Vacation.

Gone.









Everyone play nice and have a happy Labor Day.

The Official (worthless) Lose an Eye College Football 2007 prediction post.

Yup, it's that time again. Time when co-eds tailgate and skip Friday classes, time for ESPN to start overhyping the MAC conference, and time for USC's Pete Carroll to be placed on the fast track for Sainthood.

College Football starts today, and not a moment too soon.

With that in mind, here are my totally worthless 2007 College football predictions.

1. The University of Houston.

Strengths: Team speed.

Weaknesses: Quarterback play and defense.

Prediction: 8-4 (Losses to Oregon, Alabama, SMU and Tulsa)

The good news for Cougar fans is that, in a rebuilding year, they should still have enough team speed to beat most of the weak sisters on their schedule and possibly get a berth in the Houston bowl against a team like aTm or Pitt from the Big East. The bad news is the Cougar season is going to ride on the shoulders of an unproven quarterback. In 2003 this worked out well as Kevin Kolb led the Cougars to their first bowl season win a while. Fortunately, lightning doesn't have to strike twice for the Cougars to return to a bowl.

Aside: Kudo's to Michael Murphy for the best season preview ever written.


2. Rice University.

Strengths: QB and Wide Reciever play

Weaknesses: Overall team speed and size

Prediction: 3-9 (wins: Nicholls, Baylor and Tulane)

Despite the fact that they probably won't be very good this year, Rice is going to be involved in two of the best College Football Games played in Houston for 2007. Rice vs. Tech has the potential to be a shootout, although I don't think it will be all that close, I do think Clements, Dillard and Co. can score against Tech's highly suspect defense. The second "must-see" game is Rice v. Tulsa, if for nothing else to see the MOB's reaction to the return of former Rice Coach (for one season) Todd Graham. There's no doubt that Graham did the Owls wrong, and there's no doubting that they're angry. They could win their fourth game here, but I don't think so. Still, I think David Bailiff will be successful long-term in making the Owls competative.



3. The University of Texas at Austin.

Strengths: You name it.

Weaknesses: Players getting arrested.

Prediction: 12-0

Let's face it. Texas is loaded and they should run the table getting them to the Big XII championship game. With Colt McCoy returning as a more muscular, stronger version of his former self and with weapons at every offensive skill position, the Longhorns are one of my picks to be in the BCS championship game this year. (LSU being the other) They could be derailed if the defensive backfield isn't as good as they think (a possibility) and if a significant number of starters end up in an Austin jail (also, a possibility) but looking up and down the schedule and the roster its not stretching much to envision Mack & Co. getting a second shot at the Mythical National Championship.


4. Texas Agriculrual and Mechanical University.


Strenghts: Running backs

Weaknesses: Defensive speed and talent.

Prediction: 6-6 (losses to Nebraska, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Missouri, OSU, and Texas)


"Frantastic" seems like a lifetime ago doesn't it? It's going to seem like eons ago with this schedule. Yes, aTm should wax the floor with little Montana State, but then they face a tough test in Fresno State, a team that's got its share of BCS conference scalps hanging on the locker room wall. That being said, I think that aTm will squeek by Fresno State and Miami, and head into the Oklahoma State game undefeated. I then think they'll lose their last six of their last seven games as they run into a buzzsaw of a Big XII schedule. And yes, for those of you who care, I think that this will be Coach Francione's last season steering the good ship Aggie.


4. The Lose an Eye Top 5...

Because we all know anything outside of the Top 5 doesn't matter:

1. USC.

Everyone's super team. Guaranteed to be the best team of all time. Which, of course, means that they will stumble somewhere along the way.

2. LSU

Talent, talent, talent. Maybe the best defense in the country. But, is Les Miles really a championship caliber coach? My guess is yes.

3. Texas

Happy days at the 40 acres. Can the team stay off the police blotter long enough to realize their potential? And how many shots does Colt McCoy's head have left in it?

4. Wisconsin

The best team in the Big Ten that you aren't hearing the "experts" discuss. All they did last year was go 12-1 and they return most of their starters. Camp Randall is one of the best home-field advantages in College football.

5. Louisville

A little underrated because of what they lost, but what they bring back is impressive. I also think they have the best defense in the Big East, which is what will give them the advantage over West Virginia.


Heisman Trophy: Darren McFadden

The best running back in the country, and the best SEC running back since Herschel Walker. If USC runs the gamut then the press will mess it up and award it to Jon David Booty continuing the trend of giving it to the highest profile player on the best team. That would be a shame.


BCS Championship game: LSU vs. Texas.

A nice little regional showdown featuring what could be the best offense in the land (Texas) against one of the best defenses in the land (LSU).


Champion: LSU

Offense wins games, defense wins championships.


Geaux Tigers.

Word search

After commenting on this blogHouston post discussing Wayne Dolcefino's multi-part expose on the incompetence at the Houston Sports Authority I realized that "incompetent" isn't a good enough word to describe some of our local "public servants".

I need something with more *umph* to it.

From my comment, here's what I'm looking for:

Something that means "Bad ideas bathed in bad after falling into a cold vat of bad after being exposed to Michael Berry radio programming for 48 hours while reading a book on management by Carol Alvarado and speaking with Dr. Slade about fiscal management."

Good luck. I'll buy the winner a drink at the next meet up of the BTC.


Here are some of the suggestions I recieved:

Putrid
Castrato
Gauche
Weapons of mass dunderheadedness
ShagNasty

That's $582K per arrested player.

Mack Brown can fill up his iPod with rap now...

(from Joseph Duarte of the Chron)

Mack Brown received a belated birthday gift on Tuesday.

The University of Texas System Board of Regents approved a two-year contract extension that pushes Brown's annual base salary to $2.91 million this season and keeps him among the highest-paid football coaches in the nation.

Brown, who turned 56 on Monday, could earn as much as $3.8 million in 2007 if he reaches certain performance and graduation rate incentives, according to contract details released by the university. The new deal runs through the 2016 season.

No reports yet if the "incentives" include keeping UT-Austin players off of the police blotter.

A lesson learned?

One of the funnier blog occurances in recent history has been Kevin Whited's tracking of the Chronicle "Froot Loops" bureau, those odd occasions where a Chron "breaking news" report read as if someone was just sitting at a desk, watching the morning news and writing news releases off of that:

(from the Chron, via bloghouston)

A third person has been killed this week after trying to cross a Houston freeway and being hit by a vehicle, according to a report this morning by KTRK (Channel 13).

This got Kevin a Hat Tip from the Austin Bureau and seems to have changed the way "breaking news is reported.

Well...you be the judge.

1. Man fatally shot in Northwest Houston

Police are investigating the shooting death of a man in an apartment in northwest Houston late Tuesday.

The man, whose name was not released, was found by neighbors who spotted an open apartment door in the 3700 block of Watonga, homicide investigators said.

The incident was reported shortly before midnight.

No other details of the case were available early today

2. SWAT team surrounds empty home

A SWAT standoff this morning with a woman believed to be holed up in a southwest Houston home ended shortly after 6:30 a.m. when offiicers discovered that nobody was in the house.

HPD's SWAT team was called to the home on Fenland Field shortly before 2 a.m. Early reports suggested the woman may be suicidal and that she had two children with her, ages 3 and 18. Her husband, a contractor in Iraq, had apparently been communicating with police throughout the ordeal.

No further information was immediately available.

3. Shrimper dies after being caught in rigging in Gulf

A Brownsville shrimper died Tuesday when two cables snapped and wrapped around him as he tried to untangle a fishing line in the shrimp boat's rigging.

The U.S. Coast Guard said Ramon Muta, 55, of Brownsville was killed in the early morning accident aboard the Debbe Ann, which was 12 miles out to sea from South Padre Island.

(snip)

The Coast Guard escorted the boat near the jetties and firefighters from South Padre Island helped lower his body, The Brownsville Herald reported for its Wednesday editions.

An autopsy has been ordered.

Why does the phrase "lipstick on a pig" keep popping into my head?

An Interesting Transit comment.

From a comment to a guest post by Alexandria Ragsdale on the lone METRO public hearing on the Universities DEIS on Kuff's Blog...

First a little perspective from perennial (losing) local political candidate Griff Griffin. (as reported by Ms. Ragsdale)

The most important comment, I think, came from Griff Griffin and was echoed by Metro board membr Burt Ballanfant. Griffin talked about organizing the first anti-Richmond rail rally fifteen years ago, but now it's clear that the public support is behind rail on Richmond. He's learned to deal with that, and he's concerned about implementing this responsibly. Ballanfant said much the same thing, and he discouraged the opposing factions from wasting time fighting with each other and slowing down this process (i.e. lawsuits that he believes will probably be ruled in Metro's favor anyways). I think they're both totally right: from the DEIS, there's a pretty clear winning alignment. Now we have other things to think about - station locations, minimizing the negative impact on neighborhoods and businesses as we build, and preserving trees and yards and property as much as possible. It was refreshing to hear this from these two and from several other speakers as well. I'm sure we'll hear lots more about implementation as the process continues. I'm excited about it, because I know there are people on both sides of the alignment debate that are very passionate about preserving neighborhoods and being socially responsible, so I'm confident that we'll end up with a very attractive University Line.

Now, Kevin's point about the "majority"

If that were true, then METRO should have put Richmond (not Westpark) on the 2003 referendum (which remains our most reliable indicator of support for METRO's rail plans). That was METRO's chance to demonstrate majority support for a Richmond rail line, but they didn't do it (because they surely knew that could tip a close vote to the losing side).

Of course, perennial Council candidate Griff Griffin knows something about being on the losing side of votes. He hasn't managed to convince a majority to elect him after many many tries, so I'm not sure I would consider him the "go to" guy on the sentiments of the majority in Houston. :D

And now, from commenter Alex, probably the comment that MOST sums up the position of METRO (and its supporters) when it comes to transit:

Kevin, the Westpark issue has been more than beaten into the ground so I won't even get into that, but Griffin was speaking in reference to the comments at the hearing. It really doesn't even matter if he represents the sentiments of the majority in Houston - his comments focused on a positive future for transit in Houston and he said something that made a lot of sense.

Two things:

1. IT DOES matter what the majority think. They are the ones that are supposed to be riding this thing.

Every time I make a transit related post I get some off-the-wall comment from a METRO supporter well after the post has left the front page. They offer statistics taken out of context to "prove" their contention that Metro's way is the "only" way, despite the fact that they have no numbers relating to "Houston's train" to back that up. I've said it once and I'll say it again: If you think Metro's DEIS is an unbiased document then I've got a bridge to sell you in San Francisco.

It's not public transit that I'm against, It's METRO's public transit ideal.

Ms. Ragsdale's public statement is just one example:

I live in Montrose a few blocks north of Richmond, and am a student at the University of Houston. Over 90% of UH's 30,000+ students live off-campus, and parking is notoriously difficult. We have the greatest space deficit of any university in the state, but we have a great master plan in the works to use the space we do have strategically. For the university's continued growth and success, I'd much rather see that space fill up with academic and residential facilities, not more parking garages. Not only do we need light rail to serve the university as a whole, one of the most vital entities in the city, we also need it to serve students as individuals. I know people who have hour-long commutes from places as foreign as Clear Lake. Time spent riding transit can be used for homework, reading, or anything else - anything besides the frustration of sitting in rush hour traffic. Not to mention the problem buying gas creates for students who are usually living on a tight budget.

Actually, the University would be better served by busses rather than rail. Busses just aren't as "cool" as rail you see?


2. Metro's transit plan isn't about "serving the public". That's why public support doesn't matter.

If Metro's goal were to facilitate the movement of people along their current transit patterns then you wouldn't see the utterly worthless system map that Metro is currently operating. Everything Metro is doing ONLY if you run under the assumption that Metro's main goal is forcing people to move inside the loop. Inside the loop where new development (at very high prices per square foot) is currently either waiting to be purchased or under construction. The idea that Metro wants to provide transportation to the public is as outdated as it is false. Metro wants to move people to a select few development centers inside the loop. Why else do you think they are continually cutting bus service in direct opposition to the 2003 Metro Solutions referendum that voters approved?

The same referendum that also included a light rail component BTW. The SAME rail that's currently causing people so much heartburn, and the same rail that I've supported running down Richmond. (Or, even better, down Westheimer, directly in front of the Houston Galleria)

It's hardly "anti-transit" to not be one of many Metro cheerleaders that have sprouted up in the blogosphere.

I would argue that people who are calling for an increase in neighborhood centered circulator bus service (similar to the downtown trolley system that Metro eighty-sixed in favor of down-one-street light rail), coupled with a healthy Park N'Ride system with destinations to all of Houston's various employment centers tied into a good commuter rail system working in harmony with a light-rail system that is very good going from entertainment center to entertainment center all feeding into a well-developed highway and HOV system that can handle both public transit and the private vehicle is the most transit-friendly position of them all.


Or there's this: (just a reminder)

It really doesn't even matter if he represents the sentiments of the majority in Houston - his comments focused on a positive future for transit in Houston and he said something that made a lot of sense.

Uh-huh.

Houston's Muni Wi-Fi on life-support.

EarthLink cuts workforce in half...

(From the AP via the Chron)

Internet service provider EarthLink announced a plan today to cut 900 jobs, or about half its work force, and close four offices as part of a restructuring plan aimed at reducing operating costs.

The restructuring by the company, which has a contract to build a city-wide wireless network in Houston, will begin immediately and be completed by the end of the year, said Rolla P. Huff, the Atlanta-based company's president and chief executive. More cuts could be announced before the year's end, he said.

"While we see this as an important first step in unlocking the underlying value that we believe is in our company, we are only eight weeks into the process of repositioning EarthLink for the future," he said. "These changes get our cost structure in line, but there is much more to do."

There was no immediate word on how the restructuring would affect the Houston project, which has been stalled for months.

The company declined to comment on deals with specific cities, but EarthLink spokesman Jerry Grasso said they plan to discuss with each city where they are doing business the need for the city government to serve as the company's primary customer. Houston's contract is already based around that model.

"We will be talking to each city on an individual basis to discuss the needed changes in our new business model, which includes them stepping up to some sort of anchor tenancy agreement," he said.

Grasso also confirmed that Donald Berryman, who had been overseeing the Houston project as the president of EarthLink Municipal Networks, has left the company.

It's never a good sign when the project manager, and the head of the Business Unit in charge of the build out, has left the company.

Political spin coming in 3....2....1......


MORE: Abort! Abort! Abort!...

Other Eyes:

First: an 'aye'

Dwight Silverman: Earthlink Wi-Fi: Waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Second: a 'nay'

BlogHouston: Earthlink cuts jobs, has no comment on delayed Wi-fi buildout.

Hey! You! Put out that Cigarette!!!

The Court rules for the defense...

(from Matt Stiles of the Chron)

A federal judge on Monday rejected bar owners' complaints about Houston's comprehensive smoking ban, allowing the new restrictions to take effect Saturday.

After a daylong hearing in which the bar owners sought a preliminary injunction against the ordinance, U.S. District Judge Gray Miller found that the city can regulate alcohol-selling businesses to protect the public health and welfare.

Miller said the plaintiffs, Crazy Frogs Saloon and the Houston Association of Alcoholic Beverage Permit Holders, did not meet the legal burden required for an injunction.

He also rejected claims that the city's ordinance, which extends the current ban from restaurants to the indoors of most public places, including bars, improperly or unfairly regulated the businesses. He also dismissed claims the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.

"The city of Houston's smoking ordinance, in my view, does not conflict with the state law that regulates the sale of alcohol," Miller said. "The mere fact that Texas has enacted laws that regulate the sale of alcohol does not preclude the city from passing ordinances regarding establishments that serve alcohol. Otherwise, the city could not impose regulations, such as a health code or noise ordinances."

Mayor Bill White, who quit smoking cigarettes and cigars years ago, praised the decision late Monday.

"We will be going into a new era of protection of public health when the smoke-free rules go into effect," he said.

White urged Houstonians to quit, noting the negative health effects and high costs of smoking, and he pledged to abandon his habit of occasionally chewing on cigars.

The non-smoker, allergy sufferer in me LOVES this new legislation, especially since I like to play Hold 'em in bars but don't like coming home with a headache every night. But then there's that other part of me. The part that understands this is just so much political clap-trap. The part that understands that polution and over consumption of alcohol are just as (if not more) harmful to my health than spending a couple of hours per week in the presence of second hand smoke.

More from KTRK 13's Miya Shay...

The plaintiff's attorney Al Van Huff, seemed outmatched from the beginning. The City's pro-bono team of Kathy Patrick and company from Gibbs & Bruns were well prepared, with a boring but useful power-point presentation. The rub here, they left the opening page up the entire day, meaning there was a giant COH logo projected on the screen in the court house during the ENTIRE HEARING. Subtle? nah. Coincidence? Hardly. One of Van Huff's own clients commented to me that they thought he could have done a bit better! When I asked what they thought of Patrick, the Plaintiff admitted: "She's mean, but good."

And back to Matt Stiles' with an 'enforcement' note:

The city recently hired a second smoking enforcement officer, according to Jeff Conn, who had been the only smoking inspector. Conn also trained restaurant inspectors last week to be on the lookout for smoking violations during routine inspections, he said. Those inspectors are allowed to issue smoking citations to managers, who generally are responsible for enforcing smoking laws in their establishments, but not smokers themselves.

And so that should just about settle it as far as the legal challenges go. Bar owners (not patrons) now have the unfortunate task of attempting to police actions that occur inside their bar, presumeably, even inside the bathroom stalls, where I think that most of the 'transgressions' will occur. Remember also, good bar patron, that YOU are responsible for helping bar owners police the customers. If you see someone "lighting up" after August 31st then you know what to do. Just go over there and take that cigarette out of their mouth, crush it underfoot and tell them that the City of Houston doesn't stand for that anymore! You go V.


The over/under on a "tobacco" related incident is still set at two weeks from Sept. 1st. I'm taking the under.

The Chronicle scooped by EVERYONE.

Both Garner and Pupura are gone.


UPDATE:
Cecil Cooper is the new interim manager and Tal Smith will be (temporarily) holding down the GM duties.

Source(s):

bloghouston.

That Astros Show

Mark Berman

Fire Phil Garner



added:
The Writer of Wrongs FINALLY makes his mark



Houston's "last" information source.

The Byzantio Transportation Consortium (Friday update)

If you missed out on the inaugural meeting of the BTC on Friday, then here's a snippet of what you lost out on:

1. Molly and the Ringwalds Karaoke...And the following question: "How odd is it to watch people dance and sing to 80's songs who were probably all of 4 years old in 1989?

2. Traffic can REALLY back up on (now single laned) Main St. if a cab stops in front of a club.

3. James Campbell NEVER shows up to anything. (C'mon James, first drinks on me!!!)

4. David Carr is wearing some nice shiny gloves. Too bad they won't read a defense for him....


Outside of that there was the "usual" blog talk, snarkiness, and contemplation of the Universe and The Chron's place in it.

If you're not currently a member, you should probably join. I'm sure the next meet-up will have something to do with football.

We're going to do what they say can't be done.

Houston Reporter Rad Sallee provides an interesting interview with Metro Chairman David Wolff and board member Burt Ballanfant regarding the troubling trees in the way of the progress that is the "University Line":

Q: Some who live or work along Richmond fear that the actual number of trees lost will be much larger than 197 when you add trees on each side of the street to those in the median. What's the real total?

A: I don't know the actual number, but it will be less than the one in the DEIS report because we're very much committed to transplanting and replacing trees.

Q: A lot of people will see the loss of mature oaks as a huge negative. Two sets of tracks and boarding platforms take up space, and the trains need room overhead for the power line. How can you avoid taking out a lot of trees?

A: Some will have to be removed, but with others you may be able to go in and have professional pruning done so the wires can go underneath them. A lot of trees may need to be picked up and moved 10 or 20 feet, but they will stay in the corridor to keep the feeling of greenery and shade and beauty.

Q: We're talking about live oaks, with deep roots and massive trunks. How can you transplant those?

A: Some may be too big to move, but trees larger than you might think can be transplanted. I have two live oaks in front of my house that came from the parking lot in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, and they're probably 12 inches (in diameter).

One bad thing about the Chron is that they never (ever) tell you who SOME are that object to things.

Are the people that have objections knowledgable when it comes to tree relocation? Are they "pro-tree" or "anti-rail" groups? We'll probably never know. Sure, it'd be nice to have some unbiased input on this, (maybe call a local tree service?) but if we're to follow the established Metro/Chronicle protocol as we did with the University Line DEIS then what we'll end up with is a study by Metro employees and contractors that's directly in-line with Metro assumptions. This "study" will be heralded by various METRO cheerleaders as the definitive authority on tree relocation and the University Line.

It's this "can do" attitude in the face of insurmountable obstacles that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about Houston.

Almost like the RIVERWALK!!!!

(but muddy, and polluted, and filled with trash and industrial waste)

Buffalo Bayou as Riverwalk wannabe....again.

(from Louis B. Parks of the Chron)

Some Houstonians shun it as polluted. Many see it as an eyesore. Or a big ditch that floods.

Anne Olson has a different view of Buffalo Bayou. She envisions the bayou at Allen's Landing as a downtown playground for kayakers, as a background for walkers and joggers, as a green and historic gathering place for strollers, picnickers and tourists.

(snip)

Turning Allen's Landing on Buffalo Bayou, where Houston began 171 years ago this week, into an active water and lawn amenity has long been a dream of city boosters. Noble efforts have been made, but attracting Houstonians to the downtown waterway has been sidetracked by, at different times, pollution, floods, lack of funds, apathy, area blight, wrong approaches, homeless campers — you name it.

Buffalo Bayou Partnership is confident the dream will soon become reality. In the spring, it will launch a $3 million rehabilitation of the 97-year-old International Coffee Company Building adjacent to Allen's Landing, turning it into a site bike, canoe and kayak rentals, dining and other activities. The partnership hired the prestigious San Antonio firm Lake/Flato architects to design the space. Olson estimates completion of the project by fall 2009.

(snip)

A great effort has been made to turn Houston's urban center into a more vital, attractive environment and destination.

"Downtown has been transformed in the last 10 years with light rail and Discovery Park and major efforts by Buffalo Bayou Coalition (now Partnership) and landscaping of the roads," says Stephen Klineberg, Rice sociology professor and director of the annual Houston Area Survey. "Four-and-a-half-billion dollars have been spent over the last 10 years of public and private investment in downtown."

(snip)

Some older citizens regard the now-derelict building with nostalgia as a late-1960s destination of young Houston, when it was briefly Love Street Light Circus and Feel Good Machine, a nightclub that attracted the hippie crowd with its psychedelic lighting and music.

In recent decades the building has gone unused.

"The building came up for sale in 2002," Olson says. "We didn't want to see some developer come along and buy it. They would probably have torn it down and built a high-rise.

I'm thinking Klineberg should get out a little more. First off Dr. It's Discovery GREEN, not Discovery Park and secondly (as corrected by the reporter) it's the Buffalo Bayou PARTNERSHIP.

And am I the only one who's noticed that there's a sudden counter flow to "high-rise mixed-use" development?

Isn't that what the Light Rail line was supposed to spur MORE of?

"Quality of life, attractiveness of place, has become a critical pro-business investment," Klineberg says.

"There's the notion that you've got to attract the creative class, the young, unmarried, cutting-edge intellectual kids who don't want to live in the suburbs. They want a place with an urban feel and diversity and amenities that make it an attractive place to live."

Revitalizing downtown is a step in the right direction. "The source of wealth here is no longer Houston's location near the East Texas oil fields. The resource of the knowledge economy is housed between the ears of the best and brightest people in America, who can live anywhere.

Were I to write for the Chronicle (of for a couple of local blogs) I'd respond this way:

SOME say that "knowledge economy" is code word for "Northeastern Liberal" which is the group that critics charge these types of developments are designed to attract.

Sorry.


What I WILL say is that I think the Buffalo Bayou PARTNERSHIP has an uphill climb in front of them. They deserve kudos for their blue bayou project which has brought a new level of traffic to the foot paths and pocket parks around the Bayou. But getting people to come and hear a live band and getting them to plunk down in a canoe in water that can give you a rash are two entirely different animals altogether. In other words, I don't see this regenerating downtown as the BBP feels that it will.

Of course, the light rail hasn't exactly spured a revival of property along the line either, yet that's considered a HUGE success by proponents so maybe, if you set the bar low enough, success can be achieved by default.


Now if we can just do something about getting Dr. Klineberg out of the Ivory Tower and up to date we'll be onto something.

And in the InterLeft there was much rejoicing....

Bush's Human Shield has had enough reportedly...

(from the NY Times via the Chron)

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has resigned, The New York Times reported today, citing a senior administration official. The Times said Gonzales would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Cue snarky posts and everyone trying to get in their last insults on the Country's first Hispanic Attorney General. Then they'll turn around and call Republicans xenophobes.

I love political blogging, a land where its not what you DO, its what you say.


/sarcasm

With the level of vitriol directed at the AG's office now (Janet Reno, John Ashcroft and now Gonzales have taken a BEATING from the other side) is it going to be possible going forward to have a competent person heading the DOJ?

Just asking.

OTHER EYES: (The don't say I didn't warn you edition)

Brains n' Eggs: Finally

Leaving us with this question: If the "Brains" in "Brains N' Eggs" are typically pork, then isn't your blog detestable to Allah?


Greg's Opinion: Gone-zo...

Greg lifts quotes off of Perry's blog like they're nachos.

Capitol Annex: Is Cornyn in line to replace Gonzales?

Point to remember: NEVER take your Republican gossip from a Democratic source.

Burnt Orange Report: Breaking News: Al Gonzales Resigns.

A Drudge like teaser from a UT-Austin themed politics blog with no posters from UT-Austin. (This makes sense, trust me)

Beltway Confidential: Ciaoberto soon to be Gone-zales

Alternative suggestions: Long-Gone, Going, going Gone-zo, Gone-zales fishing. geez.

Dos Centavos: Beto's gone!.

Blogger trick of the day: linking to his post calling for racist legislation while decrying the supposed racism of others on the same page. If the Houston Press has an award for "blog with the most cognitive dissonace" DC is a lock.


From the Bloggers O' the Right:

Lone Star Times: Alberto, where were you the night of the 25th?

Silly RickG, if history is any indicator Mr. Gonzales won't "recall".

Professors R-squared: Attorney General Gonzales Resigns

A very scholarly post albeit with a wrong guess. (Hint: Think Homeland Security)




More as they appear. (or if I decide to go look for them again)

Byzantio Transportation Consortium (updated)

The initial meeting of the Byzantio Transportation Consortium has been scheduled as follows:

When: Friday, August 24, 7:00 P.M.

Where: The Continental Club, 3700 Main St. Houston, TX

What: Molly and the Ringwalds Free Happy Hour show.

After Party: The West Alabama Ice House - If the mood strikes us.


Why: Because we can.



Riding on Houston's transportation backbone is optional, if, its working....


Here's to the discussion of all things transit. (or something like that)


Hope to see you there!

Happy Birthday Houston.

Funny, you don't LOOK 171 years old...

(from Eyder Peralta of the Chron)

He points at the wall, to the white board where he's drawn a small family tree.

At the top are John Kirby Allen and Augustus Chapman Allen, who founded the city of Houston 171 years ago, and their brother, George.

"George named his child John Kirby Allen II, in honor of his brother. Then John Kirby Allen II had John Kirby Allen III, who is my mother's father,'' he says. "That makes A.C. and John Kirby my great-great-great-uncles.''

Ralph E. Dittman is an academic, a doctor by trade and a fictional-historian by hobby. And with a series of small-scale ceremonies planned over the next week to honor the city's incorporation on Aug. 30, 1836, his ancestors once again will be the topic of discussion around town.

(snip)

And Houston, he says, was designed with great foresight: "They set up Houston as a head-of-navigation city. They knew they could get trains and ships into it and could become, as they advertised, 'the great commercial emporium of Texas.' "

(snip)

"The biggest misconception is that these two brothers were New York shysters. That's false minus 10," he says.

They were, in his eyes, forward-thinking entrepreneurs, who wanted to found a progressive, modern city, a commercial center that was business-friendly.

Founders Memorial Cemetery, just west of downtown, has Freedman's Town to one side and a direct, beautiful view of the skyline to the other.

Pretty interesting read on the history of the Allen family, including a slightly glossed over review of the pros and cons of the family that is credited with founding Houston.


Could have done without the editorializing at the end however:

He plops down the book and a reporter asks him what the Allens would think of Houston as it stands today: 2 million people, in a multicultural, zoning-free city full of concrete and smog.

"I think they would applaud Mayor (Bill) White for his attention and focus to the welfare of the city. A.C. Allen considered himself a diehard Democrat. They wanted to found a progressive city. They were involved in the emancipation movement and didn't believe in slavery.

Still, Peralta did manage to hit the Holy Trinity of Chroniclespeak: pollution, zoning and effusive praise for Mayor White.

On the verification of immigrants.

This is actually a pretty good idea...

(From Suzanne Gamboa of the AP via the Chron)

What the federal government sees as a way to beef up security, an immigration advocate sees as another roundup of immigrants for deportation.

A division of the Homeland Security Department on Wednesday proposed requiring legal residents with green cards issued without expiration dates to get those cards replaced. And the government estimated about 750,000 cards need replacing.

(snip)

The government wants to redo the photos and fingerprints to make sure the cards are updated and accurate.

"It's a security issue," said Bill Wright, Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman. "It's making sure the right person has the right card."

Legal residents will have to pay a $290 replacement application fee plus $80 for electronic fingerprints and a photo. Under the proposal, legal residents would have 120 days — about four months — to replace their cards.

The government is not proposing to go look for legal residents who have the cards without expiration dates. And since most of its records are on paper, it would be difficult to find them.

There's sure to be a lot of blowback from immigrant groups on this who seem to feel that ANY verification attempt is nothing more than thinly veiled xenophobia. I'm sure that some will also feel that the cost will be too high to implement said program as well.


Such is the happy paradox that we find ourselves in when discussing the immigration issue.

Cutting off an arm to cure skin cancer

Yes, the arm may have had some cancer on it, but so does the rest of the body. However, that doesn't stop LST contributor bigjolly from suggesting something similar to stop "pit-bull" attacks...

It’s time to stop this madness. The dog commonly referred to as a pit bull needs to be made extinct. Period. End of story.

And the totally irresponsible owners of these beasts should join Mike Vick in prison. Hard time for hard crime. Nothing else will work.

I freely admit to not being a regular reader of the site formerly known as Dan's world (before my State Senator decided to abandon said project), but when I do visit I'm shocked at how far the level of disourse has digressed at that site.

Well, shocked isn't a good word. Disturbed would be better.

Here's an example of their 'conservative' response:
(from bigjolly again)

It is easy enough to identify a particular DNA strand that needs to be eradicated. Maybe the way to do it is to have all dogs over 50 lbs (or whatever weight is appropriate) tested and neutered or destroyed.

Got that? EVERY Dog over 50lbs, whether a "pit bull" or not is to be tested and neutered or destroyed in bigjolly's land of Christian Righteousness. All to 'protect' society of course.

Here's a better idea:

Any dog who attacks a human is put down, and the owner is responsible for the actions of the dog. This includes jail time for murder in cases such as this. If you train your dog to be a weapon then you will be prosecuted as if you committed a crime with a weapon.


The LST alternative is to turn over your pet selection to the overlords, who will determine for God which of his creatures are worthy of survival.


I'll pass.

Conservation vs. being green.

Ok I'm confused.

Matt Stiles' tracking of the impending demolition of the River Oaks Shopping Center has drawn out some odd responses, and that's ignoring Kuffy's delusions of grandeur [Just ribbin' ya Kuff ;)].

(from commenter Larissa from the Old Sixth Ward.)

What makes something "historic" or worth saving doesn't have to be about something that happened there, or lived there, or the architecture by itself. It is generally the combination of pieces of those things. RO Center's design, or architecture, is significant because of it's early relationship to the car, which has modified how we shop and spend. It's design is also one of the few examples of an art deco shopping area that still exists. Many may feel an attaction to it because of shops or theatres or experiences they have had there throughout it's many years of existence in this city. It is those collections of history, experienced by so many, that are so varied, that makes it worth saving. It isn't one specific thing because history has so many components to what creates that value in our society. It is value that many are trying to retain, to hold on to - however they may do so.

Whua??

Isn't getting rid of the car the reason Houston has spent Billions on a development incentive that only works part of the time, and why we have advocates disguising themselves as
open idea grassroots organizations, and a surge in "mixed-use" development?

So now we want to save things that are centered around the car and that lifestyle?


That just can't be right.

Mrs. White's temper tantrum.

Sometimes I go for weeks ignoring Mrs. White. Typically her missives are just boring re-hashing of weeks old news.

Then there are editorials like todays foot-stamping over Texas Billboards that remind me why the ability to make a coherent, logic-based argument is beyond her.

(from the Chron)

Texas Department of Transportation regulations ban from regulated highways the use of "intermittent" signs, including LED displays and other electronic technology. The proposal would remove the restriction and allow cities to permit existing billboards to be converted into garish, undesirable TV screens with images changing as often as every 8 seconds.

A TxDOT spokesman said the agency has a duty to consider the impact of new technologies on billboards, and indeed it does. Careful consideration would lead the commission to retain the existing ban on electronic signs, for several persuasive reasons:

So let's tackle her "persuasive reason's" one by one shall we? (As Matt Bramanit would say, let's put our fisking caps on)

• LED signs would violate Texas' agreement with the federal government. The Federal Highway Administration has already informed TxDOT that LED signs and other flashing or intermittent signs (except for those displaying only public service traffic information) do not conform. If that is the case, what is there to discuss? Is accommodating the influential billboard industry worth putting Texas' federal highway funding in jeopardy?

Actually, Mrs. White's contention that the FHA has informed TX-DOT that LED signs are not compliant isn't factually true. This point was clearly illustrated in the AP story on the subject that the Chron carried:

Despite the limitations of the proposed rule change, Margaret Lloyd, policy director for Scenic Texas, said her organization will oppose it.

(snip)

Lloyd contends that the Federal Highway Administration, in a 2006 exchange of letters with the state Transportation Department, said that electronic billboards were not legal under a 1972 contract between the federal agency and the state.

Campbell said that is not the department's interpretation of the agreement, made under the auspices of the 1965 Highway Beautification Act

As you can see, its Scenic Texas that "told" TxDOT they weren't in compliance. It says in the group's mission statement that they are "committed to prohibiting the contstruction of billboards Statewide". So what we have here is an opinion by an advocacy group, mis-stated as fact. Strike One.

• Safety studies have determined that 2-second distractions of drivers' attention to the road are hazardous. The LED signs, which could change in 8-second intervals, would pose significant distraction to drivers.

One Study (PDF) was conducted to determine the factors of driver distractions such as cell phone usage, putting on make up, children etc. The external distractions included things such as looking for street signs, pedestrians etc. Nowhere in the study were items such as billboards mentioned, quantified, or their actual distractability been measured. I'm not suggesting that billboards AREN'T distracting, I'm saying that you can't use THESE studies to make inferences about the safety of LED billboards. Strike Two

• The public interest dictates that the United States avoid contributing to visual blight (previously called ugliness). Why give the billboard industry the option of buying local government's consent for a new, distracting assault on local scenery in Texas?

How is this argument quantified? It's opinion masked as a point of fact as is the case in argument number one. The fact is there is a large business contingent who feel that billboards support the public interest by stimulating the economy. You may not agree with their interpretation of "public interest" but you can't use that disagrement as a fact in an argument. Strike Three

• Some billboard companies defy Houston's billboard ordinance, which bans the erection of new billboards in the city and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Showing their contempt for the rule of law, they build new billboards and defy the city to make them stop, costing the taxpayers a fortune in legal fees. This is not an industry that Texas officials should make more profitable by altering the rules to accommodate currently banned LED technology.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? And who are the billboard companies in question? I did a quick Google searh of Billboard companies defy city ordinances Houston on Google and came up with ZERO news stories relating to this phoenomenon. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to back up this claim. Strike Four

• In an era of scarce energy supplies, Americans need to conserve energy, not increase demand. Energy-hungry LED signs would aggravate Texas' dependence on polluting, coal-fired power plants.

Again, there are no studies to show that this is true. Adding in the caveat about polluting, coal-fired power plants was an espcially nice touch, especially when you consider that the plant construction plans have been political losers of late such a threat isn't credible at all. Then there's the little matter of the City of Houston switching over to LED lights because they use "90 percent less electricity" than other bulbs that could be used for the same purpose. If you look at that this argument really falls apart, never mind that it's a classic "false choice" fallacy. (i.e. you're either against this or for coal plants popping up everywhere) Strike Five.


Bottom Line: I'm not real sure I like the idea of LED billboards popping up on Texas Highways. But I'm not sure I'm OPPOSED to it based on the opinions that Mrs. White presented as proof of case. I would like to see two steps taken before anything like this moves forward:

- Check with the Federal Government to get a legal opinion on whether or not this type of signage is prohibited or not. Let's not take the word of an advocacy group (despite how noble their positions may be) as Gospel truth.


- Let's find some APPLICABLE safety data and do some number crunching. There are several fine Universities in Texas that are capable of creating said study in a relatively short amount of time.



After these steps are taken, then lets revisit this and, with a good set of FACTS at our disposal, lets take a look and decide if it is really in the public interest to allow this to go forward.

Suffer the little children....

There's principle, and then there's looking like a heartless sot.


(from the Washington Post via the Chron)

The Bush administration, engaged in a battle with Congress over whether a popular children's health insurance program should be expanded, has announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children.

New administrative hurdles, which state health officials were told about late last week, are aimed at preventing parents with private insurance for their children from availing of the government-subsidized State Children's Health Insurance Program. But Democrats and children's advocates said that the announcement will jeopardize coverage for children whose parents work at jobs that do not include employer-paid insurance.

Under the new policy, a state seeking to enroll a child whose family earns more than 250 percent of the poverty level — or $51,625 for a family of four — must first ensure that the child is uninsured for at least one year. The state also must demonstrate that at least 95 percent of children from families making less than 200 percent of the poverty level have been enrolled in the children's health insurance program or Medicaid — a sign-up rate that no state has yet managed.

I know all of the arguments about a "slippery slope" and "not wanting Government health care" and all of that drivel that you get from the Right, and I agree, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADULTS. Children should never be denied health care, ever. It's not their fault that the parents are stupid, lazy, unlucky etc.

Placing unclearable hurdles in front of this is akin to saying that you're just fine with kids getting sick and dying without insurance. Spin it any way you want, that's the way this is going to play out.

And yes, I know all of the complaints about "illegal immigrant anchor babies" taking advantage of the program, see my comment above about sins of the parents etc. I'm OK paying taxes to ensure that children are given access to health care. To me that's a responsible use of my tax dollars. It's a hell of a lot more important than subsidies to agricultural companies or bailouts to the air industry that's for sure.

Of emotional reactions.....

I don't know why, but I found one of the comments to Matt Stiles' report regarding the 5th Circuit Court's upholding of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance funny:

First, from Mr. Stiles story:

A federal appeals court today upheld a city ordinance restricting where topless clubs and sexually oriented businesses can operate.

The ruling by a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is a significant victory for the city, which has spent more than $1 million defending the ordinance in the decade since its adoption.

In a short written opinion, the court affirmed a finding earlier this year by a federal judge in Houston that the city had properly imposed rules prohibiting such businesses from operating within 1,500 feet of schools, churches, parks and licensed day-care centers.

Second, the comment in question:
(from anonymous commenter rexaplenty)

More values being forced down our throat by the religious right.

Maybe we can find a country to ship them to.....

I hear Maylasia is very into the 'correct' social values - maybe they can go there and live with the fundamentalist Islamics.....

Note to rexaplenty:


The original SOB ordinance was drafted under the watch of then-Mayor Bob Lanier, a life long Democrat and HARDLY a member of the Religious Right that you so despise. The resulting legal battles have been waged by Mayor Lee P. Brown (Democrat) and Bill White (Democrat).


Maybe we should not be so flippant with our accusations of facism?

Uh-huh

All the olds that's fit to print.

By happenstance, while researching Mrs. White's cognitive dissonance I ran across these two articles that seem eerily familiar:

Conspiracy big enough for a continent / Newest urban legend of a North American Union feeds on fear

(By Philip Dine of the McClatchy Tribune, dug up out of the Chron archives)

Forget the conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, the black helicopters, Sept. 11 or any others. This is the big one - as big, in fact, as the entire continent.

We're talking about the secret plan to build a superhighway, a giant 10- to 12-lane production, from the Yucatan to the Yukon, with an immigration and trade center in Missouri. This "SuperCorridor" is to allow the really big part of the plan to take place: the merging of the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Say goodbye to the dollar, and maybe even the English language.

The rumor is sweeping the Internet, radio and magazines, spread by bloggers, broadcasters and writers who cite the "proof" in the writings of a respected American University professor, in a task force put together by the ultra-establishment Council on Foreign Relations and in the workings of the U.S. Commerce Department.

(snip)

"Nobody is proposing a North American Union," says Robert A. Pastor, a professor at American University in Washington to whom conspiracy theorists point as "the father of the NAU." They cite his 2001 book, Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New, as the basic text for the plan. They also point to his co-chairmanship of a Council on Foreign Relations task force that produced a report in 2005 on cooperation among the three countries.

(snip)

Pastor says fears of Mexicans and Canadians taking over the country are a product of "the xenophobic or frightened right wing of America that is afraid of immigration and globalization."

Not that he doesn't think cooperation - short of a merger - is a good idea. He's testified before Congress on improving coordination within North America.

Perry's push for super highway raises conspiracy buzz.

(from R.G. Ratcliffe of the Chron)

Black helicopters, the Illuminati, Gov. Rick Perry and the Trans-Texas Corridor are all now part of the vernacular of the global domination conspiracy theorists.

Perry's push for the Trans-Texas Corridor super highway is part of a secret plan, the conspiracy theorists say, to create the North American Union — a single nation consisting of Canada, Mexico and the United States with a currency called the Amero.

Government denials of the North American Union and descriptions of it as a myth seem to add fuel to the fire. A Google search for "North American Union" and "Rick Perry" returns about 13,400 Web page results.

(snip)

"There is absolutely a connection with all of it," said Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie Adams. The Trans-Texas Corridor "is something not being driven by the people of Texas."

The first, and most controversial, leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor plan is a proposed 1,200-foot-wide private toll road to run from Laredo to the Oklahoma border parallel to Interstate 35. This TTC-35 would be built by a consortium headed by Spanish owned Cintra S.A. and Zachry Construction Corp. of San Antonio.

The seed of the North American Union controversy rests in the 1992-93 passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Under that treaty, Interstate 35 was designated informally as the NAFTA highway.

(snip)

The 2001 book Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New by Robert A. Pastor, an American University professor and director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management, is cited by Corsi as the blueprint for the merger.

"I've never proposed a North American Union," Pastor said. "The only people who talk about a North American Union are those people who are trying to generate fear."

Pastor said greater cooperation between the three countries makes sense for both economics and internal security.
Pastor said those promoting the conspiracy are doing so because of "historical xenophobia," "a fear of immigrants, mostly from Mexico" and a "traditional isolationism."

Now, before everyone gets all lathered up, I'm not suggesting that Mr. Ratcliffe lifted material from Mr. Dine without attrition. I am not qualified to do that. The quotes that were made by Pastor were made in a public forum. There are similarities in the articles yes, but I'm not willing to say that this falls into the range of pulling a Rick Casey. I'll leave that analysis to the experts out there who are qualified to analyze this type of thing.


The issue that I have is with the date stamp on both articles.

Mr. Dine's: Thu 05/17/2007

Mr. Ratcliffe's: Aug. 18, 2007


Welcome to the Houston Chronicle, where "news" is THREE MONTHS old.

Tell us how you really feel.

A little bit of insight from Mrs. White today on her true feelings regarding the USofA....

The implications are chilling. Whether it's the shadowy Bilderberg financial conference that took place in Turkey, or the triad of U.S., Canadian and Mexican chief executives convening this week in Quebec, the secretive master plan that is surely being implemented bodes ill — for Canada.

That's the fear of conspiracy theorists up north, who are convinced that Gov. Rick Perry's Trans-Texas Corridor plan, among other developments, is swirling into a tornado that one day will sweep away their national borders, fuse the governments of Mexico, Canada and the United States, and ultimately force everyone to buy groceries with fresh-minted "Ameros."

The Canadians can hardly be faulted for worrying about melding with the chaotic nation just to the south. If the Canadian conspiracists are anxious, their more numerous counterparts in the United States are in a complete froth. As Chronicle reporter R.G. Ratcliffe wrote in the Saturday Chronicle, conspiracy chatter here also has fixated on the Trans-Texas Corridor. A Google search featuring "Rick Perry" and "Trans-Texas Corridor" produces 13,400 Web page results. That's in addition to the escalating rhetoric on radio and the urgent warnings by groups such as the John Birch Society and Texas Eagle Forum.

Keep in mind, this is from the same noisebox that accuses any proponent of even mild immigration reform of xenophobia at the drop of a hat.


So, in review:

Canadians concerned about merging with America: Justified.

Americans concerned about merging with Mexico: Xenophobes.


Uh-huh.

The Byzantio Transportation Consortium

The Byzantio Transportation Consortium is currently investigating the possibility of holding its first meeting on Saturday, August 25th at Byzantio Cafe & Bar, 403 W. Gray Houston, TX.

The BTC is a new coalition whose purpose is to foster meaningful discussion concerning transit solutions in a Opportunity Urbanist environment. Topics for discussion on Saturday will include:

1. Trashing the Metro Bus routing map and starting again from scratch.
2. Holding Metro's feet to the fire in regards to the MetroSolutions promise.
3. Establishing a dedicated transportation line from my house to Byzantio. (optional)


Also on the agenda:

1. Celebration of GeorgeB123's promotion to "volunteer greeter" on the BlogHouston forums.
2. Celebration of Sedosi's 500th comment on the BlogHouston forums.
3. Celebration of Lose an Eye's 400th post.
4. Planning for the 1st annual Hoston Blogosphere Texas Wine tasting party.


Your RSVP is appreciated.

What I (don't) like about you!!!

Could there be a local Pol right now that generates a stronger response than Houston City Councilman Peter Brown?


Kristen Mack did a recent profile:

First-term City Councilman Peter Brown came into office with big ideas for transforming the city.

As an architect and urban planner, Brown had a vision for Houston that centered on creating mixed-income neighborhoods. He understood planning before coming on council, but not politics and how to get things done.

Now, as he runs for a second term, Brown is thinking about changing his position. To mayor.

Brown suffers from rich guy syndrome — he's the only council member who has original artwork from Monet and Picasso hanging in the hallways of his home — which causes him to be idealistic and creates blind spots in his thinking.

When he walked onto City Council last year, Brown expected to find a compatriot in Mayor Bill White, another wealthy do-gooder who was concerned about quality-of-life issues.

Brown was the only freshman to be appointed as vice chair of a committee, the Regulation, Development and Neighborhood Protection Committee.

White allowed Brown to lead the charge on one of his ideas, a plan requiring developers to donate park land or pay a fee. That ordinance has been mired in bureaucracy, but is likely to pass this fall.

And the reaction:

Pro: Gregsopinion:

It's stiff competition, but that may be among the silliest things Kristen Mack has ever written - Is that a Monet? Ah, well, you must have blind spots!!! Picasso? Clearly, you're an idealist!. Suffice it to say, but the causality - if not the point - is more than a little lacking. Peter is all of those things, but it's coincidental to his taste in art. Then again, I listen to Krokus & Stryper with about as much frequency as I do Bach & Vivaldi ... what's that make me?

That aside, there's clearly little to be anxious over when it comes to thinking about who the next mayor will be.

Con: BlogHouston.

Ah yes, the old reliable "Draft X" movement formed by "friends." For the good of the city (Peter Brown), county (Charles Bacarisse), state (Rick Noriega), or country (Fred Thompson/Al Gore). Completely spontaneously, of course! *wink*

Quite a few people likely share Councilmember Brown's concern for quality-of-life issues. However, one suspects that most Houstonians don't share Councilmember Brown's views on using the heavy hand of government to force folks to abide by the whims/wisdom of elitist planners like the Architect-Councilmember, who sometimes seems as out of touch with everyday middle-class life as Stanley Fish! For that reason, it seems unlikely we'll be calling him Architect-Mayor Brown in a few years, however much money he decides to spend on the race.

To me Peter Brown is one of those guys who lucks into office due to one circumstance or another, and then when he gets there starts making too much noise, and then will flame out because he jumped the gun in his political ambitions. (see: Michael Berry) but he does have a few plusses that at least make him worth noting in future Mayoral elections. (after Mayor White cleans up against no competition this time around that is).

1. He's a Democrat - A fact that gives him the unconditional support of the Netroots. No matter how insipid his ideas are. It also ensures him 40% support out of the gate, minus the candidacy of a stronger Democrat.

2. He's got a LOT of money to spend.

3. There are a LOT of voters who like to hear the message that Government is going to force people to live in a manner that they think is best. Hearing that is a POWERFUL vote getter.



Would I vote for Brown?

No. But that's just me. Part of the reason for that is because of my strong political aversion to angry affluent people holding signs and protesting. Many of whom would support a Brown run for Mayor.



Would I freak out if he became Mayor?

No. Once he passed his first "planning ordinance" (read: zoning law) then coalitions would form and he'd go down as a rarity in Houston: a one-term Mayor.


Will he become Mayor?

No. Annise Parker will kick the crap out of him in any election.

A point that Mack couldn't resist pointing out:

City Controller Annise Parker, who also has mayoral ambitions, says Brown already has tried to get her to sit it out. She demurred, saying she would continue to weigh her options. Although their politics are similar, Brown is a relative late-comer to the local political scene.

"He's got a lot of issues he wants to (work) on," Parker says. "You have to focus on what's achievable and I think that's difficult for him."

Brown says he is not "desperate to be anything but a city councilman. I've got plenty of choices."

too bad we have to wait for 2009 to watch all this humor play out...

Drowning on dry ground.

That was what happened to me last night. Let me 'splain:

About 2:30 AM I woke up with a terrible cough. I couldn't catch my breath, couldn't breathe deep, my throat was burning and I tasted bile. I have a little trouble with acid reflux, and from time to time inhale the fumes from the acid and get a coughing spurt late at night.

Last night it felt different however.

When I first tried to get up I noticed that I was having severe trouble breathing. Everytime I tried to inhale I started coughing so violently that I got the dry heaves. I couldn't breathe deep at all, and I was starting to gasp for air. My lungs felt like they were gurgling and there was a 5 lb weight sitting on top of them.

It was at this point that I got a little panicky. As I tried to catch my breath I'd cough more. Everytime I'd cough I would dry heave, and this cycle went on for about 10 minutes. Finally I was standing over the kitchen sink coughing, spitting up mucous, and dry heaving over and over.

Once I got over the initial shock I started to settle my mind down. I got ahold of the situation and started taking shallow breaths, instead of trying to gulp down big mouthfuls of air. This improved the situation, my lungs were still gurgling, but I was able to (sort of) control the coughing spasms and focus on getting whatever it was in my lungs out. For the next hour I sat on my recliner moderating my breathing and coughing up phlegm into a tissue. Finally I was able to breath again almost reguarly, but when I tried to lay down flat I got all asthmatic feeling so I spent the rest of the night asleep in the recliner.

At 5:00 (wake-up time) my wife came in and asked me to come try and lay down. I did, and was fine. I still had coughing spasms but I was pretty much ok, despite having a very raw throught and a diaphragm that felt like it was just in a powerlifting competition.

Now I'm easing into my day, coughing only slightly and looking back on what was a scary night. The nearest I can figure is that I somehow inhaled a mixture of mucous and stomach acid into my lungs. Kind of like when you take a drink and it goes down the wrong way. For just a little bit. I think I was drowning standing up in my kitchen. I'm not saying that I was in any "mortal danger" but I guess I could have been had I not gotten it together and turned on the old brain.

Today my throat feels as if its coated with sandpaper, and I'm still coughing slightly from time to time but I'm OK. Needless to say I won't be blogging any for a few days. I'm going to spend a lot of time this weekend hugging on my loved ones.

Racist? Or Fact?

The "taco truck" ordinance hasn't gotten the blowtorch treatment as of yet by the media. There's been a story or two, and now this blog post by Matt Stiles, but overall there's been enough in the news to kind of push this to the side.

That's too bad, because there are some interesting questions that are being asked on both sides:

First, some background from Mr. Stiles and the Chron:

A few dozen mobile food vendors came to City Hall today to protest what they say are unfair regulations on their industry.

Led by Councilwoman Toni Lawrence, the city is working out revisions to its ordinance that would require these taquerias and other vendors to have bathrooms nearby. Among many other provisions, the proposed revisions would try to make sure the vendors actually go to commissaries for cleaning each day.

The goal, city officials say, is to protect public health. But these vendors complain that they're being singled out because they're Hispanic.

And now some points by commenters:
(From blogger Rorschach)

The health permit they have says "mobile". It's kinda hard to argue that you are "mobile" when the trailer is up on blocks and the wheels have been taken off. If they aren't going back to the commissary to be cleaned, that means that they are dumping their grease down the storm sewer which was not designed to deal with that or out onto the ground. Even if they have hooked themselves up to a sanitary sewer (illegally again!), they probably don't have grease traps. Fixed restaurants are required to have bathrooms with hot running water so that employees and patrons can wash their hands. Mobile vendors are given a break on that but have to comply with other rules.

(snip)

They want to run their business by slipping the inspector a few bucks and a case of frozen meat and go on down the road, heck, that is how it was done in Mexico. They come here and expect to operate the same way. In Mexico laws are not meant to be obeyed, they are merely a means for officials to negotiate bribes. The business tax laws are so complex and change so often nobody realistically expects anyone to comply with them. The officials just hold them over people to make them cough up a bribe. Is it any wonder that they think our laws serve the same purpose? Is it any wonder that they do not respect the rule of law? In their country everything is negotiable, here it is not. They fail to grasp that.

And the response from commenter jp:

Interesting how the previous three comments prove the point of the protesters.

Rorschach, especially. He sees one anglo food service guy try to skirt the law - well, that's just a bad apple.

He sees one hispanic do it and it's indicative of an entire culture that is made up of criminals.

No, there's no racism here.

It probably wouldn't help much if I stated the fact that a general dislike for the way Mexico runs its affairs is not paramount to racism. By the technical definition of the word. There's also nothing wrong with disliking the institutionalized bribery that is the foundation of the Mexican legal system.

Obviously, some Mexican citizens that live in America don't like our way of doing things, they prove it every day by ignoring the laws and illegally entering the Country by the thousands.

Does that mean that all illegal immigrants are racist against Americans?

Now that we have that silliness out of the way lets get back to the issue at hand.


Is it wrong for Houston (and America) to expect immigrants to abide by our laws and regulations, or is enforcing them a form of discrimination?

Additionally, IF it is racism to expect the owners of the taco trucks to live up to the health and safety standards of American industry, is it not also racism to expect the same from the Chinese?

I mean....if you're going to throw out the 'racism' card incorrectly, you might as well go all the way.


Either that or we can all agree that every society has a set of common standards that every citizen (regardless of race or National origin) is expected to abide by and if one segment of the population insists on not following these regulations then its the job of a popuarly elected Government to ensure that they do.

Your choice.

My voter fraud is more reality based than your voter fraud.

The Houston Chronicle's Opinion link blog highlights two different posts today hitting the same issue from decidedly differnt angles.

If you're a Democrat and reading this you probably feel that the Republican charges of voter fraud are overstated, and if you're a Republican reading this you likely feel the same about the Dems claims that the machines are suspect. This is one of those political issues that brings a grin to my face whenever it pops up in polite discussion. Mainly its because I'm waiting for someones head to blow up like the guy in Scanners.

For those of you unaware, Republicans feel that the greatest voter issue today is one of identification. Ensuring that those who vote are who they say they are, that they're registered to vote, and that they only vote once, is one of the bedrocks of a strong reprasentative Government. Required picture identification of ALL voters is a very reasonable requirement to ensure that those casting votes are who they say they are.

The Democrats are concerned about the votes that come in, and more importantly, how secure they are stashed on E-slate machines with no paper trail. This also is a reasonable fear, since we know that computers are only as good as the programmers who develop them, and hacking is now more the rule than the exception.


As with the illegal immigrant debate however, BOTH sides are missing the forest while staring intently at their partisan trees.


The key of ANY voter reform should be three-fold:

1. Ensure the integrity of the votes.
2. Ensure accurate counting of votes.
3. Attempt to capture as many legal votes as possible.


Both parties are missing the true key here, the one that would make all of the other stuff immaterial. IF a majority of Americans that are eligible to vote would cast a vote, then some of the other issues would be much smaller, and much less mission critical, than it seems at the time.

E-slate machines coupled with internet voting done by encryption, utlizing picture ID's and moving the voting days to Saturday are just a few of the steps that can be taken to ensure voter accuracy. Paper trails are step two. The problem is that there are no political points to be made by accepting the other sides' argument as valid, so the likelihood that America will have a modern, sensible voting plan that attempts to capture accurately most Americans votes is a pipe dream that's not likely realized anytime soon.

A Thursday Love Letter.

Courtesy of Lose an Eye favorite: Mrs. White.

Houston is renowned for its formidable litigators. Mayor Bill White, formerly one of them, is using his stature, clout and legal connections to get the city the services of top echelon attorneys for free.

(snip)

Mayor White deserves credit for stimulating interest in the legal community in serving the community and utilizing its talents to further the issues of public health, the environment and law enforcement. The lawyers who have provided their labors for free merit our thanks as well for advancing the public interest at little or no cost to the taxpayers.

Love is in the air, in every corner of the room.....




*sniff*

Good news if the Texans are bad.

You have other options, even at the stadium.

(from Greg Barr of the Houston Business Journal)

The Houston Texans will be one of four National Football League teams to offer fans a chance to watch other live football broadcasts this season on a TV handset while inside the stadium.

Fans willing to shell out $25 can rent the Kangaroo TV portable video handset which has access to DirectTV's NFL Sunday Ticket programming, as well as live up-to-date NFL game statistics, plus the CBS and Fox pre-game telecasts with video, audio and data feed. Another feature is direct access to real-time fantasy league statistics from NFL.com.


The system, available at kiosks inside Reliant Stadium, will debut Sept. 9 at the Texans' first regular season home game against Kansas City.

The handset can only receive the signal inside the stadium. Besides the one-day rental, the device can be rented for the entire regular season for $150, or $120 for Texans season ticket holders.

If Mario Williams doesn't find some quickness off the ball, if the O-line doesn't start opening up some running holes, if the Defensive backfield continues to flounder and if a second wide-receiver isn't found, then I predict this will be a very profitable venture for the Texans.

Rapid Eye Movement

Quick hits:

1. If you stand outside today, odds are you'll get wet.

For some this qualifies as "news". For others, this is high comedy. I tend to side with the "high comedy" argument.


2. I was talking with my younger brother the other day. He's an analyst for one of the big consulting firms you hear about. His assignment for the last year or so has been in San Francisco. He's also done a LOT of travelling around the world, and noticed some oddities about Houston:

- There are a LOT of murders in Houston. In SanFran whenever there's a killing its a big deal. We think this is because the weather is so nice there. Homeless? Sure, they're everywhere, and there are some very depressed neighborhoods as well. Just not a lot of killings like you see in Houston.

- The best thing Metro could do would be to bring in someone who knows a thing or two about transit, blow up the current bus service map, and re-draw it from scratch.

- Houston doesn't have NEAR the density needed for light rail to be a success.

- If you go to Tokyo, don't try to party in the 'tourist' areas. You'll go broke.

A legal opinion from the City Controller?

Interesting story item from Matt Stiles today regarding The City Controller's audit of the City's "bonus" plan...

City employees in recent years received more than $1.2 million in incentive payments that may have violated the Texas Constitution's prohibition on granting gifts with public money, according to an audit released Tuesday.

City Controller Annise Parker's review, conducted at the request of prosecutors investigating city payroll practices, designated those payments as "bonuses" that technically could violate state law.

(snip)

Parker wrote in bold print in an attached letter to Mayor Bill White that her "auditors found nothing similar to the actions previously identified by the district attorney's office as criminal in nature."

Very odd that an accountant would offer a legal opinion on an audit report. Also very odd that said legal opinion would be hand written in "bold print" instead of being codified in the management report.

Very odd.


Oh yeah, there's the usual sniping in hindsight:

Councilwoman Toni Lawrence said Tuesday that she preferred to designate any surplus budget money for projects in her district, such as parks, rather than bonuses.

"I just knew it wasn't right," she said. "I knew it wasn't what the taxpayers wanted me to do with that money. My staff agreed to work for a certain amount."

Uh-huh.

Paying to park

Parking revenue is back up and there is wine and feasting throughout the land.

(from Christina M. Wright of the Chron)

New parking meters that accept credit cards and cash began popping up last year, and now the city of Houston has a pop in what had been a four-year declining revenue growth.

"It shows more people are parking," said Liliana Rambo, the city's director of parking management. "I think people are just happy to be able to use other methods of payment."

There was revenue growth each year from 2003 to 2006, but the rate dropped from 22 percent in 2003-04, to 7 percent in 2005-06.

The Downtown/Midtown Transit Streets Project that ripped up 14 streets for seven years — and eliminated parking spaces — contributed to the decline, Rambo said. That project was finished in 2004, and revenue growth declined for two more years.

Rambo also said declines in revenue growth could be attributed to people stealing the meters.

(snip)

From 2006 to 2007, the revenue growth increased to 9 percent — helped dramatically by the $171,000 paid in cash and credit cards to the new solar-powered parking meters.

Revenues for fiscal 2007, which ended in June, reached $2.6 million.

(snip)

But the new "convenience" of cash acceptance could be helping revenues in a different way, since it doesn't give change, and leftover time from a previous parker is a thing of the past.

Barbara Wilkerson, who goes downtown frequently for business, missed the 1 1/2 -inch "this machine does not give change" sticker. She put a $10 bill in for a $3 parking fee.

"They need to say in big bold letters, 'We don't give change,' " she said. "But they should give change because that's convenient."

(snip)

A motorist can use the same receipt to park anywhere else that has the same parking rate within the time printed, Rambo said.

"The new parking gives the person mobility, the ability to move their vehicle," she said.

(snip)

Rambo said no "hard numbers" have been done to project how the new meters will affect parking meter revenues, but parking management expects 15 percent to 20 percent growth.

For you math geeks out there: $171,000 is 6% of $2.6 Million. That number might be a little misleading however because we don't know how much of that $171K is an increase over what the old meters drew in. I'm sure its probably more, I'm just not sure how much more.

For example, if the old meters pulled in $150K then the new figure is a 13% increase in revenue collections for those meters, but only a a half percent increase in the overall parking increase. It should also be noted that the entire rate of increase only appreciated by 2%. (from a 7% annual increase in FY2006 vs. FY2005 to 9% for the current year) If you look at it from that perspective then approx 52K of the new money is actually above and beyond what the City has realized before spending $15 Million to install the new parking meters. If that doesn't improve then it will be 288 years before the meters pay for themselves in the form of realized revenue increases. These calculations don't include inflation adjustments, nor do they include the increased revenue realized from ticket collections.

IF parking revenue increases at a rate of 15-20 percent as predicted, then parking revenues next year should be right around $3 Million dollars. ($390K is a 15% increase). If parking revenues continue to increase at a constant dollar amount annually, then it will be 38 years before the meters pay for themselves. If you start to throw in compound growth factors, which I'm sure the City used when making the justification for these meters, then they will pay for themselves much quicker, but you'll be to a point where revenues will have to increase by something close to the current total revenue amount annually in order to keep pace with that 15-20% projection in around 10 years time.

Even if you believe that in seven years the parking revenue will increase $900K and revenues will be $6.9 Million, you still don't know what the actual benefit of the new meters will be, because (as the article states) there are no "hard numbers" that have been ran which accurately demonstrate the actual increases that can be realized with the new meters over the old, coin-op meters.


All of the boring accounting numbers aside. There is something to be said for the convenience of having meters that accept 21st century forms of payments. The "downtown hopper" idea is one that could have merit, were that downtown was a place where people go and make multiple stops, such as they do in Uptown for example.

And besides, couldn't they just ride the toy train from stop to stop? Wasn't that supposed to be the "plan" anyway?


Overall, in the grand scheme of things, $15 Million is going to hardly cause much of a ripple in the City budget over the long haul. For some its a small price to pay for a new toy that brings Houston closer to being world-class. After all, why quibble about a measley $15 Mil when Billions have already been spent on bigger toys?


Ain't technology grand?

Developers forced to pay for parks.

Another beat in the city's constant cadence of anti-developer policies struck today as a draft ordinance was announced requiring developers to foot the bill for parks.

(from Mike Snyder of the Chron)

As details emerged Monday of new requirements for developers to provide land or pay fees for park acquisition and improvements, leaders of development groups said the city was on the verge of imposing an unfair burden on their industry.

A draft ordinance reviewed by a City Council committee Monday would require a developer who built 100 houses to provide 2.6 acres for park space or pay an $80,000 fee.

The ordinance, which city officials hope to have in place by Oct. 1, would be one of the most significant new regulatory requirements in years for Houston's politically powerful development industry. Leaders of single-family home and apartment development organizations said they supported the measure in principle but were concerned about some details.

"We feel parks are both a public and a private responsibility. The majority of that burden is being shifted to the private sector" under the proposed ordinance, said Brian P. Austin, a board member of the Houston Apartment Association. The city uses tax dollars mostly for operations and maintenance rather than land for parks.

(snip)

The ordinance would divide Houston into 17 geographic sectors. Developers of new residential projects would be required to give the city land within the same sector, with the amount based on the acreage of the project, the number of units and Houston's average household size of 2.6 people.

Diane Schenke, executive director of The Park People, a nonprofit advocacy group, said the use of geographic sectors would help correct inequities in access to parks in various areas of Houston.

As an alternative to providing land, developers could pay a fee of $800 per unit.

Icken provided examples of comparable requirements imposed in Austin, Fort Worth and several Houston suburbs. Fees in those cities, he said, range from $500 to $1,000 per unit, while land dedication requirements support goals ranging from 2.5 acres to 10 acres per 1,000 residents.

Here's the reality of the situation: There's a LOT of blowback against the developers right now in the court of public opinion. Those to the Right of the political spectrum (correctly) feel that Light Rail and other "transportation" projects have been forced on the populace so that huge sums of money could be made through the rise of "mixed-use" developments. Those on the Left feel (correctly) that the developers have traditionally practiced a "scorched-earth" policy of development, with no respect for history, so-called quality of life enhancements etc. When you add to that the rather recent political ideology that the best way to enact change is to "force" the market to react, and the fact that many in Council feel that their re-election chances hinge on increased regulation, you end up with City Ordinances like this one. Their heart is in the right place, but the long-term impact on the business environment is questionable.

And then you have the "other" factor, one that the Chronicle keeps silent with a vigilence that makes Omerta look like a childs game of 20 questions: The current administration is desperately looking for ways to trim the budget to fund pet projects while farming out "core services" to businesses, apartment complexes, and private citizens.

Leading one to ask the question: When is privitation a BAD thing, and when is it a prudent option?


I've got a hunch that the answer to that lies in one's political affiliation moreso than any high minded principles that are frequently claimed.

Telling blurb of the day:

Councilwoman Ada Edwards asked Austin, the apartment developer, if the proposed ordinance would benefit developers in any way.

Uh-huh.

Smoking enforcement: It's on you.

I wonder if Houston-area residents will get some type of salary for enforcing the soon-to-be-enacted smoking ban?


Or will this work be pro-bono, like most of the City's legal work?

(from Alexis Grant of the Chron)

When the city of Houston's smoking ban expands next month to include bars, it largely will be up to bar managers and their customers to enforce the new rules.

The city is not beefing up enforcement tactics — it only has one smoking-enforcement officer, as well as 43 sanitarians who can issue citations — primarily because officials expect the ban to be self-enforcing, said Kathy Barton, spokeswoman for the city's Department of Health and Human Services.

In other words, the non-smoking public likely will be the ones asking smokers not to light up where it is not allowed.

I put the over/under for the first occurence of a shooting related to attempted citizen enforcement at one week.





Any takers?

And in the InterLeft there was much rejoicing....

Rove's jumping ship...

(From Terence Hunt of the AP)

Karl Rove, President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist, plans to leave the White House at the end of August, joining a lengthening line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final 1 1/2 years of the administration.

A longtime member of Bush's inner circle, Rove was nicknamed "the architect" by the president for designing the strategy that twice won him the White House.

A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months during the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name but he was never charged with any crime.

Bush was expected to make a statement today with Rove.

So endeth the run of the man I hold responsible for the downfall of the Republican Party in Texas.

IMO it was his decision to allow every Democrat and their Brother to jump ship during the Republican ascendency that's led the Texas Republicans to basically be a shadowy reflection of the old Democrats. They ignored the fact that the voters had already rejected the "way things used to be done in Texas" and were looking to the Republicans to find a new way.

This didn't happen, and now the hard left of the Democratic Party is primed to reclaim the State in a much shorter time frame than anyone could have predicted.

The burden of "proof"

Sure isn't what it once was...

(from Kevin Moran of the Chron)

A bullet blasted through a Plexiglas window at KPFT radio early this morning, missing a woman's head by about 18 inches, said general manager Duane Bradley.

The bullet was fired while another staff member was talking to three people at the station's front door, about 12 feet from the smashed window, Bradley said. The station is located in the 400 block of Lovett.

(snip)

Bradley said Mary Thomas, the programmer who came close to being hit by the bullet, was not engaged in any controversial on-air activity at the time.

"I think it was purposeful," Bradley said. "It's highly likely that, at some point, someone may have heard something that offended them and they decided to do something about it."

(snip)

Bradley said KPFT has been operating since March of 1970. Considered by many a liberal or even left-wing station at the time, the station's transmitter, located then in rural Houston, was dynamited twice in 1970 and 1971. The bombings were believed to be racially motivated, Bradley said.

It should be noted that their's no "proof" of Bradley's accusations. Not a single shred of evidence other than his prejudices against people who hold a different set of political beliefs than he.

Oddly enough...everyone agrees with me.

That's pretty much the thrust of the latest entry in the "Houston City Planning" debate.

What's not very clear are the details of said study:

(from Stephen Klineberg and Dayna Fondell of Rice University via the Chron)

The emerging consensus is echoed by the goals articulated in the Greater Houston Partnership's "2005-2015 Strategic Plan," in speeches by Mayor Bill White, and in virtually all the communitywide envisioning efforts undertaken in recent years. Just about everyone now recognizes that if Houston's prosperity is to be sustained in the 21st century economy, we will need to make far more substantial public and private investments both in the region's aesthetic and environmental qualities, and in education and other forms of "human capital."

(snip)

The 2007 Houston Area Survey, conducted in February and March of this year, included several new questions asking a scientifically selected representative sample of Harris County residents about how they would guide the region's future growth. The findings make it clear that area residents are far ahead of Houston's leadership in their support for quality-of-life initiatives, and they are almost unanimous in their conviction that some kind of general plan for the region is now required.

That's the premise, so now here are the results:

• By 59 percent to 36 percent, area residents said they were in favor of "raising taxes to make major improvements in the Houston area's quality of life, such as pollution control and park improvements."
• Fifty-four percent said that the best way to spend the region's transportation dollars would be "to improve rail and buses." Only 37 percent called for more spending "to expand existing highways."
• When asked about the impact of an additional million residents on the area's living conditions, fully 50 percent said that such growth would make things worse. Just 20 percent thought conditions would improve.
• The concerns about unfettered growth translate into strong support for some form of planning: 70 percent agreed that, "We need better land-use planning to guide development in the Houston area." Only 22 percent believed instead that, "People or businesses should be free to build wherever they want."
• Finally, among all area residents in this famously "unplanned city," 83 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor of "creating a general plan to guide Houston's future growth." Just 11 percent were opposed.

The details of the survey can be found here.

My big problem with surveying, especially blind phone call polls is that you never know how honest the subject is in regards to their answers. You're also taking approximately 600 responses and saying that they represent the entire rang of opinions in the Houston Metropolitan area.

I'm also generally wary of polls when they don't match the debate. According to this poll the people in support of rail should be legion. The reality shows that while there is probably a slight majority, its nowhere NEAR 60-65% of people in support. Odd to note that, in the same poll, 70% of responders admitted to never riding Houston rail, and 55% admitted that they would not give up their cars, further proving that a vast majority feel that public transportation is meant for others.

If you accept the results of this report then it takes a large amount of cognitive dissonance to dismiss this result out of line. What I think is that, especially when talking to interviewers, people say in polls what they think they SHOULD say, not what they feel. There's a loss of anonymity that's inherent in public conversation, the same type of anonymity that allows people to vote against tax increases in the ballot booth, and to continue to vote for "anti-tax" candidates despite poll results such as this that academics claim prove otherwise.


If anything, I think that Houston now has a barometer for how people feel about transit and zoning for OTHER PEOPLE but not, as is being inferred, for them. If you put forward questions that addressed the reality of zoning, how some people could lose their businesses, etc. WITHOUT adding in the usual "economic gloom and doom" clap-trap that you get from the Right and I think that the answers you receive would be far less skewed toward the ideals of a select few and more reflective of the attitudes of the Houston citizen.


Go take a look at the survey yourself and see if you agree.




OTHER EYES:

BlogHouston: Klineberg: A mature Houston is a Houston that embraces planning - The Bh group raises the fair point that many of the questions are "loaded". As barney, one of their commenters succinctly puts it:

Would you rather I stick a fork in your eye or kick you in the testicles?


Oh, so you want to be kicked in the testicles?

Ouch.

Why do you Blog?

When I get sick (this time with a head cold) I get too much time to think about these things.

Why do you blog?

I blog because I'm a writer, I like to write and this gives me daily practice. I typically blog as a release so that modern problems don't seep into the books I'm in the middle of writing. I also blog because I happen to like certain things. Things like Texas wines, football, soccer, and making fun of politicians.

I've noticed that people blog for different reasons. For some its their job and their paid to do so. For others there's an innate desire to be a political mover and shaker, some do it because they hate the other side. Some are trying to provide balance to a wrong (frequently, in Houston, the Chronicle). A LOT of bloggers do it because they think their opinions are just slightly more brilliant than others, despite the fact that they have no real insight, and others do it just because. Heck, there was a blog created once to correct a typo that I made on the old blog. Figure that one out...

So why do you blog?

I'm sure a lot of people do it for honest reasons, and everyone thinks that their blogging is the most "pure" if you will. I'm not denigrating anyone. I think that blogging is a personal thing and we all do so for our own reasons.

What's yours?

When "free" isn't good enough....

Nominee for "greedy person of the year" award...

(from Alexis Grant of the Chron)

Houston-area drivers willing to trade in their pollution-belching clunkers for newer, environmentally friendly vehicles will soon be eligible for a $3,000 incentive from the state of Texas.

A new state law, intended to encourage drivers to retire old vehicles that pump out more smoky exhaust than newer models, will kick in around the end of the year. It applies to vehicles at least 10 years old in Texas counties that have failed to meet national air quality standards — including Harris County — for buyers with incomes of less than $62,000 annually for a family of four.

(snip)

Arnie Serrano, who repairs cars at his A&J Auto Repair shop on Washington, said he appreciates the program's concept but thinks it's unrealistic to expect some low-income people to be able to afford a new car, even with the voucher.

"If you own an older car, that means you can't afford to buy a new one," said Serrano, 57, who owns two vehicles built in the mid-1990s. "We'd all like to have a new car."

Serrano's own vehicle was in the shop — he had propped open the hood of his white, 1994 Jeep to replace $600 worth of parts.

"I'd rather spend that one payment that I'm going to make on a new car on my junker and just keep it going," he said.

Averitt acknowledged there will be some people who can't afford to take advantage of the incentive.

"This is not a welfare program, this is a clean air program," he said.

I'd like to point out to Mr. Serrano that the $3,000 he's being offered is exactly $3,000 more than I got offered when I traded in my old car for a new one. It's also $3,000 more than most Texans would get.

Of course it's not enough. Nevermind that you can BUY a car with $3,000 that will pass inspection. It's still NOT ENOUGH.

Mr. Serrano wants his brand new $20,000 car on the taxpayers dime.


Ridiculous.

Uh oh...

The sky is falling...

(from Michelle Middlestadt and James Pinkerton of the Chron)

From the fields of the Rio Grande Valley to the streets of Houston and beyond, employers, workers and immigrant-rights activists alike predicted Friday that the Bush administration's new crackdown on illegal immigration could throw huge numbers of people off the job and send a shiver through several sectors of the economy.

(snip)

The regulations "will be absolutely devastating" to citrus and vegetable growers in the Rio Grande Valley, said Ray Prewett, president of McAllen-based Texas Citrus Mutual growers association.

"We've got the fall harvest coming up," said Prewett, who estimates that up to 70 percent of his agricultural industry's work force is here illegally. "We'll have a problem because we can't find domestic workers that have acceptable papers."

Arguments that your industry has a problem if they need to employ illegal workers at a 70% clip weren't heard in this article.

Needless to say I'm glad to see that there's some enforcement being contemplated, whether or not its enforced remains to be seen.

And for those of you who feel that this is "unfair" think about this: If you're arguing the status quo then you are arguing for people to get paid cash-in-hand at LESS than minimum wage. Or else they really want NO change at all, which is an even worse thought.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The goal of immigration reform should be to get MORE legal workers and LESS illegal ones. This policy is a good first step toward the second half of that. Now we just need Congress to get off their duffs and work on the first half.

Post 400!!!!!!!!

This is the 400th post on this blog.





There ought to be a celebration or something....

Are the roles switching in the Property Tax debate?

The issue of property tax reduction has, for some time, been the sole stomping ground of Dan Patrick and his loyal band of supporters. Democrats and their partisans activists referred to the movement as "free candy" and other derogatory terms.

The tide could be turning:

(from Rosanna Ruiz of the Chron)

Property owners considering whether to fight their tax bills may have a more difficult time thanks to a new Texas law.

The Harris County Appraisal District's Web site no longer offers property sales prices and those looking for the information in person at the district's office will also be disappointed.

The site bears the disclaimer: ''New law restricts release of sales information," and explains that the law enacted this summer prohibits appraisal districts from publicly disclosing sales price information from private sources, such as Multiple Listing Services.

The district can make the information available only after property owners file protests with the district.

(snip)

During the last session, state Rep. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, introduced the bill to get around an attorney general's opinion that said property sales information is subject to open records requests. State Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, countered with another bill that would have required public disclosure of property sales.

Villarreal's bill failed, but he vowed to continue the fight in the next session. ''What happened in the last legislative session," Villarreal said, ''is the little guy got stepped on top of by owners of million dollar homes and high-end commercial property."

All property owners have the right to withhold their sales prices from MLS listings. But buyers and sellers of high-end properties typically seek to keep their transactions private and those properties often wind up undervalued.

''Voluntary sales price disclosure would benefit the average Texans and the realtors who sell homes to the average Texan," Villarreal said. ''It would not be in the interest of owners of high-end property and commercial property who have been able to discount their property tax bill by hiding the real value of their property."

Property owners have 30 days after they receive their tax bills to protest the appraised values of their properties. After protest filings are made, taxpayers are notified by mail when they should show for hearings on their cases. Included in the notices are passwords needed to gain access to sales information on the Web.

Robinson predicted that forcing homeowners to file a protest in order to see the sales prices will result in an increase in the number of protests filed, which will mean more work for the district.

When the "tax appraisal creep" issue first reared its ugly head the initial response from Democrats was that it was simply a Republican ploy designed to benefit a select few. Those few, of course, where the working "wealthy" of society that actually dared to own a home.

What's transpired however is exactly the thing that I predicted on the old (lightly lamented) blog.

The people feeling the brunt of increases are the poor and middle class. Those without the disposable income needed to pay for tax creep that extends well above any inflation index, no matter how favorable.

The result of this has been some soul-searching by Democrats on how taxes are administered in Texas. Suddenly the appeals process, once derided as an attempt to evade taxation, is strongly encouraged as poor and middle class homeowners struggle to meet the demands of rising interest rate ARM loans, AND rapidly increasing taxes.

Not that the Republicans have ever vascillated on their position. Most politicians with an "R" behind their name have long been on the side of the TAC, TAR etc. and have (famously) turned their back on Texas homeowners.

Maybe one of life's great little ironies will be that State Senator Patrick will be forced to work with the Democrats to get his appraisal cap goals realized. While I'm not ready to declare this "today's sign that the Apocolypse is upon us", It could be a precursor to dogs and cats living together.

We will control all that you see and hear....

For the rest of your life if you let us....

(from Mrs. White)

It's hardly a one-night stand for the owners of sexually oriented businesses, which go by the unfortunate acronym SOBs. They've been waging a legal struggle for a decade to prevent activation of a 1997 municipal law requiring such establishments to be located at least 1,500 feet from churches, schools, parks and residences. To prevent clustering, the ordinance also requires 1,000-foot separations between the businesses themselves.

Proponents of the ordinance argued it would prevent criminal activity near areas frequented by children and protect neighborhood values. Opponents claimed the city was legislating morality and denying legal establishments the right to do business.

After U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas ruled in favor of the city this spring, a group of owners took the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Although Atlas's opinion supported a city study showing available locations where the businesses could relocate, SOB attorney John Weston told the appellate panel that since Houston police conducted that survey in 1996, the city has grown more dense and fewer sites are available. The lawyer for the city, Patrick Zummo, countered that at the time the ordinance was passed, the study was legally valid.

Since it was the businesses that sought to challenge the ordinance, it seems only fair that the court weigh conditions at the time the ordinance was adopted rather than 10 years down the road. Otherwise, any plaintiff seeking to overturn a municipal law could use the strategy of stringing out a legal action and then demanding new evidence at a later date.

(snip)

By contrast, the legal fight over limiting smoking at bars and restaurants is just getting started in federal district court here. Bar, nightclub and cabaret owners claim the recently passed ordinance unfairly discriminates against them. So-called cigar bars, whose revenue includes a minimum percentage of tobacco sales, would be exempt from smoking restrictions.

Attorney Al Van Huff, who also represents sexually oriented business clients against the city, told the Chronicle the cigar bar exemption creates "an unbalanced playing field" for his clients.

Case details aside, what is clear is that both ordinances are modeled on laws that have proved workable and legal in other cities and were approved by Houston City Council members as being in the best interest of their constituents.

I've highlighted what I feel are the two, most glaring, holes in the argument for the legislation enacted by Houston against sexually oriented businesses, and smoking in bars. Regardless of your stand on the proposals, there is a question of judicial fairness here, and a question of grandfathering and application.

Starting with the SOB legislation: My question here is what maps will be used to determine the placings for the businesses if the law is upheld? If you're going to allow them to relocated BASED ON THE 1996 MAP then you have no problem. If, however, you tell a business that they are prohibited from locating in a chosen spot because a new school or church was erected in 2002 the legal situation gets a lot more sticky. Which leads us to another question already raised by Kuff: What happens if a church or school is built within 1500 feet in the future? Who loses and who wins?

It's pretty clear to me that the City wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to use the old map to win the case, but the new map to effectively drive the SOB's out of business, and then retain the right to use a questionable application of law to root out SOB's in the future.


Finishing with the smoking ban: The key phrase in Mrs. White's argument is "case details aside". It's pretty easy to make an argument for something if you ignore the basic facts and details that make the legislation so interesting. There is no doubt that straight up smoking bans have stood up to court challenges in the past. What's at issue here (the 'details') is whether or not you can exempt a location such as The Downing Street Pub because some elected officials and political movers and shakers enjoy lighting up there. Can you exempt Richmond Ave. Cigar because the "correct crowd" likes to hang around and smoke there?

These "details" that are being cast aside are the crux of the legal argument, and an argument that's been successfully made many times in the past. Court after court has ruled that laws must be applied fairly and cannot single out any one group or business for preferential treatment. The bar owners of Houston may have a legitimate gripe that deserves a fair hearing in a court of law.

Mrs. White may not place much faith in values such as "timeliness" and "fairness" when it comes to arguing political niceties, but they have to have a place in the debate.

If what Mrs. White claims is true, that the laws have been fairly written and stand the test of legality, then they should pass the judicial test and the plaintiffs will be forced to make the tough decisions that await them.

But using the old saw that 'other cities' legally enacted these laws as proof of case ignores the historical fact that MANY municipalities had court-approved segregation laws on the books for years.

Using Mrs. White's logic I guess those were OK as well.

Ready or not: Here comes more rail.

You voted for it Houston, and now you're going to get it...like it, or not.

(from Rad Sallee of the Chron)

A recently released study about Metro's planned University light rail line reaffirmed assessments department officials offered in December when they pared the number of route options to three.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a document required for the project to obtain federal funding, determined that the highest ridership at the lowest cost would come from a route running west of Main on Richmond Avenue to Cummins or Greenway Plaza, then crossing over the Southwest Freeway to Westpark.

The study also supports continuing the route east of Main on Wheeler, an idea that has been opposed by some Third Ward residents who prefer that the rail go from Main to Elgin or Alabama.

The study also shows that a third option, which would run along the Southwest Freeway to Westpark and was suggested by U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, compares poorly in cost and ridership with the other two, as Metro officials had said.

The study, prepared by Metro staff and numerous consultants, was released Friday.

(snip)

The study estimates say the Cummins-Wheeler-Elgin combination is the least expensive of the routes considered, at $715 million, compared with $836 million for the Southwest Freeway-Alabama combination.

Ridership estimates range from 43,000 a day for the Cummins-Wheeler-Elgin option to 27,000 for the Southwest Freeway-Alabama one.

Both of the Richmond options would require Metro to buy more than 40 parcels of land between Main and Weslayan and would displace about 25 residents and businesses.

The Southwest Freeway option requires 31 acquisitions and 36 displacements, the study says.

It also shows that a route on Richmond would come at an environmental cost: Nearly 200 trees would be removed if the freeway crossover occurred at Cummins and more than 150 if it were at Greenway Plaza.

(snip)

Afton Oaks resident Chris Seger, who has led the fight against rail on Richmond, called the study "a two-volume propaganda piece."

Seger said in a prepared statement that the study count of trees to be removed was limited to the esplanades.

He said he expects many more will be taken along each side of Richmond.

Doug Childers, chairman of www.richmondrail.org, which favors a route on Richmond, said he understands that few trees will be taken along the sidewalks west of Kirby.

"Worse than trees," Seger said, "will be the crippling loss of revenue for small businesses along Richmond during three years of construction."

Childers said he is glad that the study supports the Richmond-Cummins option and that the group takes no position on the route east of Main.

"We will continue to deliver our message that we need to put transportation where the people are, and to allow neighborhoods to have input into the location of the stations," he said.

It should be no big shock to anyone that the report, drafted primarily by Metro and their paid consultants, would come out in favor of the route most envied by the transit boys. The re-development of Richmond is far more attactive to the proper crowd than is the development from scratch of the Westpark corridor.

You DID realize that the rail is about development and not transit as is advertised right?


What this report really underscores is Metro's folly in continuing to insist on "at-grade" rail that's not only going to further increase congestion, but is sure to damage the business along the line during the construction phase. Don't believe me?

Look at the carnage that is still evident along the Main Street (or "red") line.

Downtown Houston, which was SUPPOSED to be the big winner in all of this, experienced a small, temporary boom fueld by the NFL Championship game and some other events but is quickly reverting back to its old roll-up-the-sidewalks-at-five-on-Friday state as nightclub after nightclub is giving up the fight and closing down. What's left down there is a hodge-podge of restaurants, clubs, and fast food struggling to carve out a sense of "community" in the central business district of Houston. While there have been some signs of development along the central portion of the line, that development has been limited to condos and apartments, with few of the "mixed-use" walkable communities that voters were promised when the line was proposed.

Before you freak out, I'm not suggesting that there are NO mixed-use developments being built. But after a few years into operations there's no successful development that's been completed for the New Urbanists to hang their hat on. As a matter of fact, the most exciting development in Houston is still taking place on the outskirts of the Houston area.

All of this and I haven't even addressed the stray current issue yet.

Anti-Transit activist Tom Bazan has been all over the backs of Metro in regards to stray current. Metro's response has been to bury their head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. It won't, and as long as they insist on building more at-grade transit, the problem will only get worse. Mr. Bazan's solution is to abandon rail transportation entirely, focusing instead on cars and buses to do the job. The problem with this approach is that it seeks to inviolate the results of the 2003 "Metro Solutions" election and doesn't seem, to me, to be a realistic situation.

Pro-Metro activist group CTC Houston has done a very thorough analysis of Metro's position in their 'information' section of their website as well as a summary of Metro's proposal on their Intermodality blog. While their analysis is thorough, its flawed by the fact that they begin with the premise that Metro's proposals are "sound" ignoring several obvious deficiencies in the plans that have been submitted. Their "solutions" to the problem are more elaborate flourishes placed on the 'at grade' design. This is akin to putting more lipstick on the pig.


What's been lacking in this entire conversation is thoughtful, honest analysis of how to BEST implement the rail requests that were made BY A MAJORITY OF HOUSTON AREA VOTERS. Whether or not you feel that the voters were correct in their decision is a mute point. The fact is that the ballot provision passed, and our elected officials, appointed transit boards with taxing and condemnation authority, and local business groups should now be saddled with providing us with the BEST option that satisfies the will of the voting public.


I haven't seen that advocacy group, the group that wants to see an increase in bus service by 50% (as promised in the election proposal), the group that wants to see commuter rail to the outlying areas (i.e. transportation that could REALLY decrease congestion) and the group that understands that transit, and highway contstruction are really just two peas in the same pod. The pod that tries to get people from point A to point B in the least amount of time.

In Houston, you're never going to convince 60% of the population to get out of their cars. I would guess that at least 20% of the "yes" vote for Metro Solutions voted that way in the hope that OTHER people would ride public transit, thus freeing up the roads for their use. That leaves around 30-35% of the population that would either choose to ride Metro, or HAVE to ride Metro because of no other option.

It would behoove Metro to take a look at that 30-35% of the populace and to try and determine what the best way is to get transit to those people, instead of trying to ram it down the other 65-70% of the population because some developer feels that there's more money to be made in their part of town.


OTHER EYES:

Off-the-Kuff: Chron Story on Universities DEIS.

To answer his question: Yes, anytime property is seized for public use I feel bad for the property owner. I said this about the I-10 expansion, I said it about the "Red Line", I say it here and I'll say it about the Hwy 290 expansion. His comment cuts both ways however. Christof treats the Hwy 290 land acquisition with a much harsher eye than he treats the Metro land acquisition.

290:

The big problem, though — the reason why maybe 300 filled a room last Monday night for the first of 3 public hearings — is land. There’s no room to widen 290 without taking more of it. In this case, that means displacing 100 houses, 300 apartment units, 2 churches, and 100 businesses.

Metro:

Where complete properties — or significant portions of properties — would be required people and business would lose their homes: between 12 and 13 businesses and between 13 and 24 residential units. This is significant in comparision to the Main Street line, which required almost no relocations. But it’s paltry compared to other transportation projects

Actually if you consider usage and miles travelled ratios between Hwy 290 and the Proposed MetroRail the land requirements for Hwy 290 are paltry compared to Metro's needs.

Just sayin'


BlogHouston: The sacrifice needed to make room for the University Rail Line.

To answer local Anti-transit activist Tom Bazan's question in the comments:

Yes, I am referring to rail. Houston are voters approved rail and, your communism accusations notwithstanding, are now seeing the results of the democratic process. Your attempts to undo the election do not change my mind, nor does your lumping me in with those you term N.U.T.S.

You'd be suprised who else you could include in the "transit isn't necessarily a bad thing" group.


Just becaue I think Metro is terrible doesn't mean that the entire public transportation concept is a bad idea.

Don't mess with my chocolate!!!!

From time to time there comes up on the radar screen a matter of such importance that political affiliations get tossed aside.

In the Houston blogosphere we've seen this most recently on the (failed) St. Arnold's Goes to Austin movement that never really got off the ground. (As far as I know there wasn't even a beer-filled wake for the movement which is criminal).

That travesty aside, I think the time has come to rally the blogosphere around another issue.

The issue of chocolate purity.

(from Andrew Bridges of the AP)

Like many battles, this one's being fought block by block. Victory, for whoever prevails, will be sweet. Or bitter — or even bittersweet.

It all depends on how you like your chocolate.

At stake is the very definition of chocolate, and whether cheaper vegetable oils can be substituted for what many consider the very quintessence of every block, bar and square of chocolate: cocoa butter.

In Europe, the cocoa butter vs. vegetable oil fight took 30 years to resolve. In the United States, it's been less than a year since the first volley. Hundreds of chocoholics have joined the fray, the outcome of which could in turn affect the livelihoods of millions of cocoa farmers in Africa and South America.

It all began in October, when a dozen industry groups filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration seeking to amend the standards that guide how nearly 300 foods can be produced, from canned cherries to evaporated milk.

Broadly speaking, the so-called standards of identity are meant to ensure listed products contain the right amount of key ingredients and are both properly made and not deceptively packaged. For example, chocolate in its purest state — the "liquor" made from ground, processed cacao beans — must contain between 50 percent and 60 percent cocoa butter, also known as cocoa fat.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, Chocolate Manufacturers Association and 10 other food industry groups want more flexibility in those rigid standards. They seek broad permission to add ingredients, use different techniques, employ new shapes and substitute ingredients — something the standards currently don't allow.

(snip)

Opponents of the change say it's out of step with the times.

"It's a real philosophical thing, just about the foods we eat. There is such a focus on people's wanting to know what's in the foods they eat, how they're grown, where they come from — this seems to fly against the direction of the way things are moving," said Gary Guittard, the president of California's Guittard Chocolate Co. and a leader of the opposition.

The broadly written petition skimps on the details but includes an appendix that lists examples of proposed changes. Tucked between requests to allow antifungals on bulk cheese and powdered milk in yogurt is what has people riled up the most: a proposal that would let manufacturers "use a vegetable fat in place of another vegetable fat named in the standard (e.g. cacao fat)."

Manufacturers already can use vegetable fats instead of cocoa butter — they just can't call it "chocolate." Hundreds of people have filed comments with the FDA, with the overwhelming majority seeking to keep it that way, according to an Associated Press review of the file.

Here's a link to the full text of the "updates":
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr970707.html.

And here's a link to the Guittard Chocolate "opposition" site:
http://dontmesswithourchocolate.guittard.com/...


So that's that then. Chocolate lover's of all political persuasions should unite immediately and stop this outrage against sweet, pure, decadent chocolate.

Keep your vegetable fat out of my Chocolate!!!!!


Thank you.

Government Logic

1. Make Ruling that promotes increased use of renewable energy.

2. Watch ruling have desired effect on marketplace.

3. Get rid of so-called "loop-hole" that makes renewable goal unattainable.

(From David Ivanovich of the Chron)

In language buried deep in an energy tax bill approved Saturday night, the House took direct aim at a plan by ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods to take advantage of a federal tax credit that could save them $175 million a year.

The House bill would overturn the Treasury Department's interpretation of a passage in existing law that allows Houston's ConocoPhillips and Springdale, Ark.-based Tyson to take a $1-per-gallon tax credit on diesel fuel made from animal fat.

The legislation, which passed the Democratic-controlled House easily, doesn't mention ConocoPhillips or Tyson by name.

But on page 46, under Sec. 203. Extension and Modification of Credits for Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel, paragraph (b), subparagraph (1), the bill would strike language from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that reads "using a thermal depolymerization process."

And that reference — oblique as it may be — could prove a painful blow to the two companies.

In April, ConocoPhillips and Tyson announced they were teaming up to use Tyson's beef, pork and poultry waste to produce 175 million gallons — or 4.2 million barrels — of renewable diesel fuel annually at existing ConocoPhillips refineries.

But the partners insist the project would not be economical without the tax credit.

(snip)

On Saturday, the House passed a pair of energy bills that would slow oil and gas drilling, go after companies that have been able to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without paying royalties to the federal government and hit up the industry for $16 billion in new taxes.

It's the tax portion of the package that effectively would block the two companies from taking the tax credit.

Don Duncan, ConocoPhillips' vice president for federal and international affairs, said company officials were "stunned" that lawmakers, who have criticized the oil companies for not doing enough to promote use of renewable sources, would throw up a roadblock to a project that would help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign crude.

"They chastised the industry for doing nothing, and then they want to stop us when we do propose doing something," Duncan said.

(snip)

But Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, who spearheaded the effort in the House to keep the companies from using the tax credit, said ConocoPhillips "already has tax preferences aplenty, but it wants yet another by merely dropping a dab of grease in its petroleum byproducts."

The change in the tax credit language, Doggett said, "is a fiscally responsible way to prevent green energy initiatives from being converted into boondoggles."

Got that?

The only renewable energy legislation that's going to be allowed to pass by Congress is legislation that damages the oil companies. If they somehow find a way to DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO (i.e. make a profit) then the legislation is "fiscally irresponsible" according to Doggett.

I've said it before that punitive legislation is quite frequently the idiots way of governing a Country. The "best" leaders understand that the way to policy change is not through "getting" a boogeyman that you've created, but by making your desired option more profitable than your undesired option.


Unless the "energy debate" is REALLY more about emotional pandering to a certain base to get votes than it is ensuring a reliable domestic energy supply.....


Not that our Government would EVER do something like that....put thier re-election in front of the needs of the Country?



Yup.

An odd argument from the City in regards to SOB's.

Matt Stiles provides us with an update of the Appeal to the 5th Circuit Court by Houston's Sexually Oriented Busniesses...

See if find the City's argument as odd as I do:

A federal appeals court today is expected to hear the latest challenge to restrictions preventing so-called sexually oriented businesses from operating too close to Houston's schools, parks and other "sensitive" areas.

The case before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans on behalf of several topless clubs and bookstores is the latest legal skirmish between the industry and the city, which a decade ago adopted a strict new law regulating the businesses.

(snip)

At issue today is whether an updated examination of alternative sites, now that Houston has grown more densely populated, should be used in determining whether the clubs still have room to relocate.

The city's position is that the previous analysis is sufficient.

"Our response is that the point of evaluating the sites is to know if the purpose of passing the ordinance was to eliminate these businesses," said Pat Zummo, the city's outside counsel who has worked on the issue for years. "That's something you could only judge at the time of the enactment of the ordinance."

(snip)

The location restrictions were just one part of a broader effort to regulate the more than 200 such businesses in Houston.

For example, the ordinance also requires that employees register with the police department. Performers can't get within three feet of patrons. And private "VIP" rooms aren't allowed.

The appeals court has issued an injunction against enforcement of the location restrictions against certain clubs pending the appeal, placing the case on the hearings calendar on an expedited schedule.

The stay prevents the city from arresting employees and owners at the Colorado Bar & Grill and The Men's Club, and at least five other large businesses that have joined in the appeal: Ritz Cabaret, Treasures, Trophy Club, Gold Cup and Centerfolds.

I'm not sure how anyone can justify using a 15-year old map to make a relocation decision today. I'm also not sure what's behind the employee registration provision and a host of other restrictions. Either these businesses are legal, or they're not.

If you want them out of business then pass a law.

The Shakeout...

First off, relax. The sky is not falling despite the tone of the Chron article on mortgage woes by Purva Patel and Nancy Sarnoff.

One of the nation's largest mortgage lenders, Houston-based Aegis Mortgage Corp., stopped taking new loans Monday, amid a day of news that signaled tougher days ahead for lenders and homebuyers.

"It's a bloodbath out there," said Mark Cady, senior vice president of Market Street Mortgage in Houston.

The announcement came on the same day New York-based American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection and Cleveland-based National City Corp. also stopped taking applications for new loans in its wholesale division.

Falling home prices nationwide and a rise in foreclosures have scared investors away from buying securities backed by home loans.

That, in turn, has led to tougher lending standards and higher interest rates.

(snip)

Aegis closed its subprime operation centers in Jacksonville, Fla., and Denver in September of 2006, and a few months later it consolidated 33 offices nationwide as it shifted its focus to less risky loans, before ultimately closing its retail lending arm in June.
"They were far ahead of the curve," Zugheri said. "They stopped their subprime operations but what they didn't stop was the Alt-A loan programs and then Wall Street decided not to take Alt-A loans either."

"Alt-A" is industry shorthand for "Alternative-A." They fall between prime and subprime loans in quality.

Guy Cecala, publisher and president of Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, noted that when companies stop taking loans, it can lead to layoffs and bankruptcy,

"It can happen very quickly. We saw it with American Home last week," he said. "They stopped funding loans last week, Friday they announced layoffs and today they filed for bankruptcy. This could very well be the same time frame."

What this doesn't mean is that you won't be able to get a home loan should you need one. Provided you have the financial means to qualify.

There will always be money available to loan to homebuyers who are looking to purchase a home in their price range. It's called the prime lending market and its doing just fine. So the sky is not falling on the mortgage industry, despite all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Companies like Aegis, who delved too deeply into the sub-prime and alt-a pool, may be in trouble as is American Home Mortgage, but that's a pretty normal phoenomenon when an industry overreaches and stops making sound lending decisions.

All the (very) olds that's fit to print.....

Huh?...

(from the Chron)





July FOURTEENTH?!?!?!?!?!

On Richard Justice's ego.

Richard Justice can't help himself:

He hates Barry Bonds and lets all of us know about it:

Congratulations, Barry. You did it. You joined the 755-homer club Saturday night. You and Hank Aaron. How does that feel, Barry?

You now share baseball's most coveted milestone with one of its most respected players. Thanks to you, the record feels different. It feels a bit less magical. In fact, the entire game feels diminished.

On the other hand, you certainly did it your way. You did it without regard to what teammates, managers, coaches or fans thought of you. You apparently were unbothered by the rules, either. You believed the means justified the end.

You got the record you'd wanted from the moment you saw the love showered on Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa after the 1998 season. You'd been a respected player, but never a beloved one. You wanted some of what they had.

You did it by getting huge. According to exhaustive reporting by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters, you did it by using an array of illegal performance-enhancing drugs.

At a time when many players are starting to decline, you got better and better. Beginning in the summer you turned 36, you averaged 52 home runs a season. You'd averaged 37 in the five years before you added those slabs of muscle. You showed the world that steroids and human growth hormone do work. You've won a record seven National League Most Valuable Player trophies, but four of them are tainted by steroids.

You got a record, but lost a reputation.

Maybe Richard would like Bonds better if he cried during a speech:

I've always wondered if people really know the full story of Michael Irvin. He got in trouble off the field so many times that it came to define him as both a person and a player. That Michael Irvin isn't the one his teammates and coaches knew at Valley Ranch. They knew someone who worked harder than almost anyone and was as decent and caring as any person you'll ever meet.

I'm guessing a lot of them had tears in their eyes Saturday when Michael gave that brilliantly delivered and emotionally charged speech at Canton. Of the ones I've heard, only Terry Bradshaw's comes close in being able to touch your heart.

Irvin gave a cathartic 26-minute acceptance speech chock full of thank-yous and apologies as he became the 10th member of the Cowboys enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

He began to cry 21 minutes into his speech as he spoke to his sons, Michael and Elijah.

"That's where my heart is," he said. "I say to God, 'I have my struggles, and I made some bad decisions, but whatever you do, don't let me mess this up.' I say, 'Please help me raise them for some young lady so that they can be a better husband than I.' "

Several times, Irvin alluded to the scandals that have tarnished his reputation, embarrassed his family and caused his wife, Sandi, to cry herself to sleep more than once. He offered no excuses for his behavior; only apologies.

Obviously in the warped, morally black and white world of Richard Justice, some drug offenses are greater than others. "Proof" is what reporters say it is, and a tear-filled apology (which Bonds has yet to offer) is all that's needed for the restoration of one's character.

Of course, that type of thinking ignores certain (some would say key) facts:

1. Barry Bonds has NEVER failed a drug test.

I'm not implying that Barry Bonds never took performing enhancing drugs. There seems to be enough information out there to provide a strong case that he did. What Richard Justice omits however is that the "tireless reporting" that he referred to publically released sealed Grand Jury testimony which denied Bonds due process. In response we were given some clap-trap about the "greater good" by a sports journalism trade whose trust rating is somewhere South of Congress and President Bush.

2. No. 755 was hit off of a confirmed drug cheat.

Clay Hensley was suspended in 2005 for failing a drug test in the minor leagues. Oddly enough, you don't read anything about that in Justice's missive on how Bonds has ruined the sport of baseball.

3. Which is worse?

Barry Bonds probably used drugs to prolong his career and obtain a record in a sport played by Millionaires. Michael Irvin was caught driving a car with a crack pipe inside, has been charged at least twice with drug possession, and has been accused of driving (and potentially putting others at risk) while on said drugs.


Pardon me if I can't whip up the same can of elitism that Justice does over the whole Bonds issue, nor can I be so flippant as to be willing to wash away several years of drug abuse (and disrespect for the game) from Irvin based on one 26 minute speech, no matter how heart-wrenching that speech may have been.


Michael Irvin certainly belongs in the NFL Hall of Fame. His punishment for his off-the-field indiscretions was that he had to wait one year before pundits like Justice fawned all over him. Barry Bonds belongs in Cooperstown as well. The question is whether or not a handful of writers who believe that they are the moral guardians of the game will ever let him in?

Hopefully, by the time this question is asked, the sporting community will realize that we are giving the keys to the legacy to a bunch of critics. And we all know the old saying about critics.


Congrats to both Barry and Michael for their achievements.

Two different takes on $800 Million bonds.

The Chron's Jennifer Radcliffe provides us with an interesting compare/contrast of CFISD and HISD expenditures and how they might relate to the upcoming bond issues:

HISD...is rebuilding many of its aging campuses. In an effort to turn around a reputation for inefficient bureaucracy, the district spent $42 million from its most recent bond issue on project management fees.

Cypress-Fairbanks is working to stay on top of growth, rapidly churning out large, almost cookie-cutter campuses. Even though its total debt is less than HISD's, Cy-Fair's modest tax base requires homeowners to pay twice the rate for bonds as their urban neighbors.

(snip)

One of the most striking differences is the amount of public involvement in developing these huge bond proposals.
Some HISD board members didn't learn until last week that their proposal would seek $805 million to build 22 campuses and renovate 128 others. They say the short timeline and minimal public input make it difficult for them to vet the plan.

"That's not fair to us as trustees and it's not fair to us as voters," said trustee Greg Meyers.

Cy-Fair developed its $806.8 million proposal with the help of a 70-member committee that met six times in the spring. Their report has been on Cy-Fair's Web site for weeks.

(snip)

Even Cy-Fair students might not be able to pick out their own campuses from aerial photos. To mass-produce schools as efficiently as possible, the district uses just a handful of blueprints. It also uses many of the same materials district-wide, down to the trademark "Cy-Fair Blue" carpeting.
The repeat designs save at least 2 percent in architecture fees, or $220,000 on a typical $11 million elementary school, officials said. Still, with the prototype high school approaching $100 million, some homeowners say it may be time to rethink what's considered standard.

"You're trying to be very fiscally responsible in a very lavish outline," said Alan Rankin, co-founder of the CyFair Citizens watchdog group.

HISD used a prototype to build four pre-kindergarten centers, but the rest of the new schools were custom-built.

"HISD has chosen to try to make their schools responsive to the communities they're in," said architect Chris Hudson, who serves on Houston's bond oversight committee.

(snip)

Hundreds of decisions are made for each new campus, from the type of flooring to whether each room will have natural light. Experts say there's no right answer to what material is best for the long haul: Maintenance costs are as important as the initial price.
HISD, for example, has begun shying away from carpeting, citing air-quality concerns. It relies on options such as vinyl tile, ranging from $1.10 to $2 per square foot, or terrazzo, which costs $12 to $14 a square foot.

Cy-Fair is sticking with $2.28-per-square-foot carpeting, saying the initial cost may be higher, but the rubber backing alleviates many air-quality issues, lasts 20 years and is easy to maintain.

To accommodate its booming enrollment, Cy-Fair designs larger campuses. A typical HISD elementary school is 86,000 square feet and holds 750 kids, a size Houston leaders say better suits children. Cy-Fair's elementaries are up to 99,350 square feet and can hold up to 1,040 students.

There's a fairly well defined dichotomy in thinking between the two districts, and Ms. Radcliffe did a good job delineating the two without taking an editorial position as to which is the superior approach.

What IS evident is that both districts face unique sets of challenges and, despite a glut of stories touting the renewal of the urban core, the outlying school districts are still experiencing a majority of the new growth while HISD continues to shrink.

As no-child taxpayer in the Cy-Fair district, I am grateful that the district seems to at least be making an attempt to be a good steward of my tax dollars. While I still have some severe reservations about atriums and other flourishes in certain schools, I feel that, overall, Cy-Fair does a good job keeping me in the loop about what they are doing with my tax dollars, and makes a good case as to why the growth is needed.

HISD, on the other hand, is still facing severe public trust issues as they struggle to come out into the sunshine.

Why is America's Infrastructure crumbling?

We've all seen the terrible images of the Minnesota bridge collapse, heard the heroic stories and of course suppressed our gag reflex as the politicians held court on an ageing infrastructure.

(From Nick Miroff of the Washington Post)

The bridge that lies crumpled in the Mississippi River is the latest link to fail in a national highway system rapidly deteriorating under the strain of ever-increasing traffic volume and inadequate upkeep, transportation experts said yesterday.

(snip)

Despite record spending on highways, experts and engineers said federal funds aren't enough to save the interstate system's half-century old bridges and 47,000 miles of highway from further decay, as a network designed to connect the nation teeters under a crush of commuter traffic.

"We're falling further and further behind," said Robert Poole, director of transportation studies at Reason Foundation and an adviser to the Federal Highway Administration. "We're prospering as a nation, driving more as commuters and shipping more goods, and that's pounding the highways and wearing them out."

Ever the opportunist, Lose an Eye favorite Harry Reid (predictably) stepped up to the plate, and grounded out weakly to first:

"We have all over the country crumbling infrastructure -- highways, bridges, dams -- and we really need to take a hard look at this," Reid said in a television interview.

In Houston, where new highway expenditures face less political opposition than in the North, the news is a little better but still not encouraging.

Which leads us to ask the question: How did things get this bad?

Was it the Bush Tax Cuts?

That's the thinking of one member of the InterLeft:

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- while the country is at war -- has forced the underfunding of the maintenance of America's infrastructure. Just as the Army Corps of Engineers couldn't spend the money in New Orleans to fix the problems with the levees that they knew existed long before Katrina ever came ashore, the DOT likely knew there were problems with that bridge, but the money wasn't there to fix it.

Of course, that argument is shredded by the fact that even the experts on the Left side of the aisle are admitting that we are spending more on infrastructure now than ever before. Clearly the money is there.

On the Right side of the aisle there's been nothing to date, which is not terribly unusual from the inept Republicans. I'm sure they'll talk a little about mis-placed priorities and a need to better direct the spending that's already there, but (as is usual) by the time they coalesce around this message the Democrats will have beaten them to the punch on every media feed that matters.

So....who's right?

When you strip away the politics, BOTH are going to be partially correct, but neither side will have the intellectual honesty to address the entire breadth of the issue.

The simple fact is America has not been spending enough on the maintenance of her infrastructure. If America was a human her arteries would be 80% clogged with a massive heart attack looming. Sadly, America has also been spending too much of her limited resources on "feel-good" transportation projects. Paying too much for cosmetic surgery while throwing a fit whenever meaningful medicine is prescribed. The money that Houston spent building a mini-train that doesn't reduce congestion could have been spent updating countless bridges to ward-off a catastrophe. Minneapolis Metro is in the same boat as Metro Houston, with a large percentage of their resources tied up in a costly light rail line that doesn't do much to decrease congestion.

What all this means is that America is not spending enough to maintain roads, and is not doing much to try and remove traffic from them to prolong their lives. It's both a question of spending, AND priorities. If you understand that then you grasp the fact that the infrastructure problem runs deeper than just a knee-jerk reaction against one's political opposites. It's going to involve long-range planning, some cuts in pet projects, and sacrifice from the taxpayer to make this right.

Mrs. White: TAKS is bad, UNLESS it can be used to fuel the catapult.

Over the years, Houston Chronicle readers have been exposed to several columns and editorials telling them how BAD the TAKS test was for judging school performance.

Here's just a taste of what Mrs. White told you in 2002:

In determining what would constitute a passing score on the new Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, the State Board of Education set a fairly unimpressive standard.

Contrast that to today's glowing missive using TAKS scores to justify fueling an 800 Million dollar bond package..

Houston Independent School District Superintendent Abelardo Saavedra wants trustees to put an $805 million construction bond proposal to a public vote. He couldn't have asked for better backup than a positive report card just issued by the Texas Education Agency.

Based largely on student scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, the annual rating of district campuses showed the number of poorly performing HISD schools had been reduced by half, from 33 to 17. This is in marked contrast to small increases in the number of unacceptable schools statewide. Because testing standards were toughened this year, HISD's improvement in student test scores was even more impressive. The 204,000-student Houston system also did better than Dallas ISD, the second largest school district in the state.

Odd that now, after years of fiscal mismanagement, and dubious spending priorities the District has decided to make, you know, SCHOOLS a priority. Now, that the housing market is poised to fall. Now, that a bond issuance this large will require a huge tax increase to fund when the housing market collapses. Now, after years of fiscal and operational mismanagement have basically left the citizens of the District with little (if any) choice.

My prediction is that the bond will pass with a little over 60% of the vote.

It's just ironic that, after years of bashing the TAKS Testing system, Mrs. White is forced to use it to justify increasing taxes long-term on citizens.

That should provide you with a moments pause, if nothing else.

Other Eyes:
Red Ink: Texas - Of booms, busts and bonds; Mortgaging our future.

Off the Kuff: HISD asks for bond money.

And he said it with a straight face too...

Today's Washington DC future comedian award goes to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell commenting on the Congressional back pat ethics bill that passed the Senate today...

(From Charles Babington of the AP via the Chron)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gave the measure a lukewarm endorsement.

"This bill isn't nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it," McConnell said. "But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law."

Because we ALL know how tough Republicans have been when it comes to cracking down on earmarks.


Not to be outdone, I present to you the runner up:

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid...

McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said it was ludicrous to suggest someone in his position would "cheat and lie" to hide earmarks.

Note to Harry Reid: Congress has an approval rating on par with that of the President.

It's no more ludicrous to imagine a Senator lying than it is to picture the Republicans as ethics reformers.


An independent ethics board would be a nice start.

Get ready for $5 gasoline.

If this energy bill passes that's what you are going to see.

(From David Ivanovich of the Chron)

The Democrats' proposal aims to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil through a series of measures to conserve energy and boost use of renewable energy sources.

The bills includes new efficiency standards for dishwashers, refrigerators and other appliances; new more energy efficient lighting proposals, expanded use of ethanol and tax incentives for consumers to buy more fuel-efficient ''plug-in'' hybrid cars, which feature batteries that can be recharged when the car is not in use.

Republicans contend the bill actively discourages domestic oil and gas production, by taking areas with sizeable natural gas potential, such as Colorado's Roan Plateau, off the table.

(snip)

House Democrats, who have been arguing among themselves over fuel efficiency standards, opted not to address the issue in this bill.

The Democrats' package includes a tax bill which would slap the oil companies with $16 billion worth of new taxes, excluding them from a scheduled rollback in the corporate tax rate for U.S. manufacturers, for instance, increasing the taxes they will pay on operations overseas and complicating their efforts to write off exploration and production expenses.

The Senate rejected a somewhat similar tax package targeting the oil companies.

Let it be known that I fully understand why everyone is angry with Big Domestic Oil. I hear it every day. When I tell someone where I work, and if they're of the correct political persuasion, then I'm sure to get an earful about how I'm either: a.) killing the Earth, or b.) killing our troops. Of course, the person speaking typically then goes and hops into their SUV with the "Kerry '04" sticker fading on the bumper. Read into that what you will.

My main point here is this: If you want to try and ween America OFF of foreign oil, then why try and prohibit (in the short term) production of domestic resources? Sure, there are always going to be the tired ol' hemp-wearing environmentalist who drives an 80's Volvo diesel who'll tell you that they WANT to see the economy run off the edge of a cliff. I believe that the majority of Americans aren't that stupid. They may be a little emotional on the issue (who isn't when they are paying $3 per gallon for gasoline) but, deep down, they understand that change is going to take time to foster. I'm willing to bet that most Americans would accept the logic behind making domestic production easier in the short-term, provided that was off-set with incentives to move to renewables in increasing increments over time.

Consider this: Currently, as everyone blames big oil for raping the planet, every major oil company (save one, which shall remain nameless here) has established a renewables energy company designed to take the lead in what everyone sees is a future growth sector. The way I see it, they have the transportation and storage infrastructure already in place, so why don't we try to adapt to what's already there, instead of trying to knock them down and build an entire new mousetrap?

Over the years the best public policy has been that which has sought to work with Americans and American businesses to try and address problems on the horizon. American industry took advantage of tax brakes to retrofit their refineries to produce armaments and supplies for the soldiers abroad. The Gov't didn't make this happen by taxing the factories to death, they enacted change through a series of enticements designed to make it profitable for companies to be Patriotic (and still make the payroll BTW). Punitive legislation, like the Democrats current energy bill, is really just legislation without imagination. It's purpose is not to expand future energy opportunities, but to damage an industry that they've set up as the bad guy in all of this to win elections and retain power.

I'm all for finding cleaner energy. I don't want to have to lose my job, my house, my means of earning a living to do so. There are many on one side of the aisle who would find pleasure in that. I don't understand that way of thinking at all. Do you?

Open story, insert joke.

Miya Shay let's us know how some Houston City Employees are spending their Fridays and Saturdays...

Where to find your city leaders on Fridays and Saturdays: In school! Actually, for familiar City Hall faces are diving into the Executive MBA program at University of Houston.

One name sticks out:

They are: council members Carol Alvarado and Ronald Green, Director Issa Dadoush, and Mayor's Deputy Chief of Staff Terence Fontaine.

Go ahead, say it. You know you want to.

Heading to Venice for quotes about Houston

Only in Houston does this make any sense whatsoever:

(from Mrs. White's one-week-late Infernal Bridegroom post-mortem in the Chron)

That attachment to Houston, mixed with boundless nerve, means that IBP's closure saddened a far broader audience than the Axiom's 85 seats might suggest.

"I felt like I got punched in the stomach," wrote Maureen McNamara, creator of the Hot Town, Cool City Web site, which documents Houston's little known cultural gems.

Currently studying in Venice, McNamara said she hoped IBP's core performers would somehow coalesce again.

In the meantime, she wrote, maybe "the loss will drive us to more strongly value the great alternative arts scene that we have."

I present to you exhibit A as evidence in the case of everything that's possibly wrong with the movers, shakers and opinion makers in Houston.

Hey you! Taxpayer, shut up!!

That seemed to be the message from the State yesterday as Conservative activist Bruce Hotze was told by a judge that he didn't have standing:

(From Matt Stiles of the Chron)

In the latest court decision affecting the city's finances, a state district judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging two ballot measures Houston voters approved last fall.

The suit, brought by local businessman and limited-government activist Bruce Hotze, sought to invalidate Propositions G and H. He claimed the measures, which loosened restrictions on how much revenue the city can raise from taxes and other sources, were not lawfully drafted or proposed.

But the city's outside counsel, Scott Atlas of Weil, Gotshal & Manges law firm, successfully argued that Hotze didn't have the right to sue.

"The city followed the letter in the law in every respect in putting Propositions G and H on the ballot," said Atlas, who also represents the city in another Hotze lawsuit in support of a city revenue cap, known as Proposition 2, that voters approved in 2004.

Hotze and others pushed the plan. But the same year, Mayor Bill White offered a more limited, competing cap — known as Proposition 1.

White has argued that his proposal, which received more votes, should apply.

A state district judge in that case ruled against the city. The city appealed, and a state appeals court heard arguments last month.

With that battle pending in court, White crafted and campaigned for Propositions G and H, which Hotze said gutted the Proposition 2 revenue cap.

(snip)

Reiter's order doesn't explain the decision, which was handed down Friday. But the city's legal team asked for the dismissal, claiming that Hotze had filed the suit too late — and that he didn't have "standing," a legal term referring to people who have the right to sue because they were somehow injured by another's party's actions. Atlas argued that Hotze wasn't affected by the ballot measures more than the average voter, and therefore couldn't sue.

Regardless of your feelings regarding the legitimacy of Mr. Hotze's argument, his position or his limited Government activism, you have to be concerned about the judge upholding the argument made by the City that a Taxpayer doesn't have legal standing concerning the taxes that are levvied upon them.

Would Hotze's case win on its merits? Doubtful. The bills that he was protesting in court seemed (to my untrained eye) to be lawfully drafted and voted into law. Maybe (hopefully) someone with a legal background will expound on this either in the comments here or on their own blogs.

It's a little scary to me however that we will find a chorus of cheers for this judge voting that taxpayers don't have standing just because they have an idealogical axe to grind with Mr. Hotze.


UPDATE: According to a commenter on Kuff's posting regarding the same the judgement in question was based on the "Taxpayer Standing Doctrine" which basically upholds the principle that you cannot sue just because you are a taxpayer, with the courts electing to leave these issues to the legislative side of the aisle...

So, basically, its higher taxes and fees for everyone.

Things I never thought I'd say (Part One)

The first in a continuing series:

1. Can we bring back Rick Casey?