leeland @ Scott)

[RedScare]

METRO reaches out to everyone...halfheartedly. They don't really care what anyone says. It's pathetic how little they care! UH probably had been voicing these concerns for a long while, getting nowhere. Go look up the original petition in the courthouse. That should provide some indication.

As big a stakeholder as UH is to METRO, there should've been a few draft MOU's, finalized engineering plans, and eventually a signed-off agreement between the parties.

Is that within walking distance of UH or the Southeast Line? I don't think so if you're lugging around a bunch of groceries.

I went to college for 4 years without a car, without public transportation, and without a "full-service grocery store" within miles of my dorm. Miraculously, I survived, due to friends with cars, and, oh, the campus cafeteria.

Making out like UH students are going to starve over this rail line is more than a little disingenuous. Might I suggest that they swallow their pride and take the 52 or the 80 to the Midtown Randalls? I bet they sell Ramen there, too.

Oh, and making the assertion that this is ALL Metro's fault because you believe Metro never does anything right is BS. Your opinions are only that.

[TheNiche]

.4 miles to Phoenicia (Rail stop Capitol @ ~Chenevert)

.5 miles to Kroger (Rail stop Leeland @ Scott)

Well then scratch Phoenicia off the list. Didn't figure it was that far from a station, but...oh well.

(And this is coming from someone that used to walk slightly over a half-mile to Battle Kroger when I lived in Eastwood, about every third night. I'd do it just for the exercise. That it was physically unpleasant was kind of the idea. But if it was unpleasant, my reward was that I was walking through a nice neighborhood, not underneath railroad tracks on my way toward Scott Street so that I can ride public transportation and then walk some more.)

[TheNiche]

I went to college for 4 years without a car, without public transportation, and without a "full-service grocery store" within miles of my dorm. Miraculously, I survived, due to friends with cars, and, oh, the campus cafeteria.

Making out like UH students are going to starve over this rail line is more than a little disingenuous. Might I suggest that they swallow their pride and take the 52 or the 80 to the Midtown Randalls? I bet they sell Ramen there, too.

Ages ago, you relied on cars and a food plan at a school that was not UH. Granted, it's been about 11 years since I had to review UH's food plans for dorm residents, but back then they were overpriced. I could've lived off of fast food for less, but in fact saved a great deal of money (in college student terms of what constitutes a lot of money) by shopping at a Kroger.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that UH students will starve over light rail. I'm saying that by and large, they will still have cars and will still park them somewhere on-campus.

[kylejack]

Well then scratch Phoenicia off the list. Didn't figure it was that far from a station, but...oh well.

(And this is coming from someone that used to walk slightly over a half-mile to Battle Kroger when I lived in Eastwood, about every third night. I'd do it just for the exercise. That it was physically unpleasant was kind of the idea. But if it was unpleasant, my reward was that I was walking through a nice neighborhood, not underneath railroad tracks on my way toward Scott Street so that I can ride public transportation and then walk some more.)

I went to college in Marshall TX, and pretty much the only game in town was the Walmart. It wasn't even close to walking distance, so people would hitch rides with friends who had a car. We had no kitchen in our dorm, so all we had to buy food-wise was some frozen dinners or ramen. We did the food plan for some meals and went out to eat for others. We didn't really need to do big grocery trips, because we didn't have anywhere to cook it and didn't have much room to store it.

But anyway, walkability isn't just about grocery stores. Being able to catch the rail to go visit family, see a movie, go to a sporting event, go to the park, etc. would certainly improve the college experience for many.

[RedScare]

I'm willing to bet that Niche's argument against rail on the UH campus is not shared by students. He claims to speak for them, but it is unlikely that the majority share his view.

[mfastx]

METRO reaches out to everyone...halfheartedly. They don't really care what anyone says. It's pathetic how little they care! UH probably had been voicing these concerns for a long while, getting nowhere. Go look up the original petition in the courthouse. That should provide some indication.

Well apparently they care enough to re-route proposed routes multiple times and spend millions of extra dollars for unneccessary projects to make people happy (moving trees, building underpasses, extra driveways, etc.). I'd say that they care too much.

UH has more than enough resources to "get somewhere" with their requests. Saying that they "probably" voiced their concerns long ago just isn't enough to make me side with UH automatically on this issue.

I just don't believe that an entity such as UH wouldn't get anywhere with METRO for years before construction while other less politically powerful requests had been fulfilled.

[TheNiche]

I don't think that y'all have been reading closely enough or that you understand the nature of my criticism.

[mfastx]

I think that both sides could have handled things better, but it's unfair to place the blame solely on METRO as you seem to be.

[Slick Vik]

I don't think that y'all have been reading closely enough or that you understand the nature of my criticism.

For once I agree with you. After going to the GMP meetings and noticing about 90% of the people wanted to get rid of GMP payments entirely, but out of fear of lobbying in the legislature and other powerful groups in general, it still seems METRO wants to compromise against the wishes of the public at large, why have the meetings in the first place?

[rsb320]

I saw a poster at a rail station yesterday that said MetroRail had reached 90 million boardings.

[TheNiche]

I think that both sides could have handled things better, but it's unfair to place the blame solely on METRO as you seem to be.

Why is that? METRO is the encroaching agency. METRO is attempting to do something, to deviate from the null. They should be held to a higher standard in terms of working with their constituents--especially the high-profile constituents that have the ability to materially impact the design and construction of the route. In particular, METRO should be held responsible for providing notice, for initiating key events that further the process along, and for setting a reasonable timeline of events.

METRO broke ground before obtaining agreement from UH. Let's be serious about this. If METRO had its act together, it would've had a binding agreement in place with UH early in the design process so that they would've been able to impose a reasonable constraint on the design and land acquisition process to the north and south of UH. It was absolutely ridiculous that METRO had not already cleared this hurdle, but it is in keeping with a pattern that METRO does not communicate with their key constituents about critical events.

This is just one more datapoint in my thesis that METRO should be eliminated altogether and replaced by a new agency that can be held accountable by the public, for which our debates might actually mean something. But the way that they're chartered, METRO doesn't have to care. And I think that that's a damned shame.

[LTAWACS]

I saw a poster at a rail station yesterday that said MetroRail had reached 90 million boardings.

Pure propaganda.

[samagon]

Well let's see, there aren't any full-sized grocery stores within walking distance of the dorms, and the closest one that comes even close is the Southeast Line will be Phoenicia at Discovery Green. For lower prices and a better selection, they could transfer to the Red Line and take it to Randall's Midtown or Fiesta Midtown, but they'd best not be purchasing anything frozen.

Unfortunately, the neighborhood around UH still isn't very student-friendly. And a lot of UH students have off-campus jobs, too. The students living in dorms have always had parking lots assigned to them. I doubt that that will change.

well, the first statement, I should have slathered a bit more sarcasm on it

but, the second statement was a bit less sarcastic, as I thought I read on here (or somewhere else talking about all the new dorms) one of the reasons for creating all the new on campus housing (and updating student centers, etc) was that UH was targeting a requirement for freshmen to live on campus and not need to leave...

[mfastx]

Why is that? METRO is the encroaching agency. METRO is attempting to do something, to deviate from the null. They should be held to a higher standard in terms of working with their constituents--especially the high-profile constituents that have the ability to materially impact the design and construction of the route. In particular, METRO should be held responsible for providing notice, for initiating key events that further the process along, and for setting a reasonable timeline of events.

I don't see what METRO did wrong though. They made their plans clear. They held meetings and such. And they started construction.

METRO broke ground before obtaining agreement from UH. Let's be serious about this. If METRO had its act together, it would've had a binding agreement in place with UH early in the design process so that they would've been able to impose a reasonable constraint on the design and land acquisition process to the north and south of UH. It was absolutely ridiculous that METRO had not already cleared this hurdle, but it is in keeping with a pattern that METRO does not communicate with their key constituents about critical events.

Do you know that for sure or are you just speculating? I'm pretty sure that since it's a federally funded line, that agreements of the sort you are talking about need to be in place before constructions starts, correct? I talked with someone who does real estate dealings for METRO, and she told me that this stuff wasn't even coming from UH. She wouldn't give any details, but it was clear that UH and METRO already had an agreement in place before construction.

I think it's safe to say that neither of us know exactly what happened or where exactly the problem was coming from. I think that your personal bias against METRO is the reason for you holding them accountable, but not UH.

This is just one more datapoint in my thesis that METRO should be eliminated altogether and replaced by a new agency that can be held accountable by the public, for which our debates might actually mean something. But the way that they're chartered, METRO doesn't have to care. And I think that that's a damned shame.

Good idea in theory, but I feel like nothing would ever get done if that were the case. There's always going to be somebody that's vehemently against any proposed piece of infrastructure. Now, if a majority of people are in favor of something, then build it. And that's what METRO is doing.

METRO is really one of the few local transit agencies that actually allows for public input to influence construction. Agencies like TxDOT or HCTRA don't even need public approval to build something. I think that's a damned shame. I think agencies like METRO, HCTRA, and TxDOT should be held to the same level of accountability and public input, but they're not. Oh well I guess I am off topic.

[kdog08]

UH could/should start requiring freshman or those individuals with a certain amount of hours live on campus. It would certainly give UH a totally different feel and appeal. The grocery stores and amenities would follow.

[kdog08]

And I thought that UH didn't want this because of a loss of parking spaces? So now all of the sudden they're okay with losing those parking spaces now that they have an extra driveway? Seems weird.

They were holding out for a free a road?

[kylejack]

Supposing University of Houston was completely uncooperative, could Metro have just eminent-domained them?

[kbates2]

I don't believe that Metro has the power to eminent domain state owned property. I may be wrong about this.

[TheNiche]

I thought I read on here (or somewhere else talking about all the new dorms) one of the reasons for creating all the new on campus housing (and updating student centers, etc) was that UH was targeting a requirement for freshmen to live on campus and not need to leave...

It's a university, not a prison. That they should live on-campus doesn't mean that they won't want or need to leave campus for a variety of reasons. Besides, not everybody is a freshman.

I don't see what METRO did wrong though. They made their plans clear. They held meetings and such. And they started construction.

Do you know that for sure or are you just speculating? I'm pretty sure that since it's a federally funded line, that agreements of the sort you are talking about need to be in place before constructions starts, correct? I talked with someone who does real estate dealings for METRO, and she told me that this stuff wasn't even coming from UH. She wouldn't give any details, but it was clear that UH and METRO already had an agreement in place before construction.

I think it's safe to say that neither of us know exactly what happened or where exactly the problem was coming from. I think that your personal bias against METRO is the reason for you holding them accountable, but not UH.

The only representation that I will make is that I have presented my opinions within the context of the knowledge that I understand to be true and correct. However, my understanding has been shaped largely from news articles and blog entries, as has yours. My opinions are also influenced by a variety of personal experiences that I've had with METRO execs and stakeholders, some of whom I've done work for in the past. Likewise, my opinions are influenced by my personal experience at METRO-sponsored meetings, wherein the public was ignored, and by professional experience in the way that complex real estate transactions happen and break down between opposing parties or parties that are ostensibly symbiotic partners but at odds in practice.

The North and Southeast Lines had not received federal funding at the time that they broke ground. METRO was speculatively investing its own money, which it had too little of, to break ground on light rail lines for which engineering plans were not finalized. They had done the same thing with the 'Brown Line', which became an over-budgeted fiasco because METRO had forgotten to negotiate a means to cross freight rail tracks with UP and wanted to do it at-grade! I am convinced that they repeat the same mistakes over and over because they are unaccountable to the public and therefore do not need to be competent.

Good idea in theory, but I feel like nothing would ever get done if that were the case. There's always going to be somebody that's vehemently against any proposed piece of infrastructure. Now, if a majority of people are in favor of something, then build it. And that's what METRO is doing.

Things would be done, albeit with compromise. Compromise is a good thing, radicalism is not. When everyone is unhappy, that's how you know that government is carrying out the will of the people within a reasonable range. It's just that we need to bring all the functions under one umbrella so as to achieve a more well-balanced discontent.

METRO is really one of the few local transit agencies that actually allows for public input to influence construction. Agencies like TxDOT or HCTRA don't even need public approval to build something. I think that's a damned shame. I think agencies like METRO, HCTRA, and TxDOT should be held to the same level of accountability and public input, but they're not. Oh well I guess I am off topic.

I agree. You'll notice that the other organizations are not exempted from my proposed reforms to the way we do transportation in Texas. But if we're going to talk about METRO or light rail, then I'm going to talk about METRO and light rail.

[mfastx]

The only representation that I will make is that I have presented my opinions within the context of the knowledge that I understand to be true and correct. However, my understanding has been shaped largely from news articles and blog entries, as has yours. My opinions are also influenced by a variety of personal experiences that I've had with METRO execs and stakeholders, some of whom I've done work for in the past. Likewise, my opinions are influenced by my personal experience at METRO-sponsored meetings, wherein the public was ignored, and by professional experience in the way that complex real estate transactions happen and break down between opposing parties or parties that are ostensibly symbiotic partners but at odds in practice.

Fair enough. There's always two sides to a story.

The North and Southeast Lines had not received federal funding at the time that they broke ground. METRO was speculatively investing its own money, which it had too little of, to break ground on light rail lines for which engineering plans were not finalized. They had done the same thing with the 'Brown Line', which became an over-budgeted fiasco because METRO had forgotten to negotiate a means to cross freight rail tracks with UP and wanted to do it at-grade! I am convinced that they repeat the same mistakes over and over because they are unaccountable to the public and therefore do not need to be competent.

The underlined has been mentioned numerous times on this forum, but do you have a source on this?? I just find this a little hard to believe, there must have been a misunderstanding somewhere. I thought they were originally going to do a bridge over the tracks but residents opposed it so we are going to pay extra for an underpass. I never heard about the whole trying to cross UP tracks at grade thing. I just don't see how that would even be proposed at all.

Things would be done, albeit with compromise. Compromise is a good thing, radicalism is not. When everyone is unhappy, that's how you know that government is carrying out the will of the people within a reasonable range. It's just that we need to bring all the functions under one umbrella so as to achieve a more well-balanced discontent.

Well, the problem is that there are so many radicals out there. Apparently compromise is a thing of the past, no one is willing to compromise about political things these days unfortunately.

Another issue is that the general pubic is generally uninformed about key issues like transit, roads, etc. Sometimes the public doesn't know what's best for them, if you know what I mean.

I agree. You'll notice that the other organizations are not exempted from my proposed reforms to the way we do transportation in Texas. But if we're going to talk about METRO or light rail, then I'm going to talk about METRO and light rail.

Point taken. I notice that METRO gets about 99% more criticism on here than other agencies though. I guess hating METRO is just a popular thing to do, ha!

[IHB2]

The underlined has been mentioned numerous times on this forum, but do you have a source on this?? I just find this a little hard to believe...I never heard about the whole trying to cross UP tracks at grade thing. I just don't see how that would even be proposed at all.

I notice that METRO gets about 99% more criticism on here than other agencies though. I guess hating METRO is just a popular thing to do, ha!

Niche's facts are straight on his posts that I've read. Whether you agree with the arguments he makes based on his interpretation of those facts is a different matter.

The overpass fiasco on Harrisburg is as he described, just as the recent UH glitch is a fact on the SE Line, just as the unresolved engineering issues I have listed on the Univ Line are facts, just as the engineering of the Red Line led to legal action by the TMC over stray current and other issues is a fact.

That's 4 of the proposed 6 lines that have had and are still having serious questions raised about the competency of the agency (both Old and New METRO) and the integrity of the process. I would call that a "trend."

I haven't been paying attention to the North Line so don't know if any questionable issues apply there.

"hating" METRO as you so unseriously put it is not some popular pastime for bored HAIF posters and anti-rail NIMBYs.

Holding this agency thoroughly accountable for its absolutely pitiful performance record to date before giving it even more public money is just a grownup thing to do, and it surprises the hell out of me that any METRO taxpayer would be willing to forego performance guarantees just to get LRT built faster.

but that is exactly what you and Slick and a few others on here seem willing to do.

[TheNiche]

Fair enough. There's always two sides to a story.

Well then you should research it and find out what the other side is, then let us know.

The underlined has been mentioned numerous times on this forum, but do you have a source on this?? I just find this a little hard to believe, there must have been a misunderstanding somewhere. I thought they were originally going to do a bridge over the tracks but residents opposed it so we are going to pay extra for an underpass. I never heard about the whole trying to cross UP tracks at grade thing. I just don't see how that would even be proposed at all.

Here's the article where the issue was officially disclosed. Initially, without telling anybody, METRO just shortened the line to terminate at the tracks. Later, it became apparent that UP had been saying no for two years up to that point and METRO had neither planned for it or bothered to tell their stakeholders about the issue.

Well, the problem is that there are so many radicals out there. Apparently compromise is a thing of the past, no one is willing to compromise about political things these days unfortunately.

Another issue is that the general pubic is generally uninformed about key issues like transit, roads, etc. Sometimes the public doesn't know what's best for them, if you know what I mean.

Yes, people like yourself make it apparent every single day that a direct democracy is not an effective form of government. It has to be mediated by way of informed representatives held accountable to the people, and even then, they cannot be allowed to become unchecked czars of something because that creates radical action, too.

Point taken. I notice that METRO gets about 99% more criticism on here than other agencies though. I guess hating METRO is just a popular thing to do, ha!

If you'd like to talk about how TXDoT had an accounting error some years back that caused a billion dollars of cash to disappear from their records, I'll wail on them, too. Likewise, that bottleneck at US 59 and Spur 527 was more than just a design flaw. That was a power play by a well-connected local with relevant financial interests with corruption that goes all the way to a notable traffic engineering school...but I can't go into details about that in public. But even then, TXDoT has major screw-ups but its hard to discern a pattern the way I can with METRO. It may be because building new freeways is a heck of a lot less contentious than building light rail, and so there's just more debate in general involving METRO, and so debate brings lots of details to light. Whatever the case, my ill-will toward METRO has nothing to do with the systemic or non-systemic incompetence that I've observed in other government organizations.

[mfastx]

Niche's facts are straight on his posts that I've read. Whether you agree with the arguments he makes based on his interpretation of those facts is a different matter.

Don't doubt that, I just asked for a link because I had never known of that issue.

The overpass fiasco on Harrisburg is as he described, just as the recent UH glitch is a fact on the SE Line, just as the unresolved engineering issues I have listed on the Univ Line are facts, just as the engineering of the Red Line led to legal action by the TMC over stray current and other issues is a fact.

Never denied that those are all facts. I think part of the confusion of the Harrisburg thing had to do with the fact that it was a BRT line at one point.

That's 4 of the proposed 6 lines that have had and are still having serious questions raised about the competency of the agency (both Old and New METRO) and the integrity of the process. I would call that a "trend."

Right, I agree. Things like that always happen. It's not uncommon for any agency to have mixups such as the ones you describe.

"hating" METRO as you so unseriously put it is not some popular pastime for bored HAIF posters and anti-rail NIMBYs.

Holding this agency thoroughly accountable for its absolutely pitiful performance record to date before giving it even more public money is just a grownup thing to do, and it surprises the hell out of me that any METRO taxpayer would be willing to forego performance guarantees just to get LRT built faster.

I was just joking around and having fun on here. I do agree that things need to be addressed with METRO. But I am not in favor of "giving it even more public money," I am in favor of giving it their original 1% tax. As mentioned before, the only reason that GM payments were approved was because of proposed rail lines. It surprises the hell outta me that any taxpayer that only gave up a quarter of their tax dollars to roads because of the promise of rail would accept the fact that the lines they had voted on still aren't built, and yet they are still giving up a quarter of their tax dollars to roads! That infuriates me, as it should everyone else. There are larger issues here.

And how is paying GM payments a "performance guarantee?" GM payments guarantee that METRO is going to put out a poorer quality product if anything. I'm not sure I'm understand you on that point right there.

but that is exactly what you and Slick and a few others on here seem willing to do.

Sorry but a few of us on here want our tax dollars to go where they intended. The issues with METRO happen with any public agency. What you are proposing is simply transferring your tax dollars from one agency with minor issues to another agency/entity with similar minor issues. I don't see the point in that.

Well then you should research it and find out what the other side is, then let us know.

If I get in touch with that lady again I'll do just that. She couldn't say anything when I talked with her because the issue was still going on.

Here's the article where the issue was officially disclosed. Initially, without telling anybody, METRO just shortened the line to terminate at the tracks. Later, it became apparent that UP had been saying no for two years up to that point and METRO had neither planned for it or bothered to tell their stakeholders about the issue.

Thanks for the link. Very interesting, strange that I had never heard about that. Although it seems like the confusion was cause due to the fact that METRO was proposing light rail, then BRT, then light rail again.

Yes, people like yourself make it apparent every single day that a direct democracy is not an effective form of government. It has to be mediated by way of informed representatives held accountable to the people, and even then, they cannot be allowed to become unchecked czars of something because that creates radical action, too.

People like myself? Whoa there that hurts. Are you really putting me on the same level as those who say things such as "I don't want that danged choo-choo going through my neighborhood?" Am I that bad?

Unfortunately our representatives aren't informed. Almost all (if not all) of our politicians are bought. That's why our system is broken.

In fact, I think a referendum system works. Let the people decide. If Houston wants to spend "X" amount of money on rail, it should get rail. If Houston wants to spend "x" amount on highways, then build highways. Problem is, referendums that were passed long ago didn't come to fruition, and no referendums are held on highways. Sounds fair doesn't it?

If you'd like to talk about how TXDoT had an accounting error some years back that caused a billion dollars of cash to disappear from their records, I'll wail on them, too. Likewise, that bottleneck at US 59 and Spur 527 was more than just a design flaw. That was a power play by a well-connected local with relevant financial interests with corruption that goes all the way to a notable traffic engineering school...but I can't go into details about that in public. But even then, TXDoT has major screw-ups but its hard to discern a pattern the way I can with METRO. It may be because building new freeways is a heck of a lot less contentious than building light rail, and so there's just more debate in general involving METRO, and so debate brings lots of details to light. Whatever the case, my ill-will toward METRO has nothing to do with the systemic or non-systemic incompetence that I've observed in other government organizations.

You've intrigued me. I'd love to hear more about that.

[TheNiche]

Unfortunately our representatives aren't informed. Almost all (if not all) of our politicians are bought. That's why our system is broken.

In fact, I think a referendum system works. Let the people decide. If Houston wants to spend "X" amount of money on rail, it should get rail. If Houston wants to spend "x" amount on highways, then build highways. Problem is, referendums that were passed long ago didn't come to fruition, and no referendums are held on highways. Sounds fair doesn't it?

If we govern by referendum, whereas the referendums are written by bought-and-sold politicians, whereas those referendums are effectively non-binding, and whereas the execution of those referendums must be administered by third-tier appointees voted into place by second-tier appointees...how does that fix anything? A referendum is just one more game to be played. It's a farce.

The drainage fee comes to mind as a case in point. Do you have any idea how well organized this town's civil engineering firms were in their campaigning efforts? It was masterful. The special interests got their earmark, then the City botched the implementation of their new tax that isn't even tax-deductible because...it's a "fee". How is that fair!?

[mfastx]

If we govern by referendum, whereas the referendums are written by bought-and-sold politicians, whereas those referendums are effectively non-binding, and whereas the execution of those referendums must be administered by third-tier appointees voted into place by second-tier appointees...how does that fix anything? A referendum is just one more game to be played. It's a farce.

The drainage fee comes to mind as a case in point. Do you have any idea how well organized this town's civil engineering firms were in their campaigning efforts? It was masterful. The special interests got their earmark, then the City botched the implementation of their new tax that isn't even tax-deductible because...it's a "fee". How is that fair!?

Well, when you put things like that.. it sure paints a bleak picture. But you're right, there's always going to be special interests in politics.

Good points. Don't have anything else to say, except I agree with you for the most part.

[Pleak]

Unfortunately our representatives aren't informed. Almost all (if not all) of our politicians are bought. That's why our system is broken.

In fact, I think a referendum system works. Let the people decide. If Houston wants to spend "X" amount of money on rail, it should get rail. If Houston wants to spend "x" amount on highways, then build highways. Problem is, referendums that were passed long ago didn't come to fruition, and no referendums are held on highways. Sounds fair doesn't it?

You've intrigued me. I'd love to hear more about that.

Not so sure a referendum system works that great. Look at California. It's almost ungovernable. And not just cause it's full of pinko, commie, liberals - .

It's because they rule by proposition (referendum). They have so many propositions passed that the state government is hamstrung in what they actually have discrection to govern. It's not the Terminator's fault. It's not Moonbeam's fault. It's the fault of the people who have been swayed by well-run P.R. campaigns over many years. It's gotten to the point where California has serious structural problems that are enshrined in law thanks to the people because they weren't looking at the whole picture - only how the latest proposition was portrayed to affect them in the immediate time frame.