[From the Press Release]
The Locke campaign yesterday called into question City Controller Annise Parker’s decision earlier this week to submit a memo to the Mayor and City Council, that raised serious questions about the Houston Airport System Development Corporation’s (HASDC) impact on the City of Houston’s finances.Nice of Locke to ignore the full investigation by Texas Watchdog, which provides full detail of the agreement, and which also spurred the following comment from one Richard Vacar:
Parker’s memo was made public on Monday and was followed that evening by stories in the Houston Chronicle and on Channel 13 Eyewitness News featuring Parker’s forewarning that HASDC’s finances could put in jeopardy the city’s financial health. The Channel 13 story began with Parker warning the Mayor that “the city may be in for a rough ride at the airport,” while the Chronicle story contained the alarming headline, “Controller Sees a Financial Cloud Over the City”.
This flurry of overheated headlines centered on whether the city’s finances could be negatively affected by HASDC, a question that had been answered when HASDC was created. No one should understand this better than Parker, who not only voted in favor of the creation of HASDC as a member of the city council in 2001 but as the City Controller is tasked with overseeing the city’s finances.
Furthermore, as reported in the Houston Chronicle today, “Robert Bland, an expert on government finance who chairs the Department of Public Administration at the University of North Texas, deemed the chances of that remote, and said research has shown that for governments, qualified opinions have a minimal impact, at least initially, on borrowing costs.”
Rick Vacar on July 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I've been reading your various articles on HASDC. I am amazed at the breathtaking ignorance of your reporting. You have missed the big picture completely. You have also totally misrepresented the facts. HASDC has been from the begining a great idea, not original given the fact many international airports are in this business, and your position has been something's wrong. Actually, something's right.
After speaking with Texas Watchdog staff it's pretty clear that they'd like to know specifically which 'facts' they supposedly misrepresented. However, since Vacar seems unwilling to provide details, we may never know.
It should also be pointed out that Locke's complaints are omitting half of the quote by Mr. Bland. The following excerpt from Bradley Olson's piece in ChronBlog fills in the blanks:
But Parker's questions, he said, are warranted.
“The controller's totally within her prerogative to raise some tough questions about this,” he said, characterizing as “highly unusual” HASDC's use of city employees for international consulting work. “The city needs to look at this situation a little more carefully,” Bland suggested.
2 theories:
1. This is an election where all of the major candidates pretty much agree with each other on the big issues. When that kind of stuff happens political opertives get bored and you get press releases of this type.
2. It's widely thought that Gene Locke is the "establishment" candidate, having the backing of Houston King-maker Bob Lanier and his cabal of influential (and deep pocketed) downtown developers and business-owners. At the time the HASDC was approved it was considered to be a program that had the blessing of the Houston insider establishment. Is it any wonder then that their chosen candidate would rise up when its worth is challenged?
