Fireballs, Lightning Bolts and Hell Storms

Facebook website statistics: July 2010

The Wizard just gazed into his crystal ball got out of a meeting with a vendor at work. The vendor in question just sold $17 million worth of widgets to Facebook. The reason for this? I learned the following stuff about Facebook's website:

1) Facebook users spend 16 billion minutes on the website every day.

2) Facebook users click on over 1 million photographs that are hosted on the site every second.

Wow! Now that's some wizardry!

On Pat Lykos and pennies for justice

On Friday, July 16th 2010, the Houston Property Rights Association welcomed Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos as its speaker. The Wizard had set up a Facebook event for Attorney Lykos's event, ergo her speech managed to attract several dozen new faces that we had never seen before. It was a successful event.

Mrs. Lykos didn't really need an introduction to the audience, as she is a well known local and state politics. She has spent her working career in law enforcement and criminal justice, starting as a police officer, then working her way through law school. Later she became a criminal court judge before eventually winning election as Harris County District Attorney.

The Wizard didn't take detailed notes on Lykos's speech, but The Wizard found Lykos to be a refreshing speaker. After having spent many years attending public meetings and lunches, and hearing untold numbers of windbag speakers and audience members talk at such events, Lykos proved to be direct and to the point. When several audience members raised their hands and started going off tangent on issues that had little or nothing to do with the topics being discussed at hand, as many people are won't to do, Lykos would get straight to the point in dealing with such people. She would summarize their remarks, answer them, and move on to the next person. She is the type of person who doesn't like people wasting their time or her time and the Wizard doesn't doubt that this comes from Ms. Lykos having spent years as a judge sitting on the bench.

Several matters Lykos touched on were:

1) The Harris County District Attorney office employs some 300 attorneys and support staff that sift through scores of thousands of cases every year, whereas Lykos told the audience that Cook County (Chicago) has more than three times as many personnel with only twice the population of Harris County.

Without having a thorough knowledge of the situation, it's hard for the Wizard to judge whether hiring more prosecutors and support staff would result in better criminal justice, or would it result in what would effectively amount to zero marginal productivity from the extra prosecutors and staff.

2) The 2010 budget for the DA's office was reduced by the Harris County Commissioner's Court from $60 million to $54 million. It blows the Wizard's mind that the DA's budget is that small. The DA's office is only 4 percent of the Harris County commissioners budget.

3) Lykos briefly addressed the issues of drugs and rehabilitation. Lykos argues that we do not do enough for rehabilitation, and that is socially costly as falling back into that kind of life often causes one's life to go downhill. On drugs, Lykos is a conservative. She flatly stated that anyone who thinks that drug legalization is the answer to the drug issue had not seen anyone on methamphetamines. Nobody brought up the crack pipe policy, though in all fairness nobody probably had that issue on their minds beforehand.

4) Lykos cited a number of prominent cases, including various sex offender cases where her office had worked with a number of local, state, federal, and international law enforcement bodies to bring people to justice. One person made a criticism on whether this was good use of tax dollars, but Lykos stated that criminals needed to be shown that fleeing would not save them from justice.

5) A regional crime lab. Lykos campaigned on support for a regional crime lab. The Wizard has written some thoughts on whether a regional crime lab would be better than what we have now for crime labs or whether we would merely be transferring the problems we have today to a new regional lab. However, Lykos did say that the City of Houston and Harris County were in negotiations over a regional lab, but more importantly she stated that the cost of a new lab would only be a few million dollars.

Just days after Lykos spoke to HPRA, the Houston Chronicle carried a story reminding the public that the Houston Police Department still has a backlog of over 4,000 rape test kits dating back to 1996, on top of nearly 1,000 new criminal cases that await DNA testing. Then came the case of Allen Wayne Porter, which DNA evidence showed could not link him to a rape crime where an eyewitness identified him as being the perpetrator.

The Chronicle story on Lykos's call for a temporary DNA lab mentioned that the Houston Police Department applied for a $1.1 million federal grant to help clear up the backlog of DNA cases under HPD's jurisdiction. That's right folks - only $1.1 million, and somehow we can't find the money to clear up backlogs of cases for rape victims. The Houston City Council recently approved a $4.2 billion budget, Metro owes the City of Houston $160 million in back payments but is still too busy wanting to build trains, and America has a federal government that is now running annual deficits of over $1 trillion per year!

Lykos mentioned that if we were to rectify this injustice to criminal victims (and the accused) - and this clearly is an injustice - then Houstonians are going to have to start lobbying Houston City Council and the County Commissioners to get this backlog taken care of.

The Obama administration and the left have long claimed that they are for "social justice" and making America a "fair" society. Lost amongst those claims however, is that the first claims - made before any others - as to why men instituted government is to protect property rights, to make sure that people can sleep in their beds at night in peace, and to seek justice for those who have been wronged through criminal acts perpetrated by others. Yet somehow we can't seem to find a few comparative nickels and dimes to better do criminal justice, while untold billions are spent through federal entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, bailing out failed corporations and Wall Street, contracts, millions of government jobs, wars, and redistributed through the tax codes. And the Wizard thinks that something is really wrong when we've lost sight of that.

Wizard

Letting public infrastructure go to pot

The Houston Chronicle carried the story On July 8th, 2010, that the Renew Houston charter amendment campaign had reportedly garnered 30,000 signatures which they turned into the City Secretary's office for verification and certification for going on the November 2010 ballot.

The Wizard has heard CM Stephen Costello speak twice on the Renew Houston initiative, and intends to blog about the matter, but before writing about the charter amendment campaign, the Wizard decided to quote Renew Houston itself as to why the promoters are pushing this agenda:

Houston is an aging city. Over 60 % of all drainage and streets are past their useful life; 80% will be past their useful life in the next 20 years. When a street is assigned for re-construction, it takes the city 12 years before the work will commence due to lack of funding. ...

Americans are seemingly bombarded left and right with stories of aging infrastructure that hasn't been worked on for decades, that of course needs billions of new tax dollars over and above what governments already spend to be successfully maintained. At the same time, America has witnessed spectacular infrastructure failures in recent years, including the failures of the levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis. President Obama's new head of the FTA, Peter Rogoff, made a speech in Boston in May 2010, where he stated that the six largest local government transit agencies in America had $50 billion in deferred maintenance of their rail lines, and now Houstonians are being told by an interest group campaign that 60 percent of Houston streets and drainage are past their useful life.

So, this begs the question: Why is it that governments, whether local, state, or federal, seemingly fail over and over and over again not to do needed maintenance on existing infrastructure? The easy answer to such a question would be, "What do you expect Wizard? Of course the gummit don't do things right! Why should this be any different? Why do you want to waste our time on this?" Well, if that's your answer, then maybe we should be privatizing public infrastructure. After all, this is an endemic problem!

But as though on queue, last month the Wizard received his most recent issue of The Independent Review. In the issue, economist Dr. John Bratland addresses the neglect of public infrastructure through comparing how a private entrepreneur handles capital (and capital goods), verses how politicians and bureaucrats spend their political and bureaucratic capital.

Dr. Bratland's article makes for great reading. Without going through the entire article, the Wizard will focus on the high points of what Bratland is saying.

Market signaling: Bratland notes that there is a distinction between capital and capital goods. Capital could be construed as everything that an entrepreneur has at their disposal in order to make judgments that help maintain, and hopefully increase, the income and profit stream of the enterprise. This includes labor, land, cash receivables, whatever. Capital goods are individual pieces of capital, including that land, labor, finance, machinery, etc. Bratland points out that the entrepreneur operates in a framework of contracts and private property rights that help guide the entrepreneur towards making the best decisions, and that the entrepreneur often faces competitive pressures and operates under some uncertainty about the future.

Bratland goes on to say that entrepreneurs will incorporate decisions on the purchase and maintenance of capital goods, based on whether they will maintain or increase the income stream. Entrepreneurs may decide, for example, to defer maintenance for a while on capital goods, if the entrepreneur judges that there will be little or no effect on the overall income stream. But, Bratland points out that successful entrepreneurs always incorporate maintenance costs into maintaining the capital goods in their purview. The entrepreneur will get market signals and feedback that help the entrepreneur make decisions on maintenance and replacement of capital goods.

Verses no market signals: Needless to say, none of this framework exists in the world of public infrastructure maintenance. Bratland points out that there is no market of exchange when it comes to public infrastructure and there are no private property rights. Most importantly, there is no market signal to indicate that a street, a freeway, a sewer line, drainage culverts, or any other element of public infrastructure needs to be maintained or for that matter be replaced! There is no income stream available to tell governments that maintaining existing infrastructure is the correct thing to do.

Politicians and bureaucrats will have, and pursue, conflicting agendas upon assuming office and during the course of their careers. Politicians may come under political or competitive pressures to keep taxes and expenditures low. Politicians may or may not be in a position to obtain substantial monies for infrastructure maintenance via the legislative process for their districts. Politicians will also spend monies on infrastructure if they can perceive that it will enhance their power, career goals, or affect roll call votes in other issues. Politicians may perceive for example, that they can gain more votes or power through voting to devote monies towards health care or education, rather than infrastructure maintenance. Politicians or bureaucrats may deny maintenance monies to other politicians, bureaucracies, or geographical areas, if it were to meet certain goals. Bureaucrats may have career goals that include obtaining jobs in academia or the lucrative private sector, which often have little or nothing to do with maintaining public infrastructure. Politicians and bureaucrats often correctly perceive that they often can gain more power, prestige, or favorable press, through building new infrastructure over maintaining existing infrastructure. Both politicians and bureaucrats may or may not be particularly publicly spirited in their actions.

But most of all, bureaucrats and politicians really are not in a position to be able to weigh whether building new infrastructure or maintaining older infrastructure is the best use of public dollars, since there is no market mechanism to guide their decisions. Making such decisions inevitably involves making some judgment about opportunity costs and social welfare, of which there are no real answers. Considering all these factors, as stunning as this sounds, neglecting existing infrastructure for years or decades and letting it go to pot could be - and often is - the best political outcome from the perspective of people who are involved in the political process.

Next, the Wizard will address the Renew Houston charter amendment.

Wizard

Sheila Jackson Lee and HISD

About two weeks ago, Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey carried the story of the resolution of a scandal over at HISD, concerning the work performance of Kashmere High School principal Mable Caleb. Chronicle reporter Ericka Mellon wrote on how the HISD probe had widened to reaching Key Middle School. Employees have been implicated in an investigation that found evidence of cheating on state tests, profiting off student fundraisers and nepotism.

The Wizard generally doesn't get interested in what goes on in government schools, mostly because even though I pay taxes to HISD, the fact of the matter is that HISD is a government school district that has 200,000 students, some 20,000 employees, and a mob of interest groups. There really isn't too much I can do to have any influence on what goes on there. Government schools are a mess that are now effectively beyond redemption, with no end of apologists to speak up for them. Spending on government schooling has skyrocketed over the decades, but SAT test scores have effectively been either flat or declining over the past 40 years.

But none of this is what really caught the Wizard's attention. What caught my eye was that Rick Casey reported that HISD Superintendent Terry Grier got a phone call two days before Christmas from Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, as well as State Representative Harold Dutton, and HISD trustee Carol Mimns Galloway. As Mr. Casey's story made it clear, the phone call that Ms. Jackson Lee gave Mr. Grier was not exactly about wishing Mr. Grier a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

The responses to Mr. Casey's story were telling. Reader "mimi3" wrote,

The arrogance and gall of SJL to think that she can interfere in HISD affairs and tell the superintendent how to do his job is just disgusting. Obviously, she has been doing this for quite a while. It will be interesting to watch the fur fly if Grier continues to stand up to her!

This reader has a very interesting point to bring up, namely what was Sheila Jackson Lee doing yelling at the head of a local school district, presumably telling him to call off the dogs on an internal investigation into possible malfeasance within a district school? After all, HISD does stand for the Houston Independent School District.

Well, that begs to start asking what influence does Congress have over our schools? On paper, not much. 90 percent of government school funding comes from local taxpayers, and state governments. It is state governments, through their education codes, that compel kids to attend school, and set out the overall government school agenda. However, this 10 percent level of federal funding is up from the 6 percent that it was back in 2000, before President Bush came along and decided he needed to show voters that he cared about their kids through compassionate conservativism.

Where Congress does have influence is through money. Thanks to lots of payroll and income taxes, along with all that borrowing power, Congress has passed a slew of mandates and enacted plenty of programs since the 1960's. The 2009 federal budget, which had $1.5 trillion in red ink, included a $96 billion infusion from the ARRA, a $53 billion injection of federal funds into local school systems in the form of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which included $5 billion for Mr. Obama's new federal program Race to the Top. Other long standing federal directives include the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which will dish out $12 billion in 2010, but has gotten criticism as yet another unfunded federal mandate amongst other issues.

So, the federal government's role in education has mostly been one of being a money dispenser, not as the primary rule maker. However, even that relatively small role is more than enough for a member of Congress to take an interest in a local school district if he or she chooses. After all, he who has the gold gets to make the rules, ergo Mrs. Jackson Lee might well have threatened Mr. Grier with cutting off federal dollars for HISD under the Stabilization Fund, from Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds, or from IDEA. But ultimately, who knows what was said, other than those who participated in the phone call? All we know is that Mrs. Jackson Lee did make the call. And why did she do it? Because she could, that's why.

The point being made here is that liberals, or others who justify federal intervention into schooling if for no other reasons than that it attracts votes, cannot expect the world to work as planned after they enact such programs. If you advocate federal intervention into government schooling, then don't be surprised when a member of Congress decides to take an interest in what otherwise is a local problem that has nothing to do with federal acts that purport to remedy some alleged social deficiency. This episode shows the dark underbelly of federal funding of local government schools, and it is something that few people care to behold. The only way we can truly rid of members of Congress not having any leverage over schools at all is to legalize freedom and pare back a massive federal government. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before another member of Congress, or a federal judge for that matter, tries to browbeat hapless local officials or citizens into doing their bidding.

Wizard

Obama Care and American Life

I should be used to the MSM reporting--but I still always get PO'd. I saw earlier today on FOX that there was a pretty decent turnout protesting. But on ABC nightly news the headline was that one protester spit and there were racial and homophobic slurs against congress men--t they put on a clip to show these slurs--which amusingly did not show anything.

Even though we know better our efforts are pitiful and willingness to sacrifice comfort and safety nonexistent. We are really not worthy to carry on the flame of the Revolution--and are getting the type of government we deserve.

Becky Chandler, Facebook, March 21, 2010

and

"Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."

Congressman John Dingell, March 23rd, 2010 - discussing why Congress delayed the implementation of the individual health insurance purchase mandate embedded in H.R. 3590 until the year 2014.

But one has to wonder whether Congressman Dingell's legislation will in fact do what it was intended to do. Two weeks ago, the Wizard learned that there was going to be a last minute rally in Washington to oppose the health care bill. Upon learning about this, I volunteered to pay $1,200 for the flight of two of my friends (who subsequently made the news) to go to Washington to join the mob, and watch as Nancy Pelosi - all smiles - paraded her big gavel as she waltzed her way to the Capitol to continue - but not finish - the grand project of all Americans having to have health insurance. I stayed at home during the weekend, cut myself in several places when I fell while running a workout, and built some bookshelves for my study room to hold all the tomes I've accumulated over the years.

Yet, when I read what Ms. Chandler wrote, she struck the Wizard with words that are harder than steel. Charles Krauthammer went on television and said that Mr. Obama's health care bill will not be repealed. Why? One very good reason is that what the "Progressives" did during the sausage grinding was ugly (and possibly unconstitutional), but they were very smart. They made sure that the old folks would get all of their pills paid for right away, and that they would not be left with any donut holes, unlike that evil Mr. Bush did to them. If an attempt to repeal the bill is tried, the Democrats will tell the old folks that those evil freedom types are trying to take their Medicare from them. Progressives can get away with government rationing, but woe be to liberty and freedom types if we were to do the same. Yet, even some liberal bloggers are writing that H.R. 3590 is a bad piece of legislation, and list plenty of reasons why that's the case.

The politics of repeal are easy to understand. As long as Mr. Obama sits in the White House, the mathematics of getting a coalition together to repeal are well nigh impossible. That will have to wait until 2013. Meanwhile either lawsuits will have to commence, but more intriguing is the idea that the States should call a convention to offer and ratify amendments to the United States constitution to curb Congressional power. The state legislative races will be just as important as federal ones this November, but judging from Governor Perry's reaction to the health care bill, I doubt he will have the courage to call for a convention of the states. Governor Perry wants to sit in the White House.

And so it was that my puny efforts to defend liberty were, I suppose, not entirely for naught. I rarely watch television anymore and did not watch television on that Sunday night, but rather I took a walk to the grocery store to do my weekly shopping. It was sunny out, but cold and blustery. It was busy in the store, but there was no sign amongst the hundreds of people whom I saw that a momentous decision was being made by their federal government, something that would affect their entire lives. No shouting, no picketing in front of the store. Nothing. Just a traffic jam on Westheimer and lots of people going about their daily lives. It was as though it was just another day and that nothing had ever happened. One of the subtle ideas of the Founders was that government would be far away and out of sight. Only those who had interests, or had the interest and the fire, would care to travel and contest the issues of the day. It worked once again.

It occurred to me that if I really were to have the guts to defend liberty, I should have gone to Washington with a gun, as Becky stated. I did not. None of us did, despite baitings of our opponents and of politicians. We hold ourselves in and resolve to fight against this breathtaking assault on our liberties peacefully. We receive encouragement from sympathizers in Britain, stating that Americans must fight back, and we will. One thing that this issue has raised, is the reawakening of a titan, that of ordinary Americans starting to ask questions all over again about the meaning of the United States and its Constitution.

I have something to say about the issue of people raising objections to ordinary Americans shouting obscenities at their elected officials. An elderly black woman whom I met through the Metro Rail issue did just that to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee back in late 2007. When she found out in that Metro had changed their rail plans to run a rail line down her street, she called up Mrs. Jackson Lee and let her have it - full bore, with guns a blazing - the only way that a Gospel filled, fiery old black woman could. The result was that Mrs. Jackson Lee dropped everything she was doing to race back to Houston, where she proceeded to call an emergency meeting with Metro brass and the community over the issue. That Saturday, I watched from the back row of an auditorium, the only white boy in an auditorium room filled with black people, as Mrs. Jackson Lee's constituents slugged it out full bore with her and Metro's brass for 4 hours over light rail. It was a night to remember.

If the passion is high enough, public officials should be sworn at. After all, public officials are in no position to be lecturing Americans about swearing.

Auto insurance verses health insurance

Many supporters of the health care bill, in speaking of its favor, have tried to raise the point that Americans are required by governments to purchase insurance for their automobile. They also have raised the issue that Congress has required that automobile makers require that Americans purchase cars with safety belts. So what's the difference between that and Americans being told they must buy health insurance? Aren't you pesky Tea Baggers a little late - like 75 years too late - to the show? We abuse the Constitution every day, so what else is new? This is the way things have been for a long time!

Well maybe, but just because Washington has been trashing the Constitution and doing business as usual since the New Deal doesn't make it right. People who make these arguments are missing some very important points. Arguing that people are compelled to buy car insurance by governments overlooks the simple observation that Americans are not compelled by law, as a matter of being a citizen of the United States, to buy cars. So if you happen to be like my downstairs neighbor, an old lady who does not work, does not have a car, and walks around to do her needed tasks, the mandate to purchase auto insurance does not apply to her.

The mandate to purchase auto insurance comes from State governments, following in the tradition that doing something like this was not an enumerated power given to Congress, and that State governments possess what are called police powers. Generally, police powers are understood where governments can act to protect the health, safety, and morals of the populace. In the case of owning and operating a car, it quickly became clear some 100 years ago that operating an automobile had many ramifications. A driver had marvelous new found mobility, freedoms, and power at his or her disposal, but they could also evade law enforcement or aid and abet illegal activities. Drivers also had it within their power to destroy the property of others with ease, and could take their own lives or the lives of others.

Clearly it was within the public interest to come to some kind of remedy to handle this matter. Therefore, State governments used their police powers to require that would be drivers pass a driving test, require them to submit to safety inspections, and they required that drivers carry insurance as a way to compensate others in the event that a driver were to cause harm to the life and property of oneself or others, but would otherwise not be able to pay. State governments also consider driving to be a privilege, and as such those privileges can be granted or taken away from you.

It has also been pointed out that the governments required auto companies to make cars come equipped with safety belts as a feature of a car. As the wikipedia entry notes, however, safety belt legislation, including requiring someone to wear a safety belt while driving, is a state matter, consistent with the idea of States wielding police powers, in this case that being of safety. But once again and more importantly, this is a separate idea from requiring someone to buy something.

Americans really need to consider very carefully the full ramifications of the claim that Congress has it within its power to compel Americans to buy something. Already, talk has been floated of requiring Americans to use their 401-k monies to buy U.S. Treasuries, and putting Americans on Social Security. Great. So all the money I've saved through my 401-k the past 15 years, and which I could give to my heirs, would be swiped from me and I would then be wholly dependent on government in my old age. If you are someone who still agrees with the idea that Congress can require Americans to buy health insurance, then what happens if you are told you must by a car or a house, all of course in the name of the common good? Even the Washington Post points out that the legislation raises non-trivial issues of federal authority over individuals, and the ideology that the common good somehow always trumps individual rights is not compatible with our deepest beliefs as expressed by our founders.

Misplaced priorities

David Brooks wrote a very interesting column after H.R. 3590 passed where he said

The Democratic Party, as it revealed of itself over the past year, does not seem to be up to that coming challenge [of cutting federal deficit spending] (neither is the Republican Party). This country is in the position of a free-spending family careening toward bankruptcy that at the last moment announced that it was giving a gigantic new gift to charity. You admire the act of generosity, but you wish they had sold a few of the Mercedes to pay for it.

Many people have questioned the Tea Party movement in one way or another. We've been labeled racists, astroturf (thanks Nancy, I'll take back my $1,200 then), amongst other things. Little do such people know that some of my friends have had to yell at social conservatives, upon hearing that gay people who wanted to be a part of the Tea Party movement were left feeling unwelcome. As Mr. Boggs stated,

We have to decide as a Party what concerns us more. The fact that the country is being driven into socialism, or who someone sleeps with.

And so it was with Obama Care. I find it breathtaking that Congress spent a year furiously battling over this issue when we have a yawning federal deficit that threatens to put us into taxation rates of 40-50 percent of all our incomes, hyperinflation, or debt repudiation. Nor have we dealt in any meaningful way with the Baby Boomer Social Security and Medicare tsunami, the first laps of water were felt this past year. Many people want job creation to be the first order of business, but job creation is very hard when you're so busy affecting change that people don't quite know what's going to happen next. But of course, if you really want to affect change, you follow the advice of Vladimir Lenin, who wrote

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.

Will Americans finally owe up to the mess we have created since the time of the New Deal, or will we have another civil war amongst ourselves with 100 different groups pitted against each other? I don't know. All I know is that this past week, I've been up every night, far into the night, wondering about the future. I've started to read the Federalist Papers and Hayek's Road to Serfdom. We have set for ourselves, in the name of alleviating suffering, policies that encourage us to live for today and not think about tomorrow because tomorrow is not my problem - we'll leave the problem of the future to our children and anyway in the long run we're all dead. The problem with that train of thought is that there's no such thing as a free lunch, and that tomorrow has now come upon us.

I foresaw that this would happen 20 years ago, but even though I knew it would happen, it still hit me like a ton of bricks when it did happen. All I can say is that I haven't felt this afraid for my country since I grew up with the nuclear nightmare, but this time the problem is a cancer that comes from within. Our country is being ripped apart by two parties that are daring each other by walking an incredible high wire act, all while playing with fire. America, it's time to grow up.

Why Americans don't vote

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction... The instability, injustice, and confusions introduced into the public councils have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.

James Madison The Federalist Papers, #10

So, the Texas primary season is over, or at least it is for those whose races did not leave them in a position to face a runoff. But with the season being for the most part over, there comes the usual grumblings and wailings from my friends about low voter turnout whenever Americans hold elections. Several months ago, after the City of Houston elections, there was the same complaint - some 15 percent of registered voters in Houston bothered to vote in the City of Houston general election for Mayor and Council. So, Felicia Cravens asks, "why don’t people vote in primaries?"

The Wizard has a confession to make. Years ago, I used to get incredibly upset about the same issue. "Why don't people vote?", I'd go screaming to myself. Don't they understand! It matters so much! It's the end of the planet if they don't vote! A woman named Jackie Juntti complains on Facebook of suffering from the battered voter syndrome.

At the same time, the leftist "progressives" have been complaining recently that America is "ungovernable", which really means that they are going absolutely bananas because the Democrats hold three out of five seats in both the House and the Senate, as well as the Presidency. Yet incredibly, the Democratic Party has not been able (yet) to push through Obama Care, nor have they been able to push through Cap and Trade.

So what has led America to this sorry state of affairs? Better yet, one might want to ask whether this is a sorry state of affairs to begin with?

First of all, we need to go back and reread the words of the Founders. Madison had done his homework when he traveled to Philadelphia in 1787. Madison knew from reading history that establishing America as a pure democracy would create a serious danger whereby the fiery passions of the public would end up invoking whipsaws of policy, egged on by the mob. The turbulence that lurks in all of us would be erupting constantly. Peace and tranquility, which is a precursor to happiness and progress, would be a rarity.

Therefore, Madison and the rest of the Founders rendered a Republic. But more importantly, they also knew that even though many Americans would declare that they love liberty and freedom, their actions would often belie their words. So, being ten steps ahead of the rest of us, as they always were, the Founders created a political system that made it very difficult to get anything done. Two bodies of Legislators, along with an Executive, and all the affected interest groups, all have to come to some kind of agreement that this is the way in which things are going to be. Passing legislation on big issues that affect large swaths of the populace in America is like trying to herd around a bunch of cats. You have to corral them all in order to get something done.

"But wait, Wizard!", comes the objection. And yes, I know, somebody out there is going to come up with some point where some President or some lower level public official did something quite easily. But people who do that are missing the forest for the trees. How many times have Presidents in America tried to push through universal health insurance? Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, and now Obama? Remember, compulsory universal health insurance was something that was enacted decades ago by just about every other wealthy country in the world - except the United States.

That in turn should lead us to examine the political regimes of other countries. Why is it that other countries found it relatively easy to enact such legislation, whereas in America, the progressives have tried over and over and over again to reach the summit?

In the United Kingdom, for example, we don't have such lofty notions such as judicial review of laws, but rather we find such concepts as Parliamentary Supremacy. In other words, Parliaments in Britain and some other countries can make laws on just about anything they damned well please, and they can't be questioned by courts. In contrast, in the United States we have a Bill of Rights and judicial review. Governments can't always do what they want and sometimes legislation is struck down. In other words, there are more barriers in the United States to doing things, but it also means that each branch of government has to pay at least a little bit of attention on whether other branches of government will stomach what each other is doing.

Moreover, we also inherited from Britain the idea of single member representative districts, whose officials are usually elected by a plurality, an electoral system otherwise known as winner take all or first past the post. SMP style electoral systems can produce some stunning results. In the 1997 UK general elections, the Labor Party led by Tony Blair, came to power off of an election where the Labor Party won 43 percent of the votes, yet got 63 percent of the seats in Parliament. Because the Labor Party got over 50 percent +1 seats in Parliament, they got to make all the rules, and since Britain is a unitary state and not a federal state like the United States is, nearly all the power is embodied in one political body - Parliament. Parliament also controls well over 90 percent of all taxation spending in the UK, with town councils being responsible for the petty remainder. To put things bluntly, if Britons decide to elect a Labor government, they are going to get more government than they would if the install a Conservative Party government. In other words, it matters who gets elected.

In contrast, because we have a federalized nation, the political power is far more spread out and atomized in the United States. There is a central government in Washington, but there are fifty states, and thousands of towns and cities. The federal government has taken in some two thirds of all taxes since WWII, but state and local governments are responsible for the other one third. States and local governments also set rules on policing, criminal justice, land and water use matters, transportation, amongst many other issues. The result is what Madison intended - a political system where an attempt to preserve liberty and freedom to put into place by limiting the power of any one political actor or body to do damage to others. Californians may run themselves into bankruptcy and enact all kinds of kooky rules, but the fact that California is doing so is not necessarily going to harm other states or localities. Furthermore, Californians can move if they get fed up with their state of affairs and go elsewhere. In other words, our Founders set up a system where they tried to make it where it didn't quite matter so much who is in charge. How many times have you heard the old phrase, you have a choice between twiddle dee dom and twiddle dee dee?

So, we have single member legislative districts, but does it have to be this way? Of course not, and in many countries it isn't. In Germany, voters cast two votes - one for a district representative and one for a political party. 50 percent of the seats in the German Bundestag are apportioned by single member districts, and the other 50 percent are apportioned by how many votes each party receives in the election in what is called a mixed member proportional electoral system. One result is that there are more political parties in Germany, but another result is that in order to obtain a ruling majority, parties often have to form coalitions with other parties, whereas in the United States that doesn't happen. One of the two parties wins a majority and wins power, but even then, the ruling majorities in Congress are often uneasy majorities, as can be witnessed in the liberal / blue dog coalitions of Democrats that Nancy Pelosi presides over in Congress. Pelosi has big problems holding her coalition together, which again makes it hard to get things done.

Then there's the United States Senate, where as everyone knows, a band of Senators can filibuster legislation. Yes, Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, making him the 41st Republican senator, mattered and it mattered greatly. Some elections do matter more than others, and sometimes when the balance of power is very precarious, as it is right now in Congress, a Senator's power can rival that of a President in certain matters. Sometimes being a Senator can be a fine thing to be, but the Senate is also the repository of where the voice of the minority is to be heard in American government. And if that minority is determined enough, it can be enough to bring matters to a halt.

But to give an example of how things could be different in American government, take the election of John Culberson in November 2008 in the Texas 7th congressional district. Mr. Culberson beat Michael Skelley by a margin of 56 - 42 percent. So a Republican wins the district, but what about the Democrats who voted against him? How are their views represented, or ask yourself whether theirs was a wasted vote? If it was a wasted vote, then why bother to vote in legislative districts where parties have incentives to gerrymander to gain as many seats as possible, packing votes into the seats held by the minoritity and cracking the districts held by the majority, thereby marginalizing the votes of many.

In a proportional representation system, there would be other ways of capturing the sentiment in that vote and people would find voting more meaningful. If there would have been five members apportioned in each district instead of one, the outcome might have been that three Republicans and two Democrats would have been elected to represent the 7th district. One thing Americans might want to consider is adding more seats to our legislatures in an effort to better capture the public sentiments of a growing population. The U.S. Congress has been stuck at 435 members for quite a while now. America gets trade offs - we lose the far edge sentiments of the left and right, but America gains stability and coherence in its government.

This state of affairs also leads into the question of whether any particular election had any meaning or not? I'll be up front: Most people are not going to know the difference, nor are they going to care, who sits on the Harris County Probate Court #3, or some other random court. In general, the higher up the political ladder, the higher the turnout rates are going to be for an election because there is more at stake. More people are going to turn out for a U.S. Senatorial election than one for a local Justice of the Peace court, because a U.S. Senator has more power than a local JP does.

Ask yourself this: In any one particular election, ask yourself what's at stake? Does a particular election have any meaning, or is it basically meaningless? How much power does a particular office holder have? In the November 2009 City of Houston general elections, what was at stake was who was going to be sitting on the deliberative body of a major city. Under Houston's form of government, the mayor has the power, hence one should expect greater competitive pressures to obtain the job verses that of a city council member.

But, here is another point: What difference was there amongst the candidates? Did any of the four candidates - Annise Parker, Peter Brown, Gene Locke, or Roy Morales propose any radical changes in city governance? Did any of them propose to sell off Houston's two main airports? Did any of the mayoral candidates propose going to Austin and asking for legislation empowering Houston to collect 20 cents of gasoline taxes to solve Houston's transportation woes? No. Did any of them propose doing away with property taxes and implementing sales taxes? No. Did any candidate propose scrapping rail and rethinking Metro Rail? The closest thing to that was Roy Morales stating that Metro was a bully and that we should examine elevated rail for safety reasons. Peter Brown was specifically going to implement greater land use controls if elected, but otherwise there was not that great of difference between the candidates.

So, if there was not that great of difference between the candidates, what else was at stake for the public in competing for a job that one person once described at the Houston Chronicle website as being a glorified dog catcher? If you had to call the fire department because your home or your neighbor's residence had caught on fire, and they showed up, would it have mattered whether Annise Parker, Peter Brown, Bob Lanier, or Roy Morales were the ones sitting in the Mayor's chair when that happened? What about your City Council member? Probably not. So ask yourself - what difference does it make to you who sits in the Mayor's chair or on council, and hence why bother to vote?

In the 2009 Texas primaries, what was at stake? Both main parties (and there are two main parties, because we have single member districts, right?) chose their candidates for the Texas legislature and Governor, but not who was going to be the Governor! And what if you are an independent voter who does not subscribe to either party? Why should you have voted?

Another issue at stake is asking how much does you vote really matter? In the 2008 Presidential and congressional elections, 60 percent of eligible Americans, over 120 million in all, voted in the Presidential election. How much of a probability is your vote going to be the one that mattered? Ask yourself the same thing in any election - in the 2006 Texas primaries, there were over 600,000 voters who voted, a far smaller number. But you still needed to ask yourself what was the probability that your vote was the one that mattered? It was non-existent.

So, do you want people to vote? It is possible to force people to vote, indeed compulsory voting is the law in a number of countries. Such laws are usually enforced by small fines, or threat of disenfranchisement if someone habitually fails to vote. But one needs to ask whether such notions are compatible with liberty and freedom. Do you want to live in a country where it is compulsory to participate in politics? Better yet, how much knowledge do people really possess about political issues? Yet compulsory voting would be compelling them to participate in the political arena.

Admittedly, this entry is a mess, but America's political system was designed to make things bland and unexciting, thereby discouraging participation in politics. Yes change could come, but it would come slowly and in increments, not through sudden explosions or radical change. Elections and voting do matter in America, but they usually don't matter as much as people think, because of systemic barriers to more political parties, of fractured government power, and barriers put in the way of the expansion of the state. By doing this, our Founders wanted people to dedicate their energies into commercialism, to solving problems through private means or by charity, and not by force of the state, and for them that was the way in which liberty and freedom would be preserved. Did it work? Well, for 140 years it generally did, but WWII changed everything.

Barring a meltdown and a revolution, which is a distinct possibility, it will take another 70 years to roll things back and even then there are plenty of interest groups and people favoring bigger government that will stand in the way of liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility. And so it goes that the great American experiment roll onwards.

Wizard

The University Line FEIS

I'm going to be up late tonight. After reading some work related stuff, I'm writing a response to Harris County Metro's FEIS for the University rail line. This is the fourth public reply comment I've made on Metro's rail lines. In previous public comments, I've submitted photos to Metro, the FTA, and to members of Congress, that show all the "for lease" signs and boarded up property along Main Street that contradict economic development claims, I've shown empty streets near Crosstimbers and ridden Metro buses to dispute their travel savings time claims, I've predicted cost escalations, have shown evidence that Metro's rosy future cash analysis predictions are garbage (why would Metro Chairman David Wolff otherwise be writing editorials in the Houston Chronicle demanding that Metro's sales tax territorial jurisdiction be expanded?), and have asked whether all we are doing is simply turning bus riders into rail riders, just to name a few things. But every time, Metro gets their FEIS approved, as they simply brush aside any public criticisms with simple one line replies, as they waltz their merry way towards bagging federal grants.

Why bother? The NEPA / EIS process, like nearly everything else the federal government does, is full of nothing but bullshit.

Wizard

Culberson's University Line FTA letter

Greetings gentle readers,

The Wizard has several items he wants to write about, but rather than belt out a long epistle at the moment, I thought I would simply drop a quick note on an announcement. The Houston Chronicle's Carolyn Feibel reported that unless a Member of Congress objected, the FTA would approve advancing Harris County Metro's so called University Line into preliminary engineering (PE) status. No FEIS has been issued by Metro on the rail line. A discussion about the issue can be read here on BlogHouston.

Well, today the Wizard received notice of a Letter from John Culberson - who happens to be my Congressman - that the Congressman intends to object to this advance of the rail line, or the western portion of it which is in the 7th Congressional district, into PE status. Culberson's 14 page letter, along with documentation supporting Culberson's grounds for objecting based on Metro's stated financial health, and pertinent news stories from KHOU-TV concerning statements from Gene Locke and Annise Parker regarding Metro's 25 percent general mobility funding, can be downloaded here.

As to what this means to the status of the rail alignment, I am not yet sure. The Wizard thinks this will cause the FTA to scrutinize Metro's ability to meet the local matching requirements, but probably will not stop the project from advancing into PE status. As always, what will really stop Metro is the massive cost escalations of Metro Rail, along with its ongoing general mobility obligations.

Houston will know who its next Mayor will be next week. Otherwise, the world rolls onwards.

Wizard.

Republican welfare queens

Over on Facebook, Tracy posts about a Townhall article where Robert Reich says ObamaCare would wreck the economy. Yes, Lyndon Johnson did lowball the costs of Medicare, something I pointed out when I spoke at the Harris County Republican townhall meeting that was held out in Pasadena the other night. I told the audience how Medicare had an 1,000 percent cost overrun in its first 25 years of enactment. Nobody has any real clue how much ObamaCare will cost taxpayers.

The problem, politically, is that I've been to five or six townhall meetings with almost all Republicans in attendance. What I've heard maybe 10-15 times now from elderly people is that they all agree on how wonderful Medicare is! They just go berserk over the idea that there may be illegals who might be eligible for something too. I told that audience last Tuesday in Pasadena that when you go on Medicare at age 65, you become a ward of the state. In other words, YOU become a welfare queen, and that you are no different than those damned illegals.

There was silence in the audience when I got done saying that. You could have heard a pin drop.

I grew a little gentler at the end of my 2 minutes of allotted time with the mike. I let the audience off by asking the panel if anybody had any cost estimates on what ObamaCare would cost, to which one panel member piped up something to the effect of, "take the Congressional Budget Office estimates and multiply it by 5 and you're on track".

One member of the audience pointed out that the Republican party didn't do anything about rolling back the welfare state when they were in power. He was right. And why was that?

Maybe it's because we are NEVER going to be able to contain government if there are millions of Republicans (much less Democrats) who love Medicare, but merely object to ObamaCare. All those so called Republicans are then doing is admitting that Lyndon Johnson was right all along and we're merely arguing over how much socialism in medicine there is going to be. But more importantly, you've already given up on the argument of whether government should be involved in health care at all. Otherwise, I don't care if I'm Republican or not. Taxpayer funded health care is good for me but not for thee!

Addendum: David Jennings at Big Jolly writes this post on the Pasadena townhall meeting. Here is the Harris County Republican Party's idea platform presentation on health care reform.

Another addendum: See and hear the Wizard himself in action! I do admit that it is impossible to hear what I or the panel members are saying.

Enjoy!

Wizard

Repaving Westheimer

Before I go any further, I wish my older brother a belated Happy 50th birthday. I should be thankful that he made it this far.

For the past 10 days or so, the Wizard, along with untold thousands of other Houstonians, has had to put up with the fact that the illustrious Texas Department of Transportation has scrapped up the top 4-6 inches of pavement off of FM 1093, also known as Westheimer Road. Since the Wizard lives right off of Westheimer, the matter has been of some importance to me, especially since I experienced a flat tire last Thursday while driving to work. I found a nail in my old tire, had to wait for AAA to pump up my baby tire so that I could drive the following morning to a Firestone to buy a new tire. The new tire set met back $90.

And so it was. As with many people, I was left wondering exactly why it was that the powers that be decided to repave what was for all practical purposes a perfectly fine road? The official answer was posted on Channel 2 news:

TxDOT says the roadway was hardly perfect before.

"There is a criteria established with the stimulus money, and if you don't use it and go by their guidelines, then we do lose it," Othon explained. "So this is something that we definitely wanted to take part of and use the money that is offered to us."

TX-DOT's website reports that this repaving project is currently estimated to cost $9.45 million.

And yet, that still begs to ask the question. Was this really necessary? I understand probably better than anybody that Westheimer, all eight lanes of it, probably carries some 100,000 (or more) vehicles everyday. Yet the road was in perfectly fine condition. This reminded me of when I lived off of Kirby Drive, where I saw the City of Houston lay asphalt on stretches of the street 2-3 times before deciding in 2001 to tear up the street - yet again - because the City decided to lay an underground storm sewer under the median connecting Buffalo Bayou and Braes, a project now in its second stage between San Felipe and Kirby south of Interstate 59.

It's actions like this, where people decide to do something about what is a non-issue, all because they are chasing after some handout money, that drive me nuts. That money could have been used to repave Richmond Avenue, for example, but God forbid we should repave parts of a badly bruised up Richmond Avenue because we all know that Metro so desperately wants to put a train down that street. So better to spend $1.5 billion to put a 10-11 mile light rail line down Richmond, rather than spend less than one percent of that amount to smooth out the wrong street. How is it that we can so often be so penny wise and pound foolish?

The repaving of Westheimer is not only a $10 million microcosm of the $787 billion stimulus plan, it is a microcosm of irrationality and absurdity of politics as a whole. People wonder why there are skeptics out there who question whether doing stuff like this is worth passing the bill on to our children's future. It isn't.

An item of note: Bob Lemer passes on that there will be a 90 minute workshop of City of Houston finances September 25th from 11:30am - 1:00pm. Cost is $35 for Houston CPA members and $50 for members of the public.

Wizard

Hosting the 2216 Olympic Games

Tory writes about the joys of Houston not hosting the 2012 Olympic Games. I chimed in that it was a good thing that Houston was passed over in the 2012 Olympic bid. Amongst other things, Olympic officials look at public transportation offered by prospective cities as a part of their bidding process, giving IOC officials who have no real reason to give a damn an opportunity to inflict all kinds of financial disasters on the hapless citizens of a host city. I read a while back that Montreal finally got around to paying off the debts incurred by their hosting of the 1976 Games 30 years later.

To wit, the Onion weighs in on the subject of cities and countries bidding for hosting the Olympic Games, noting that Haiti has made a bid to host the 2216 Olympic Games. Haitian officials are

Emphasizing the country's warm tropical climate, vibrant culture, and long-term plans to cultivate farmland capable of sustaining actual crops...

Haitian officials promised, naturally, that the 2216 Games would be the greatest ever seen given that they will have 207 years to get ready for them.

I just hope I'll be around to see them!

Wizard

Speaking before the Houston Planning Commission

Gayla Hamilton, a local real estate broker, asked the Wizard to post her comments she made on July 30th, 2009, to the proposed changes to Chapter 15 and Chapter 42 of the City of Houston Ordinances. Planning commission chair Carol Lewis cut her off before she could complete her remarks. These were Mrs. Hamilton's remarks in full.

My name is Gayla Hamilton and I am a native Houstonian, a member of Corridors United and a Texas Real Estate Broker engaging in residential and commercial real estate.

The Southeast Corridor involving Downtown is a whole other issue. In Downtown, the Light Rail will be abutting existing garages on Rusk and Capitol Street with 40% of the current vehicle traffic going elsewhere. A 25-50% LOSS of current street lanes, basements and tunnels having to be rebuilt; the noise, sound and vibration; exclusive left or right turn lanes will reduce the number of current through lanes on Rusk and Capitol. The so-called Interline (from Capitol to Main) or (Main to Rusk) is unsafe, unmitigatable as well as grade level rail that will be crossing grade level rail. All of this will adversely impact our world renowned Theatre District, not to mention creating a traffic nightmare for downtown office workers.

Wizard

Guns in schools - 1961

This past Friday at the Houston Property Rights Association luncheon, a long time HPRA member, Ronnie Samms, brought in Raw Prints, his 1961 yearbook from Landrum Junior High School. The reason he brought his junior high school yearbook to the gathering was because he wanted to show us that there was a Rifle Club at the school! Guns were kept at the school, in fact they were locked up in the shop. According to Ronnie, the club had after school shooting practices.

Ronnie was not a member of the club, but he did know some people who were. At some point he told me that he would send me a photo copy of the photos that were taken of students who were members of the club. I did see the picture. There were some 20 students who were kneeling down, holding their rifles up above and out in front of them. If I do get the photo copies, I'll rewrite this entry to link to the image.

Needless to say, much has changed. As another HPRA member noted, how much legislation gets passed on the grounds of we have to do X because we need to be sure that X never happens again.In this case, guns were taken out of schools, probably on grounds that parents would sue the district in the event that any violence would take place on account of guns being on the school premises.

Enough for now.

Wizard

On Houston's future 3 hour commutes

This past week, Houstonians learned from the local media of a series of high profile departures, or of people who are looking for jobs elsewhere, to escape from the twilight of Mayor Bill White's administration.

One, somewhat lower profile figure who apparently has recently left City employment was one, Ray Chong, who was Deputy of Traffic and Transportation in the City public works department. The Wizard knows that in addition to Mr. Chong's overseeing of various studies that he was one of Bill White's point men in the Ashby High Rise issue.

But it is about what was perhaps the last of Mr. Chong's studies that is the subject of this post. Smart Growth and planning proponent David Crossley notes that Mr. Chong made a presentation where he asserted that the average commute time in the Houston area in the year 2035 will be three hours!

That's right gentle readers, the City of Houston's recently departed Traffic director stated that Houstonians will face 3 hour commutes in a mere 26 years time. Of course, Mr. Chong and company made a presentation with a mobility study (or should we call it an immobility study?) to back up that assertion, but that still doesn't erase the basic assertion.

Now, if one thinks rather deeply about such an issue, one comes to realize that there is an enormous amount at stake for millions of Houston area residents when a high level City bureaucrat makes such a statement.

The current Houston area 2035 plan envisions spending some $77 billion in public funds over the next quarter of a century on road related projects and transit. However, Mr. Chong stated that he and his team incorporated all of those projects into his studies and still came to the conclusion that Houstonians will be wasting three hours of their day in a quarter of a century commuting back and forth to work. In other words, Houstonians and their public officials will be spending upwards of three billion dollars per year, every year, for the next 26 years, but despite that enormous sum of public monies being spent, Houstonians one way traffic commute will skyrocket from 26 minutes in 2005 - 2010 time frame to 90 minutes in 2035! That, gentle readers, is a very powerful statement - in a matter of one generation, Houston's transportation system will effectively get overwhelmed and collapse, despite spending tens of billions of dollars on transportation related projects and issues. That is a statement that many influential Houstonians, like members of the Greater Houston Partnership or just about any local elected official - including the Mayor, would not like to see made public.

If you take the report seriously, then the report states that the amount of roads of all classifications within City of Houston limits will rise roughly only 10 percent, while the job base will rise from 1.5 million to 2.1 million, a nearly 40 percent rise. Mr. Chong's report also projects that City population rising from 2.1 million to 2.7 million. On the face of it, Mr. Chong's prognostications may seem to be true. It points to a future of Houston neglecting to do enough to keep up its transportation network with the demands that the future populace will place on it. That however, is on the face. The Wizard knows that such a sky is falling type catastrophe is not going to occur.

First of all, one has to take in the magnitude of what Mr. Chong is asserting. Yes, it is true that urbanized areas that have higher populations do exhibit higher work travel times and greater traffic congestion, but the Wizard has traveled far in this world and has seen a lot of cities. Two years ago, I spent 9 weeks in London, a city whose metropolitan area has roughly twice as many residents as Houston does, in a smaller geographical area (and hence with a population density several times higher than that of Houston), with demonstrably narrower roads and much higher reliance on slower public transportation. The result? London has an average commute time of 42 - 51 minutes. This study states that in outer London, the commute time, where cars dominate, is 30 minutes, while in inner areas of London where public transportation dominates, the commute times are roughly 55 minutes. Meanwhile, in the 2005 U.S. census study cited above, New York and Chicago have commute times of 38 minutes and 33 minutes respectively.

The point being made here, if I may be so blunt, is that what Mr. Chong is saying is garbage. It overlooks that real estate developers and landlords, as well as employers and employees, all make decisions as to where to locate. Very few people will tolerate making a 3 hour daily commute, much less a 2 hour commute, and they will adapt accordingly, often by deciding to leave a little earlier or later to get to their jobs. The average length of a commute by car is roughly 7.5 miles, while a commute by public transportation is about 5 miles. Mr. Chong is then saying that traffic flows throughout the entire area will drop to an average of about 5 miles per hour for vehicle traffic!. This is nonsense.

Instead, a far, far more likely scenario of what will unfold in the future is that the Houston area will probably continue on its current pattern of slow densification combined with some suburbanization. Such a pattern would go a long way to mitigating most of the catastrophic horrors envisioned in this mobility study. I could foresee my 20 minute morning commute and my 25-30 evening minute commute lengthening by 5-10 minutes in a worst case scenario, but even if it did then all that would do is prompt me to either move closer to work, or to switch jobs.

One item that Mr. Chong's story may be more to the mark on is the assertion that public transportation's share of commuting trips will drop from 3.8 percent to 3.3 percent. One big story that has not been reported by the media concerning recent controversies surrounding eminent domain issues and cost estimates behind Metro's North and Southeast corridors is that in its FY 2010 report to Congress, the FTA is stating that spending $897 million on the North Corridor rail alignment is going to result in a mere 7,500 new riders being attracted to using transit (see page 221 of the report). The Southeast Corridor rail alignment is projected to cost $911 million and is expected to attract a mere 4,500 new riders to transit (see page 227 of the FTA report). Yes gentle readers, you read that correctly. The FTA is telling Congress that it is recommending helping Metro spend $1.8 billion to attract 12,000 new riders to rail transit, a figure that works out to spending $150,000 to attract a new rider to transit. Meanwhile, my yet to be completed FY 2008 - FY 2009 ridership numbers are indicating that Metro lost 10-20 percent of its ridership over the past year. If we continue to pursue such policies, then it is quite plausible that Houston's transit agency will end up bankrupting itself merely to substitute rail transit for bus transit, but not gaining any meaningful market share of transportation trips or doing anything to alleviate traffic congestion. Indeed according to Metro's federal enviornmental impact statements, the agency intends to cut off road lanes available to vehicle traffic along most of the routes where it wants to run rail.

With that aside, reports like this mobility study remind me of how ridiculous it is to write studies and plans that portend to see 30 years or more into the future, something that has been cemented into modern day American metropolitan urban planning, when we will have no idea of what the full picture of future conditions will be like. The reader should be reminded that the London Underground's first rail lines were built in the late 19th century to as a response to extremely heavy traffic congestion along roads in London that were causing traffic flows to slow down to the point where a wagon of vegetables would spoil because it was taking an entire day for a wagon driver to cross the length of the city. Hence, there is a good argument to be made that it is far better to make transportation spending decisions on a case by case basis, based on observations of heavy and rising traffic congestion, and on a shorter time scale of perhaps 10 years, than it is based on some grand vision of what you think the far future is going to be like.

A final disclaimer and something to think about: The Wizard will be of retirement age in 2035 and most likely won't be doing too much daily travel anyway! :)

Wizard

On Houston's finances and Richard Vacar

This past Saturday, the Houston Chronicle published an editoral on the City of Houston's finances. The editoral from Houston's newspaper of record generally offering praise for Mayor Bill White's handling of the City of Houston's public monies in a worldwide economic downtown. The Chronicle's editorial board wrapped up their assessment of the Mayor's financial wizardry with a statement that

With little more than 7 months remaining in his last term, Mayor White has deftly steered Houston through both fiscal and tropical storms. His successor will have a tough act to follow.

Hmmm. The Wizard decided to make his own assessment of the City's finances. I spent part of this evening gazing into my crystal ball, from whence I found the City of Houston's fiscal year 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (aka CAFR).

Amongst the items of interest are:

1) The status of the City's pension plans. There are three plans listed; one for the firefighters, one for the police officers, and the Municipal Pension system that covers everyone else. The status of these plans can be read on page 123 of the report:

A) The actuarial value of the assets of the firefighter's pension plan was $2 billion in 2004 and $2.633 billion in 2008. The accrued liabilities in 2004 were $2.266 billion in 2004 and $2.892 billion in 2008. Overall, the funding ratio of the firefighters plan improved from 88 percent to 91 percent.

B) The actuarial value of the assets of the police officer's pension plan was $2.394 billion in 2004 and $3.005 billion in 2008. The accrued liabilities in 2004 were $2.875 billion in 2004 and $3.858 billion in 2008. Overall, the funding ratio of the police officer's plan dropped from 83 percent to 78 percent. In 2002, the police officer's plan was funded at a ratio of 90 percent.

C) The Municipal Employees pension plan had assets of $1.501 billion in 2004 and $2.194 billion in 2008. The accrued liabilities in 2004 were $2.634 billion in 2004 and $3.128 billion in 2008. Note that the liabilities in 2004 were $3.278 billion. Overall, the funding ratio of the MEPS plan was 57 percent in 2004 and 70 percent in 2008.

One wonders how much of an improvement executing a lien against the downtown Hotel of the Americas improved the HMEPS balance sheet? Better yet, the City is keeping its funding ratios more or less the same, but the dollar values of the mismatch between assets and liabilities is growing. Is the City accruing pension and other liabilities that it cannot afford?

2) On page 246 of the report, one can read about the amount of general bonded debt outstanding owed by the City. In the time frame between 2004 and 2008, the amount outstanding rose from $1,979,786,000 to $2.926,444,000. On page 209 of the report, the CAFR states that the amount of taxable property went up from $103 billion to $135 billion. Per Capita debt levels went up from $985 to $1325 per City resident.

It seems to the Wizard that property values are not increasing at a rate that would sustain continued bonding to accrue, especially since we are in a recession.

2) On page 226 of the Adobe file (or page 196 of the City CAFR), one can read that the total primary CoH net assets have fallen from $5.371 billion in 2003 to $3.891 billion in 2008, a drop of about $1.5 billion. The Wizard is not an accountant, but it seems that during Mayor White's tenure as Mayor, the City devoured its accrued capital (in all of its forms) in order to keep the ship of state afloat.

3) On page 229 of the document, the City states that general revenues from property taxes went up from $639,888,000 in 2003 to $829,837,000 in 2008. The difference between property taxes from 2007 - 2008 was a rise in property taxes collected from $738,578,000 to $829,837,000. According to the Mayor's revenue cap, it seems that Houstonians may be in for a bit of a refund if Council actually follows the cap.

It was also noted recently that Richard Vacar, a longtime powerful administrator of the Houston Airport system retired abruptly. ABC's Mya Shay broke the story and the Chronicle is following it.

Speculation on Vacar's retirement has focused on Vacar's involvement with airport operations in other cities and country, denoting that a non-profit was involved on the deal. Kevin and company talk about it here, wondering about transparency issues or shoddy deal making that would reflect on the Mayor.

A better question to ask is why did the Houston Airport system start working on such deals with airports elsewhere in the first place? The motive for that, gentle readers, can be discerned from the 2001 City Revcap battle and Mayor White's counter charter amendment, which the seems to have prevailed in court. The Mayor's charter amendment offered a cap in increases in revenues from property taxes and drainage fees to the lower of of 4.5 percent per year, or the increase in population and indexed inflation.

It should be obvious to readers that any monies to be gained from the Houston Airport system would not fall under the Mayor's Revcap charter amendment, whereas it would have under the citizens Revcap. Ergo, it would make sense for the City to aggressively pursue such avenues for increased revenues to come into City coffers since they would not be covered by the Mayor's charter amendment.

I am at a loss in explaining why the Mayor canned Mr. Vacar. That is a job for the media to uncover. Better yet, will one of Houston's fourteen City Council members work up the political courage to confront the Mayor, a man whose administration is seeing the twilight of its rule, at the Council table and ask a simple question: Why Mr. Vacar was abruptly asked to take a walk?

Sigh... Such are the joys of taking a job that is so inherently political in nature.

Wizard

Umm, We don't know where trillions of dollars went...

Today's entry, gentle readers, makes one want to shake one's head. The Wizard was forwarded a link in his email from one of his friends which led to a YouTube video of Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman answering questions from Florida Democrat congressman Alan Grayson. I don't surf the Internet too much looking at sites like the Daily Kos, but their post was as good as any on the subject.

The inspector general tasked with overseeing and auditing the Federal Reserve knows pretty much nothing about what the Fed is doing. That's the conclusion that comes from watching the exchange Tuesday between Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and inspector general Elizabeth A. Coleman.

Narrolibertas is similarly outraged. Bloomberg News reported back in February that the taxpayers are on the hook for bailing out the financial sector in this crisis for $9.7 trillion dollars!

The Houston Area Liberty Campaign has been calling for a thorough auditing of the Federal Reserve, perhaps by Congress. Narrolibertas suggests calling your Congressman.

The Wizard has long believed that, contrary to making responsible decisions, government - for the most part - aids and abets the abrogation of responsibility. And so it goes.

Wizard

Taking Houston in stride

This past Sunday, the Wizard took his weekly stroll down to the nearby HEB grocery store, a walking trip that is about 12 minutes in length. I came back home with three of my eco-friendly, reusable HEB grocery bags (promoted by Eva Longoria!) full of groceries that set me back about $70. It was a bit of a strain, as one of the bags had two twelve packs of soda in it. The reusable bags are easily strong enough to survive such a jaunt, but it's never easy to walk home with 2 twelve packs of drinks in one bag. That is, unless that's all I am carrying. One twelve pack is fine, even when packed with lots of other groceries. Nonetheless, my exertions were enough to invoke sympathy from a neighbor of mine, who opened the door for me towards the end of my trip home.

Houston has long been crucified as being completely auto dependent. Complaints abound about Houstonians having to make a proverbial mile drive just to get a quart of milk, or so goes the urban legend. Actually, my grocery store is only about six-tenths of a mile away from me. Better yet, I have access to two convenience stores within 300 yards of where I live, both of which will sell me a quart of milk albeit at a higher price than HEB will. But then again, that is why they are called convenience stores. You pay for the convenience.

Yet, even that relatively short walk is enough for many of my neighbors to notice that I do this. The girls seem to be scared about walking to the store for fear of getting robbed, even though they would be walking down the greatest and busiest street in Houston. Some of my neighbors seem to think that walking to nearby places makes one look like a homeless bum in the eyes of others, but I could give a damn what others think. Still others find quaint amusement over the fact that I walk around the neighborhood to get my stuff done, like one couple who waived merrily to me recently one morning before work when I came walking back after picking up my dry cleaning.

And yet, it turns out that my area of town is quite walkable. There is quite a bit of stuff that can be reached within that 12 minute walking radius from around my abode, including quite a few restaurants, my dentist, my dry cleaners, liquor stores, shopping for hardware, office supplies, some furniture, physical fitness gear, not to mention convenience stores. I have considered buying a bicycle, which would make the Galleria, at 2 miles distance, reachable within 12 minutes or so. I sometimes wonder why my neighbors don't walk more to get to nearby places, but it doesn't bother me too much. They have their reasons. Some might cite trying to scurry across eight lanes of traffic across Westheimer, but even fraidy cats could be invited to walk if skyways were built that crossed the length of the street.

So how walkable is my neighborhood? Well gentle readers, there is a website now out there now called Walk Score that attempts to answer that very question. The website declares that it has an algorithm that it uses to measure how walkable your neighborhood is. Just punch in your street address and presto! you get a score on a scale of 1-100 which measures how walkable your neighborhood is. The higher the score generated, the more walkable your neighborhood.

So, how does the Wizard's neighborhood measure up on this walkability score? I punched in my address and discovered that, lo and behold, my neighborhood comes in at a very respectable 77 out of 100, indicating that, yes, my neighborhood is very walkable. According to Walk Score's gradings of cities around America, my neighborhood would come in at at #4 out of the top 40 cities, beating out every other city with the exception of San Francisco, New York, and Boston. Indeed according the the Walk Score website, I am able to get around without owning a car.

I could conceive of trying to live in my neighborhood without a car. If I lived within a distance of 2-3 miles of a job - say if I worked in the Galleria or off of Post Oak Boulevard - I could just about do it. Even if I had kids, they could take a bicycle to nearby schools. My main problem would be getting to and from my various social activities, as many of my friends live and meet some distance from where I live. As it is, I drive only about 6,000 miles per year, a figure low enough to prompt an auto mechanic friend of mine to say "Wow, you really baby your car!"

Walk Score has a Walk Score map of Houston, so you can look up your neighborhood. My old neighborhood scored an 86 out of 100, which was no surprise to me since I used to walk to a Borders bookstore, as well as a Blockbuster, Book Stop, the post office, a grocery store, and a bakery. And yet, again, none of my neighbors walked around my old neighborhood except to walk their dogs, much like my neighbors do where I live now.

So why won't Houstonians walk when according to Walk Score, they live in perfectly walkable neighborhoods? I've stated some reasons my neighbors have given me above, but who knows? Maybe my old neighbors just didn't feel like walking to the grocery store then and my current neighbors don't feel like walking to the grocery store now. Better yet, one wonders why the City of Houston planning department has poured an enormous amount of time and money planning urban corridors, with the expressed purpose of getting people to walk, when they already live in what are arguably walkable neighborhoods.

Wizard

Working the Houston Tea Party - the day after...

Well, well, well. I'll be adding addendums to this blog entry as the day wears on, but as gentle readers know, the Wizard was working the Houston Tea Party events as a member of the welcoming committee. It was my job to act as a crier, encouraging tea party attendees to sign up so that we could get an accurate head count of the number of people attending.

One of the members of our committee took all of our sign in cards and sheets home. She told us that there were so many people waiting to get in at the start of the event that two women volunteered on the spot to join our committee. She stayed up until 3:00am this morning counting the number of signatures.

We collected 8,532 signatures for the event. We filled up 248 single pages of 20 signatures, 31 pages where signatures filled up both sides of the sheet (40 signatures), and 139 sign in cards. The discrepancy between the numbers of sheets filled up and the total attendees is accounted for because some people signed in for themselves and their spouses, boy or girl friends, children, or other family members. Since some people indicated to us that they did not want to sign anything but rather just attend the event, we believe that there were probably about 10,000 people who attended the Houston Tea Party.

Incredibly, we had 389 people check off the "I want to volunteer" column, indicating they want to work for future events. We may well put them to work, as we are contemplating holding an event for July 4th.

More later. It's time to go back to work.

Addendum: Here is a photograph of the Wizard at work at the April 15th gathering.

Wizard

Working the Houston Tea Party

So, the Wizard is at it again...

The Wizard will be working the Houston Tea Party, to be held at Jones Plaza in downtown Houston. No, the Wizard will not tell gentle readers how it was that I got involved with the Houston Tea Party, as I did not even hear about the original Tea Party until some two weeks after it had occurred. How I got involved came about in a round about way anyway.

More to the point, I have gotten quite concerned about what has happened in Washington over the past 8 or so months, starting with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac excitement. There has been quite a bit of reporting about President Obama's $3.6 trillion federal budget for fiscal year 2010. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that this will represent some 26 percent of the U.S. GDP for this upcoming year. Before World War Two, federal expenditures were under 10 percent of overall economic activity. This jumped enormously during the Second World War. After a brief whittling down period between WWII and the Korean War, federal expenditures vascillated between 18-22 percent of economic activity since the start of the Cold War. Even after the Cold War ended, the Clinton Administration pared down the military by one third, but domestic expenditures expanded to fill in the breach. Still, Clinton was - gasp! - the most fiscally responsible president America has had over the past 30 years, largely thanks to facing a hostile Republican led Congress for his last six years in office.

The bottom line is, federal expenditures have now reached 26 percent of GDP, and that represents an enormous jump in overall governmental involvement in the economy.

* Just yesterday, a story came across the wires that the federal deficit for February 2009 was $192 billion! It used to be that people were outraged when that was the federal deficit for an entire year.

* Brian Shelly notes that Social Security is going to go into the red eight years earlier than was previously projected.

* The Bush Administration told the American public just months after invading Iraq that the army would be coming home in a few months. Well, here we are 5 years, and over $500 billion later, and we're still there.

* The Obama Administration wants to push through universal health insurance, at some completely unknown cost.

* The Bush and Obama Administrations have given AIG $180 billion. I have no idea where it went, other than some vague notion that it went to cover AIG's screw ups over credit swaps.

* The Obama Administration is bailing out the car companies and has fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Now, a better term for the American auto manufacturers would be to call them Government Motors.

Some years ago here in Houston, we had a big company that completely failed called Enron. Politicians couldn't run away fast enough from that debacle, other than to send in the prosecutors to witch hunt Enron's executives.

One thing to thing about is this. Will Americans not be able to buy cars or insurance if either GM or AIG fail? Were Americans not able to obtain natural gas just because Enron failed?

* State and local governments don't look much better, mostly because of massive pension obligations to workers on the government payrolls.

* Because certain interest groups and the media have whipped up the public into a lather over global climate change, the Obama Administration is contemplating either a carbon tax, or a cap and trade regime for carbon emissions. Notably, there's been no talk of how this is going to affect my pocketbook. But according to Reason magazine, a cap and trade regime could turn out to be nothing more than yet another monster of a corporate welfare program. Some 2,300 lobbyists have besieged Capitol Hill on the matter, a huge sign how much is at stake. It is also a sign that an awful lot of rent seeking is going on.

* Taxes from every level of government now take up about 35 percent of my money. Taxation is now my largest personal expense, far exceeding my second largest expense, which is mortgage and fees for my housing.

The Wizard, as usual, will not get to make any speeches. Others always seem to grab the spotlight, even though I am often able to evoke ovations when I speak and have been told countless times how articulate I am at the microphone, even though I have only 2-3 minutes to get my points across. Instead events like this always need people to do the dirty work, including whipping out the wallet to put up money for the event, which nobody ever seems to want to do. Some people I know are quite good at wanting to pass out stuff and committing others to do the dirty work on their causes, while running away as fast as they can when it comes to actually carrying the load of getting the job done. Others will also be pushing their messages, while I don't know how many times I've had to put up with old fogies who don't get off their rear ends to do a damned thing to organize events, to defend property rights, or liberty, tell me how we are to handle the problems that we will face in putting on this event. Instead, I will likely have to help pick up the trash after this thing is over. That's the dreary reality of working in the trenches of grass roots politics.

And yet, I am going to work this event on Wednesday because I am seriously starting to wonder about the financial stability of my country and because of what I perceive to be an immense grab for power by the Obama Administration to reach ever further into American life. I'll do the mundane things that the Houston Tea Party event will require to be successful because I don't want to live in an America that allows me to only have a little bit of pocket money left over at the end of the week. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

So, the Wizard will be at the sign in tables, helping to distribute some of the 6,000 adhesive stickers for people's names that I've purchased for the event. I have a feeling that I'll be seeing some of you there.

Wizard

Addendum: To **** with you, Paul Krugman.

Metro Rail at $150 million per mile?

KHOU-TV's Jeremy Desel ran a story this evening concerning the latest discrepancies about the cost of Metro Rail. It seems that business owner Paul Magaziner came across some information that contradicts what the unelected Metro board has been stating recently about project costs. Moreover, the source of the discrepancies is coming from none other than Metro itself.

Last month, the Metro board announced that it had approved a deal (though it had not signed a contract) with Parsons Transport Group where Parsons would lead a consortium to build four of the Metro Solutions Phase 2 rail lines, but not including the Wheeler / Richmond rail alignment. This deal would involve building a total 20 miles of Metro's planned 30 miles light rail for a price $1.46 billion. The costs of the North Corridor and Southeast Corridors were announced to be $387 and $441 million respectively. Desel's accompanying news story showed footage of last month's board meeting where Chairman David Wolff expressed optimism of falling costs, presumably due to a fall in materials costs resulting from the current economic downturn.

However, apparently in an FTA Letter of No Prejudice communication dated March 23rd 2009, the costs of the North and Southeast Corridors were stated at $896,797,000 and $911,211,000 respectively.

Desel's story quotes Metro VP George Smalley:

... in no way was there an attempt to mislead the public.

Smalley says the cost of acquiring land, rail cars for the future and financing are what make up the difference between the contract cost and the actual cost.

Ergo, Metro has been telling the public and Parsons one thing and the FTA something entirely different concerning project costs. At $897 million, the 5.4 miles of the North Corridor will run $166 million per mile. The Southeast Corridor will run at $134 million per mile. At costs like this, the 30 miles of Phase 2 will run $4.5 billion plus, a figure the Wizard predicted 18 months ago.

Taxpayers deserve better than this. The discrepancies between both sets of numbers is between $2 - $3 billion, a figure so large that the entire Metro board and Metro President Frank Wilson all need to be fired, if for no other reasons that they have shown themselves to be incompetent and untrustworthy. And, this project needs to be shelved once and for all.

Wizard

The Wizard goes to Austin and talks eminent domain

On Tuesday March 31st, the Wizard traveled with some of his friends to the magical fantasy land of Oz the State Capital to pay a visit to see some of our esteemed State legislators. But the Wizard did not take the time out to make such a journey to make a mere house call. No gentle readers, the Wizard had some bidness (as we say in Texas) to attend to. In my limited spare time, the Wizard has been working to help try to get some eminent domain legislation passed in the 2009 / 81st Texas State Legislature.

To recap, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the City of New London in the Kelo vs. New London case in 2005. In reaction, the Texas Legislature did pass some minor reform in 2005, but Governor Perry vetoed some very good eminent domain legislation in the 2007 session. Ergo, here we are in 2009 trying again to get some meaningful reforms passed.

The Wizard ended up seeing 6-7 legislative staff members over a period of 5 hours, while others whom I was with spoke to dozens of others. We also participated in a news conference. The vibe I got was that there is clearly a mood to address eminent domain, but as always the devil is in the details when it comes to how effective a piece, or several pieces, of legislation turn out to be.

Currently, there are at least 7 different bills in play. The best eminent domain bills that people need to get behind are:

1) H.J.R. 14. This is a House Joint Resolution which strongly defines eminent domain such that it would put an end to the practice for private gain. This bill has a provision to amend the Texas Constitution, and sends the matter to the voters come November 3, 2009 should 2/3rd's of the House and Senate vote in favor of it. This would bypass Governor Perry's veto pen.

2) HB 1483 and SB 18. These two bills complement H.J.R 14.

3) H.B. 417, which has strong language to address the issue of municipal abuse of what is blight, and using "blight" as a pretext for using eminent domain for private gain.

4) HB 4, which has some good buyback provisions in the event that the government doesn't actually put your land to use within a certain time frame after taking it from you.

As of this writing, the weak bills are SB 533, H.J.R. 31, and S.J.R 42. We cannot afford to have these bills pass, then have the legislature (and the Governor) turn and tell the people that - you see, we have done something about eminent domain. Don't support them!

This afternoon, KHOU-TV reminded us once again why Texans need eminent domain reform when the station carried the story of Irene Robles and her sons Ron and Mike. The Wizard knows the Robles family, indeed Ron and Mike were with me in Austin talking to legislators last Tuesday. I know that they have been fighting Harris County Metro and its plans to build Metro Rail in the North Corridor. I watched as the Robles brothers collected some 3,500 signatures of North Corridor residents who opposed Metro Rail that they turned in to Sheila Jackson Lee's office, but to no avail.

Metro wanted 178 square feet of the Robles' property, which is directly on one of the streets where Metro wants to build at - grade light rail. That doesn't sound like much, but the strip they want is going to put the street right of way directly up against the Robles' front door, and trust me, this isn't the only instance where this is happening. There is an argument that could be made that doing this would render the property undesirable or not useful for the purpose for which it is being put to now, which if Metro were to have any morals (as opposed to having any ethics), then it would be incumbent on Metro to simply offer Mrs. Robles and her sons a fair price for the entire property rather than simply taking a sliver of it.

Moreover, the KHOU story noted that Metro initially offered the Robles family $2,000 for their 178 square feet, an amount that adds up to offering a petty $11.24 per square foot for property that is within one and a half miles of downtown Houston. The parties went to a hearing, where Metro bumped up the offer to $12,000 (or some $67.50 per square foot), but it remains to be seen if the Robles's will take this or go to court for something else.

The problems faced by the Robles family are commonplace in eminent domain issues; that governments or agencies' swiping a portion of a property ends up rendering it unfit for its current use (and thereby kneecapping its current property owners via devaluing the property), the matter of low balling land owners and forcing them to spend money going to court, and so forth. Moreover, there is a question of whether Metro will in fact actually build the rail lines. The expectation is that they will, but what if the FTA doesn't grant Metro the money? Then the agency would find itself sitting on a bunch of parcels of land which it would otherwise have no use for. Or would they?

The group of good pending legislation (HB 4, HB 417, SB 18 / HB 1483, and HJR 14) would address all of these issues. The State would be forced to offer a fair deal up front. Blight would be much harder to use as a rationale for condemning land, and if governments take land but don't put it to use within a certain time frame then previous private owners could get it back at the price they were offered previously.

Eminent domain is one of those slippery slope issues that Americans have learned they constantly have to keep fighting with over time. The courts, whose job would otherwise presumably be to protect citizens from an ever overreaching Leviathan, have effectively abrogated enforcing the 5th Amendment over the past 100 years, leaving citizens to struggle with sub level governments over legislative remedies for rights that they otherwise should not have to be fighting for.

The war continues. Here are some links:

KFDA covers the news conference.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram's coverage.

The El Paso Times story.

Wizard

The March 2009 MetroRail contract

Today, the Houston Chronicle's new transportation beat writer Rosanna Ruiz broke the news that the unelected board of the Harris County Metropolitan Transit Authority decided not publicize the details of their Facility Provider (FP) contract with Parsons Transport Group before a board vote on the contract that is to be scheduled during a special meeting on Wednesday. The story generated tons of comments on the Chronicle's website, as well as a protest from Jennifer Pebbles from Texas Watchdog, and posts from various bloggers.

Well, what does the Wizard have to say about this? Not much, other than to reveal yet another small pearl that I possess in my treasure hoard. And what, pray tell is that? Well gentle readers, it just so happens that the Wizard possesses a copy of Metro's 2007 FP contract that the agency negotiated with the previous vendor, Washington Group International, which is now a part of URS Corporation. You see, I put in for a Freedom of Information request to Metro sometime around May or June of 2007 for a copy of Metro's contract with WGI. I received a copy of the FP contract, (number CT0700035 to be precise), and dated May 8, 2007, several weeks later at the cost of somewhere around fifty dollars.

The May 2007 FP contract that I received runs into many hundreds of pages and covers an astronomical number of issues; including (but not by any means limited to) estimated project costs for the first phase of the contract, not to mention delving into matters like stray current, provisions for dealing with hazardous materials, performance and reliability issues, ride quality requirements, design of train stations, access to records, contracting with small and disadvantaged businesses, indemnification and insurance issues, corrosion control, hopes and financing for transit oriented development, project bidding, dispute resolution, and so on. Yes, there really is a lot more to this than simply getting to take a trip on a rigid, non-maneuverable form of transportation and riding it without having to pay for it. The contract is so thick that it immediately put any thought of trying to copy it and posting it online out of the question.

The point being made here, however, is that Metro has in fact made available to interested members of the public copies of previous FP contracts. So why are David Wolff and company turning gun shy now?

Sigh...

Wizard

Exxon's profits and its tax bills

I logged this morning to check my web mail. After doing so, I subsequently found a story that was carried by my ISP about how the price of crude oil is falling, but that the price of gasoline at the pump has been slowly going up.

So what's the deal? The article did a somewhat decent job of describing the overall situation of what's happening in the worldwide oil markets, or at least not a bad job for a journalistic article, but at the end of the article there were a pair of statements that were made by two people interviewed for the story.

"Drivers are being ripped off even more now than before," said Stuart Pollok, who was filling up recently at a Chevron station in downtown Los Angeles. He pointed out Exxon Mobil Corp. reeled in billions in profits last year when oil prices neared $150.

"It got really low during the elections and now it's going back up," said Christel Sayegh, a 23-year-old graphic designer in Los Angeles. "They do that every election, though, right?"

In response to both Mr. Pollok's wailing about Exxon's obscene profits and to the young graphic designer's conspiracy oriented view of the world, I present an article that was written in this past week's U.S. News and World Report by Robert Bryce about how Exxon paid $116 billion in taxes in 2008. That's right gentle readers. Exxon made an immoral and obscene $45 billion in profits in 2008, but the corporation's overall tax bill in 2008 was - oh well - only a petty $116 billion or 2.5 times as much.

Exxon of course is the largest privately held Big Evil Oil Company in the Big Evil Oil industry. However, as everyone knows there are plenty of other companies in the oil and gas industry that are also paying untold billions of dollars every year in taxes to governments of all stripes.

I posted this message to an Internet discussion group that I belong to and got a response back from a well known guy in the transit industry:

That headline – Exxon’s 2008 tax bill was $116 billion – reminded me of something I was just working on.

So, when someone tells you that roads don’t pay their way, here is another thing to bring into the analysis.

Sigh...

Wizard

Houston Lifestyles magazine on Houston's trolley system

This month's Houston Lifestyles magazine has a story on the last page of its dead tree edition (the online version of the story can be read here) which has both a fascinating perspective on Houston's historical experience with buses and trolleys, as well as a link to a wonderful, must see website on Houston's history put together by the Sloane Gallery.

To wit, here is what Houston Lifestyles and the Sloane Gallery had to say about the bus and rail issue:

It seems that every year we are presented with a new light rail expansion proposal. In 1923 the city of Houston enacted a plan to remove the trolley tracks on Main Street. The removal was completed in 1925 much to the delight of merchants and pedestrians. It was evident that a train running down Main Street did nothing to help the hundreds of retail shops that lined the boulevard. Today, we have a train on Main Street and a virtual ghost town of retail blight to go with it.

snip...

History provides us with ample evidence that rail is a successful way of moving people and freight. Unfortunately, history also illustrates how politicians refuse to take into consideration the hard learned lessons of the past in regards to rail placement.

I would correct the well meaning sentiments expressed by the good folks at both Houston Lifestyles and at the Sloane Gallery. The powers that be at Metro, as well as the rail constituency, knew damned well what they were doing. They knew that they had to run rail lines in every direction simply because in order to get the 2003 Metro Solutions election to pass muster at the ballot box, they had to promise something to each and every last constituency in Metro's 1285 square mile, far flung service area. That not only included building rail lines in every direction, it also meant promising new park and rides everywhere, more HOV lanes, 50 percent more bus service, etc. All of this was to be done, of course, without having to resort to raising taxes.

Addendum: Read this epistle from Swamplot about the $14 million subsidized Houston Pavillions project, which is located right on Main Street along the Metro rail line.

Sigh...

Wizard

Houston: Floodway Coalition property owners win in court

On January 29th, 2009, John and Mary Jane O'Fiel, members of the Floodway Coalition of Houston, won a round in their legal battle with the City of Houston over whether the City's changing of Chapter 19-43 of the City ordinance code, governing floodways, constituted a taking of the O'Fiels' property. Briefly, the City tried to argue to the appeals court that the courts had no say in the matter, something known as arguing a plea to the jurisdiction. What the court told the City was that no, the court denied this plea to the City.

The case was argued in the Texas First District Court of Appeals. In reading the Court's ruling, the City effectively argued that since the O'Fiels had not actually done anything with their property, in other words that they had not applied for any permits, that the O'Fiels had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to them at that time. Ergo, it then followed that the O'Fiels' case was not ripe. The Court did not buy the City's argument.

The Wizard believes that the City was trying to shutdown the case altogether, delaying any legal proceedings for years and trying to wear down the O'Fiels in court. Fortunately the Courts have denied that to the City. The legal proceedings on the Floodway takings issue progress.

More to come.

Wizard

A suicide in downtown Houston

10 minutes ago, a co-worker of mine told me that a man jumped from the parking garage across from the Texaco - Chevron Heritage building here in downtown Houston. I went to the fourth floor and looked out the north window of my building and beheld the scene from a birds eye view. The police have about half the block taped off with yellow tape. Several officers were standing around the body, with some onlookers gathering. I don't have my digital camera with me.

Some contractors who work on our elevators witnessed the guy jump. One wonders what made the man give up all hope on living and go over the edge.

Sigh...

Wizard

On Zoning in Chicago

One of the arguments that people who believe that Houston must have a zoning ordinance is that zoning will allow them to retain the character and flavor of their neighborhoods. Zoning will allow citizens to keep out McMansions and other inappropriate development, zoning will allow residents to control their own destiny, and zoning will enable the urban planners to use their supposed expertise to guide the destiny of a city.

Well, well, well, if gentle readers fervently believe all of this, then I have a story for you, courtesy of the Chicago Tribune. Better yet, this story is only one of a series of stories that the Tribune has written on the subject of zoning and land use in Chicago. I have yet to make my way through all of the stories, but based on my early readings, they will make for days of entertainment.

Some gentle readers will try to point that the real issue in these stories is that there was a housing bust that resulted from altering the zoning codes, but that is a red herring. The real story is that zoning does not do what zoning advocates say it does. Not only that, but since land use is far more greatly politicized via the enactment of a zoning ordinance, it creates an environment where politicians can extract economic rents, personal favors, and possibly personally get rich via changing ordinances for developers command large campaign contributions for getting elected and releected.

From the story above:

NEIGHBORHOODS FOR SALE: PART 8

House of cards emerges in zoning-change game

TRIBUNE ANALYSIS: Market collapse is aggravated by system where aldermen benefit from campaign donations from developers

Mayor Richard Daley has maintained the tradition of letting aldermen have the final say over what gets built in their wards. Almost half of the zoning changes approved by the council members are done despite opposition from City Hall's own planning staff.

On Harlem Avenue in the 36th Ward, a developer who has given the alderman $3,000 used a zoning change to put up a five-story condo complex despite objections from neighbors. Now the builder is trying to entice potential buyers by offering a year without condo association assessments.

A federal probe that dates to at least 2007 has expanded to include interest in a 2004 letter to Daley from U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Chicago). Gutierrez lobbied the mayor on behalf of a zoning change for a developer who lent him $200,000 for a separate real estate deal. The congressman said he did nothing improper.

So the Congressman didn't do anything improper? Really?

Continued...

The real zoning code in Chicago is unwritten, but developers know it well: Changes in zoning go hand in hand with contributions to aldermanic campaigns.

The investigation found that Chicago is a city where a building boom greased by millions of dollars in political donations to aldermen has remade the face of neighborhoods, changing the feel of the streets where people live and work.

And it's a city where advisory groups that review zoning proposals are sometimes stacked with developers and real estate agents who will profit from the projects.

This practice of "aldermanic prerogative" creates a political spoils system where cash and clout trump the public planning process employed in many other major American cities. The result is a patchwork approach to development, where the fate of any zoning change is decided long before it is ever discussed publicly by the council's Zoning Committee.

The decisions made in ward offices and rubber stamped in City Hall are driving the transformation of Chicago, making neighborhoods unrecognizable to people who have tended their homes and yards there for decades.

Although she's no city planner, Alice Sopala poses the same question planners ask. "Why bother zoning an area if you will totally disregard it whenever the alderman says it's OK?" she said.

"Zoning in Chicago is driven by real estate developers," said Ryan, a former New York city planner. "There really isn't any plan in Chicago. You have very few neighborhoods that are safe from overdevelopment."

Of course, one may ask what is meant by the term overdevelopment. Read the rest and weep. One of the benefits of the non-zoned real estate market in Houston is that residents and developers do not have to face the threat of having rents extracted from them from City Council members. One secret that politicians know that the public does not is that there are economies of scale to be reaped from indulging in corruption. Just ask Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.

Lastly, as noted in my previous blog posting, my parent's neighborhood in Spring Branch has been undergoing redevelopment over the past 4 years. Nobody there has been complaining about the neighborhood going upscale or complaining that the neighborhood is loosing its character. Meanwhile, the fact that the neighborhood is going upscale means that the City and County are raking in more in property taxes. That is a true marketplace in action.

And by the way, I really am a nice guy, ergo have a Happy New Year!

Wizard

The subprime mortgage mess - explained

The Wizard admits that he is belatedly trying to wrap his mind around the staggering news that President Bush is trying to browbeat Congress into approving a whopping $700 billion to bail out Wall Street.

With that in mind, I present to the public a Microsoft power point presentation that should help explain to the viewer in easy terms how Wall Street and the financial community at large got itself into the sub prime mortgage mess in the first place. Note that the power point presentation is about 2.5mb in size, ergo it will take a minute or so to download, depending upon your Internet connection. Follow the usual power point instructions to go through the presentation; press the ESC button to get out and the up and down arrows to go forward and backwards in the presentation.

I get a laugh every time I go through it and laughs are few and far between these days.

Enjoy!

Wizard

On Jitneys in Houston

In the August 7th, 2008 edition of Houston's newspaper of note, Leslie Casimir wrote the story of how it takes Houstonians Pablo Camarillo and 72 year old Margaret Jenkins hours of their precious time during their busy days in order for them to get to work. The Chronicle included an online map showing Mrs. Jenkins' torturous daily commute to her home off of Airport Boulevard on Houston's south side to her job on South Loop West.

Mrs. Jenkins' daily commute, the Chronicle reported, takes an estimated 83 minutes. The Wizard decided to punch in Mrs. Jenkins' home and work locations on Google Maps, using the terms 3300 Airport Blvd and 2616 South Loop as the two end locations in order to determine the distance between her home and job. Google Maps reported that the fastest trip was what I expected. Simply take Airport Blvd in a west bound direction until you hit 288, then turn north on 288. When you reach the intersection of 288 and South Loop, turn west and around. The distance is six miles and Google Maps estimates that the trip takes 9 minutes, right in line with what Mrs. Jenkins says in the story. She says the trip by car takes 10 minutes.

Clearly the story generated a firestorm of comments on the Chronicle's website. Tory writes about the issue here. Tory asks whether we have our big government transit monopoly priorities straight?

The Wizard believes that there may be an answer to Mrs. Jenkins' and Mr. Camarillo's dilemma that doesn't involve having a monopolistic government transit agency spend $100 million or more per mile on rail lines, not that any of Metro's proposed rail lines would not help either Mr. Camarillo or Mrs. Jenkins get to their jobs since they won't run where they need to go anyway. That solution involves loosening up the City of Houston ordinances governing the operations of jitneys.

Jitneys are a form of transportation that are widely used in poorer countries, in places that don't have billions of taxpayer dollars to fund grandiose transit monuments. The Wizard has taken jitney trips in several countries, including the Philippines (where they are called Jeepney's), and in Thailand. Steven Baron extensively discussed the use of jitneys in Houston in his book Houston Electric. In that book, Baron notes that Houston City Council outlawed the operation of jitneys in 1924, at which they had captured nearly 25 percent of the passenger market in Houston. However at the 2008 American Dream Coalition conference in Houston last May, I heard Alfredo Santos tell of his story where he started operating a jitney illegally. HPRA President and public activist Barry Klein helped Mr. Santos get legal help, which eventually led to the overturning of the jitney ordinance some years ago and their legalization.

So why aren't jitneys more widely used in Houston? Well, whenever something is legal but rarely used, the Wizard immediately starts suspecting government interference and sure enough, if one decides to pay a visit to the City of Houston ordinances governing the operation of jitneys (Chapter 46, Article VI), one immediately notices some very serious regulatory barriers to entry that would be jitney operators face in entering the competitive field for transportation. Notably:

1) A vehicle used for jitney operations cannot be more than five years old! So, my 19 year old Honda which has over 180,000 miles on it, and which could continue to be safely operated for years to come could not be used as a jitney vehicle.

Imagine if Metro was told that their $500,000 buses, which are usually designed to last for roughly 12 years and 500,000 miles of operation, could not by law be allowed to operate for more than five years? Imagine if Metro's $3.2 million rail cars, which usually last for some 30-35 years with some overhauls, could not be allowed to operate for more than five years? The public would go completely bananas.

2) Jitney vehicle operators must submit an operating plan to the City, including a fixed route and fares. Jitney operators are not allowed to travel elsewhere unless they submit a new route to the City. That means that jitney operators and would be passengers are not allowed to negotiate fares, something that is standard practice in other countries.

It also means that jitney operators cannot fully utilize the full flexibility of their vehicles by servicing an entire area of town and potentially capturing more customers with door to door service. I've been on a number of bus and jitney trips abroad where vehicle operators stopped off on the side of the road or wandered off course on behalf of some passengers. Imagine if a Domino's Pizza franchisee opens a store in your area of town with intentions of servicing a 4 mile radius area around the store, but then is told by the City that they can only service homes or businesses that are on a handful of streets and nowhere else. How many Domino's stores would now be in existence?

3) Jitney operators face bonding and insurance requirements that Metro does not. Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, your life is only worth $100,000 if you suffer injury or death while involved with any kind of accident with a Metro vehicle. It should be obvious to everyone that jitney operators don't enjoy such governmental immunity.

There are more, but no doubt that the usual rationale would be offered as to why these regulations are in place and that is that we need to protect the public. It should be equally obvious to everyone that this ordinance doesn't protect the public from anything, but was instead written to protect Yellow Cab and Metro from market competition, not to help the citizens of Houston get around more quickly or conveniently.

Jitneys also present another problem, this one in the political marketplace. Jitneys don't allow politicians to spend billions of dollars in cost overruns on big transportation make work projects, they don't allow for photo opportunities or to put their names into the history books, nor do they help politicians obtain millions in campaign contributions. They also would drive lovers of government transit berserk. However by lifting lifting the regulatory barriers to entry to jitney operations, the City just might allow a solution to come forward which could allow Mrs. Jenkins to get to her job in 10 minutes and to succeed where taxpayer funded public transit fails.

Are you a class warfare type who is worried that Mrs. Jenkins might have to pay $10 for her twelve mile round trip back and forth to work everyday? Good! All that goes to show is that you don't know how much Mrs. Jenkins values her time. Who knows? She just might be willing to pay that kind of money so that she can get 2 hours and 20 minutes of her day back. Who knows, maybe a friendly jitney operator may decide to cut a deal and price discriminate for her so that she could get a round trip for $5 per day, but we won't know unless City regulations are loosened up.

Next, I write about having lunch with Bill King.

Wizard

UK: The Labour Party's environmental suicide

Between December 2006 and April 2007, I was sent to the UK three times by my Big Evil Company employer. The first trip was a stop over on my way to Algeria, while the latter two trips were made to backfill for my counterpart while he took time off for knee surgery and for paternity leave. I spent a total of nine weeks over in the Sceptered Isles.

While I was on the other side of the pond, it was impossible not to notice the amount of environmental hysteria that was being broadcast in the news, whether watching the BBC or reading the newspapers. Hardly a day went by where it seemed that there wasn't some reference to the Kyoto Treaty or that the Labour government was working towards some commitment to cutting greenhouse gases and telling the public that it must have shared sacrifices and belt tightening, all in the name of the Greater Good.

Well, lo and behold, here were are in July 2008 and we now hear of the news that in a recent by-election, the Labour Party lost a stronghold Parliamentary seat in Glascow. For those of you who are not quite up to snuff on your British politics, the world - very broadly - breaks down like this. The Labour Party has long held a very strong grip on Scotland and the north, while the Conservatives do better in southern England. To reiterate, this is a generalization, but as a broad picture statement, it does hold true. Hence, the fact that the Labour Party lost a long time seat to the Scottish National Party is quite a shocker.

As things stand now, the Labour Party majority in Westminster is now down to about 60. When Tony Blair first ascended to power in 1997, Labour had 418 seats. Now Labour has under 350 out of some 646 seats. It is in this context that the loss of a seat in Labour stronghold does not bode well for the Party come 2010, which is when the next general election must be contested. However, it may well be that there may need to be a coalition government formed in order to maintain a majority in the next general election.

But circling back to Labour's woes, much of the political commentary has been centering on the idea that people are starting to get fed up with paying high taxes on fossil fuels, all in the name of environmentalism. One adviser to the Labour government, Richard Parry Jones, warns that if Labour does not ditch its heavy taxes on automobiles, then UK voters are going to throw them out at the next election.

This is a fate that has happened to the Socialists in France and in Germany, where Sarkozy's rightists outright defeated the Socialists and Angela Merkel came to power via a grand coalition. As as this article points out:

In recent years, almost all of Europe's social democratic parties have lost in national elections. The collapse of support for Gordon Brown and his policies reveals a general decline of Europe's social democracy as a whole.

Motorists in the UK are paying the highest fuel taxes in Europe, an average of almost £900 annually. In the name of climate change mitigation, the government has progressively increased fuel, road and car taxes. It has burdened companies with a so-called Climate Change Levy and introduced an emissions trading scheme -- costly policies that have had damaging effects on British competitiveness, energy prices and living standards. As a direct result, a record number of people, particularly Britain's poorest, oldest and most vulnerable, are increasingly falling on hard times. As many as five million households, more than 20% of the UK's population, are today living in "fuel poverty."

Progressives in America have, in many ways, followed a similar pattern. It used to be in the early years of the 20th century that progressivism meant that there was a belief in scientific and technological progress that would make our world a better place. This belief would be coupled with some kind of redistributive and social safety type measures to uplift the poor and catch those who had fallen through the cracks. Instead, it seems that Progressivism now substantially means that technological advancements are not to be pursued because of fears or objections to science and technology. Instead, we are told that we have to cut back, all in the name of saving the planet from some imagined environmental catastrophies, damned the cost.

All the Wizard has to say is that Progressives had better take a look at what has happened across the water and pause, lest they find that voters decide eventually to drive them off of political agenda.

Wizard

The Surfside beach front property rights battle

On June 17, 2008, National Public Radio picked up on a property rights battle, previously covered by the Wall Street Journal, involving a friend of the Wizard named Brooks Porter. Brooks, along with his wife Merry, own a beach front property in Surfside Texas, near Freeport, which they have held for 25 years.

As the NPR story relates, the Porters purchased the house as a rental and occasional weekend beach house. The problem is that over the past 25 years, the Gulf of Mexico has eroded the local beach heads dozens of feet, sweeping grasses and dunes with it. The Porters, along with some other locals, now have housing that sits just yards away from the shoreline. That in turn puts them on the beach which is in violation of the Texas Open Beaches Act, which states that the beach is effectively a park.

Brooks told me a while back that the problem is that the beach erosion is not entirely a natural phenomenon, due to acts from the Army Corps of Engineers and other entities. He and the wife intend to stay put.

As the NPR story correctly concludes, this is a big looming problem. To quote NPR:

How this case gets resolved could set a precedent far beyond Texas. What if rising seas threaten one day to swamp skyscrapers in Manhattan or entire towns in Florida? Whose responsibility will it be to move buildings out of the way? Who will take the hit for the lost property value?

Mr. and Mrs. Porter have fought this battle for 10 years now. Stay tuned.

Sigh...

Wizard.

Riding the METRO #82 to work

Recently, it came out that Harris County Metro was promoting a nation wide effort for Americans to use public transportation. I was not aware of this, but I did find out about it via BlogHouston.

Unlike 95-96 percent of Houstonians - and probably nearly all of the loudest promoters of public transportation in this City - the Wizard actually decided to take the bus from home to work this past Friday. In reality, I had been thinking of doing this for about two weeks. I've been doing some research, collecting data on transit speeds on various bus routes, wait times, and so forth. What I have been doing when I go on bus trips is that I write down how long it took for me to access the transit stop, the time I get on the bus, record all stops, the amount of time the bus stops, and time of arrival when I get to where I am going.

Without going into a blow by blow account of my trip on Friday, here is an overview of my trip to work and back home. I live about 9 miles from downtown and happen to have a bus stop at the corner of Westheimer and the street I live at. Of course, when it comes to public transportation, all roads really do lead to downtown, ergo if one does not have a job in downtown like I do, and some 93 percent of people who live in Harris County do not, then the possibilities of transit working for anyone in an urban area diminish substantially.

Here are the general details of what happened.

Going to work

1) I walk out my front door at 7:17:50 am. The bus stop is about 2/10th's of a mile away from where I live. I reach the bus stop at 7:21:12 am, so my walk to the bus stop has taken me 3 minutes and 22 seconds. I see a Metro bus at the next light, but it is not the route I want to take. As it is, that route will also get me to work and might have gotten there as fast as, or faster, than the route I took today. As it is, I let the #53 go by and wait for the #82.

2) The #82 arrives at 7:27:10am. As I get onboard and waive my Metro Q-Card, I keep thinking to myself that I could be nearly half way to work by now if I had taken my car. I also think that I am paying $2 for a round trip today, whereas my cost of gas is about $3. As for the opportunity cost of my time, well gentle readers, that is another story...

3) The #82 is standing room only, so I stand for the first two miles until we get to the Galleria. Most are minorities and working class people. I am the only one dressed in slacks and shirt. There, several people get off and I sit down.

4) At 7:37:05 am, we cross 610 Loop. I would have been reaching my workplace by now in my car.

5) At 7:44:49am, we reach Lamar High School and St. John's private school. There to my surprise, seven students get off the bus and start walking towards Lamar High School. I have seen Lamar students get on the bus in the afternoon, but somehow didn't expect this in the morning.

6) At 7:57:20am, we pass Numbers night club. At 7:59:15am, we reach Louisiana and turn left towards downtown. On the way, I see Houston Police pointing speed guns at drivers along Louisiana. We reach Polk at 8:04:10am. My walk to the office is seven minutes.

Results: My overall trip time door to door was 54 minutes, which is what I was generally expecting. That means my car saves me about 50-60 minutes per day in a round trip.

The actual time in transit was 37 minutes. There were a total of 37 bus stops made, which took a grand total of approximately 602 seconds (ten minutes and two seconds). That works out to an average stop time of 16.27 seconds per stop, but some stops were substantially longer than that. The stop for the light at Kirby and Westheimer, for example took, 62 seconds. If I had taken the #53 instead, I may have gotten to work faster.

The average stop time for the #82 is actually less than for some other bus routes I have taken. For example, for the #15 Fulton bus route, I discovered that the average stop time was about 21 seconds per stop. I did this while doing research in response to the public comment period for the North Corridor rail transit line.

The average speed of my entire trip was 10 miles per hour, if you count walk time and wait times. If you count only time in transit, the speed of the bus was approximately 14 miles per hour. That also happens to be the average speed of travel of the Main Street rail line.

My trip home

1) I left my job Friday evening at 5:55pm. I reached a covered bus stop on Smith at 5:58pm and wait. It rained on Friday. That reminded me that 30 years after being voted into existence, a large percentage of Metro's bus stops still do not have covered shelters at them. The #53 has a bus at the light, but I was on the other side of the street and traffic was steady. Once again, I let the #53 go and decide to take the #82 home.

2) 6:02:10pm, board the next #82 bus. The bus currently has about 15 passengers, including 2-3 professional types. I later discover the professional types all get off at Wesleyan. The bus starts in transit at 6:03:06pm.

3) 6:12:00pm. The bus turns onto Elgin, which of course turns into Westheimer. This time many more people get on and off at random stops and there are several people who request bus stops along the route. I have been finding that Metro buses stop an average of about once every quarter mile. In contrast, the planned light rail lines will have a stop roughly every three fourths of a mile to one mile. I suspect that travel speeds would be faster for a bus than a train if Metro were to run supplemental limited stop buses along the proposed rail lines that were to stop as infrequently as trains do.

While I sit on this trip writing down my times, I found myself occasionally staring out the window and starting to dwell on the thought of public transportation being an amenity of an urban area. Maybe it was the fact of actually being on a bus and taking it to work which concentrated my mind on this matter, rather than writing abstractly from an analytical view. Amenities of all kinds have costs related in producing them. The key is to minimize amenity costs in order to achieve results, especially if you are using public monies for the amenity. Otherwise you wind up with sunk costs and ultimately tax increases in order to pay for the amenity. It should be noted that for the first 22 years of the agency's existence, Metro - incredibly for a government transit agency - never got into financial trouble. Transit agencies that only run buses never do. Once a transit agency crosses that line and starts building big rail networks, the thoughts and worries about where are we going to get more money never quit. Since the rail line was built and talk started of building rail lines in all directions, there has been nothing but talk on how are we going to pay for this. Get used to that.

The increased costs of fuel for Metro from the $1.83 per gallon contract they signed five years ago to updated market prices will cost some $30 million per year, which amounts to increasing the system wide subsidy costs to carry patrons by bus by about 6 cents per passenger mile. In contrast, building the rail line for the North Corridor will result in spending about $3.50 - $4 per passenger mile to attract a new transit rider using light rail as your means of doing so.

And no gentle readers, there is no fuzzy math in that statement. I did not say that the cost would be $4 per gallon of fuel, I said the social costs are about $3.50 - $4 per passenger mile to attract a new rider to transit using light rail as your means of doing it. I arrived at that calculation assuming each and every new rail boarding would result in a five mile trip (which is about the average distance a transit rider travels when taking public transportation), using Metro's own stated forecasts (Metro states that the corridor has 19,000 bus boardings now and will have 29,000 boardings after rail is built), their own cost estimates ($677 million), and the FTA's own mandated cost structures to arrive at that figure. Furthermore, Metro says 55 percent of the riders for the North Corridor alignment will be bus riders arriving at train stop via bus, so instead of getting to take a bus straight into downtown, they will have to probably transfer to the rail line in order to complete their trip.

Imagine having a four seat sedan as your car and that you pick up three of your co-workers to go back and forth to work, driving 10 miles back and forth, or about 5,000 miles per year in the process. Now imagine having to trade up to a five seat Lexus type minivan because another co-worker who happens to live nearby (say a mile away) wants to join your car pool. Then imagine the cost of making that switch would cost you an additional $17,500 - $20,000 per year over and above your current transportation costs. That's what we are getting into when we trade up now from buses to light rail. So would you make that switch and buy that minivan, or would you consider trying to do something cheaper, or do nothing at all? If your answer is yes you would buy that minivan, then that also is what Metro, the Houston Chronicle, and the rail constituency want to do.

Note that none of these figures incorporate losses to patronage from bus routes which have had their routes truncated, rerouted, or eliminated in an effort to accomodate the demands that rail will place on the agency. Metro lost some 23,000 - 25,000 boardings on the 16 main bus routes that intersect the Main Street rail line after the line was built. Expect more of this if the other five rail lines get built. Once again, all we are doing is trading up, and what an expensive trade up that is.

Proper pricing of amenities via using private markets for transportation, which is what actors in the free market and private sector would have to do in order to survive, would cut all of this out. That in turn would allow us to get rid of this notion that everyone should live at the expense of everyone else.

4) The bus reaches 610 Loop at 6:34:40pm and reaches the Galleria 1 minute later. When it does, 14 people get off the bus.

5) I get off the bus at 6:48:40pm. It takes me 90 seconds to cross Westheimer because I don't have the green light when I get off the bus. I get to my front door at 6:54:05pm.

Results: The overall time from door to door is 59 minutes and 5 seconds. The actual time in transit was 45 minutes and 34 seconds, reflecting heavier traffic. There were 38 stops made on the way home. The time spent at stops was 816 seconds, or 13 minutes and 36 seconds. The average time spent at stops was 21.5 seconds.

The average speed of my trip home, door to door, was 9 miles per hour, if you count walk time and wait times. If you count only time in transit, the speed of the bus was approximately 12 miles per hour. I have so far found on traveling four different bus routes that the average travel speed of a Metro bus in transit is some 12-14 miles per hour. If Metro were to introduce a Rapid Bus or Signature bus line down Westheimer, that would eliminate about 75 percent of the bus stops along my bus route and cut the time in transit down by somewhere around 7.5 - 10 minutes in each direction.

One of the things I wrote in my reply to the North Corridor Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement was that simply running a bus straight to Northline Mall with the same number of stops as the planned rail line would take approximately 19 minutes. That almost certainly matches the speed of the proposed rail line which would have its own dedicated lane verses a bus which now has to operate in mixed traffic; ergo there would be little or no travel savings to be reaped by spending all that money by building a rail line. What's worse is that Metro plans to cut off road lanes along Fulton (and has floated the idea of doing that to Richmond Avenue), which will cause greater traffic congestion along the route.

One other thought went through my head. The cost of building an at grade light rail line from my home to work would probably cost at least $1,200,000,000, if not far more. It would involve widening and acquiring property along all of Westheimer. Even worse, a rail line traveling 15 miles per hour in transit would have only saved me time on my work trip home. It would have traveled at the same speed on my way in.

Enough for now. I will be going to a visitation this evening for a young colleague who unexpected was taken by a sudden illness. It is a reminder of how cruel life can be. My ADC stories will resume next week.

Wizard.

Lunch with CM Peter Brown

I had the week off from the day job a couple of weeks ago and took the opportunity to attended an April 9, 2008 TexITE luncheon where Councilman Peter Brown was the featured speaker. And it was a speech to remember.

Mr. Brown started off by saying that he has been a member of the ITE since 1995, when he mentioned that some of its members had started getting caught up in New Urbanism. He stated that he has worked in some 25 states with master planned developments and 130,000 units.

He stated emphatically that he represents the City of Houston. He insisted that the Houston metropolitan area needed a "strong central city", but as have so many other speakers who have made this claim, I should note that he failed to explicitly explain why is it necessary to have one. What's so special about a particular municipality when both homeowners and businesses are footloose?

Mr. Brown stated that the efficiency and character of the built environment must go together. He also said that Houston must become a Sustainable City. For those of you that need some help reading between the lines, this means that Houston must have urban consolidation, despite the fact that Houston has been gaining density at a rate of about 500 people per square mile per decade since circa 1990. In this encoded language, this means that we must have more compact development, use less energy, meaning that we have to get away from autos and use public transportation regardless of its decline in use. In other words, it's no longer the City's job to merely provide police protection, fire suppression, or other services. It is now the City's job to compel you to cut down on how much energy you use regardless of your own habits or desires.

There is now a new Council committee called the Committee of Sustainable Growth. Of course, Mr. Brown is the chair of this committee and I would not doubt that some of his "Smart Growth" friends are advising him.

Mr. Brown says that we recycle only 7 percent of our waste, while Seattle recycles much more. He forgot to mention that recycling was one of those fads that started in the 1980's, but municipalities everywhere quickly discovered that recycling was largely a money waster. In fact the City of Houston, which started a recycling plan under former Mayor Kathy Whitmire, has tried on a number of occasions over the past 15-20 years to get out of the recycling business because it was consuming taxpayer dollars. However, recycling is politically popular, ergo the City continues to waste taxpayer dollars doing it because the taxpayers like wasting their taxpayer dollars this way.

Read this post as to why recycling is often a money waster:

Well one of the reasons they want you to take your recyclables to a depository is because curbside recycling is extremely energy inefficient. And seriously money losing in most places unless landfill fees are exorbitant like in NY, CA or Seattle. I think in SanFran you have to sort your recyclables. In Texas, Austin has a weekly curbside program which loses money. In Houston we have a biweekly curbside pickup which loses money, and is only available in the closer in more dense areas, maybe 1/3 of the city area. The trucks squander so much fuel that the money from selling recyclables doesn't pay for fuel costs. This is even worse in lower population density cities like Nashville and 'burbs because of the distance between pickups. Houston was losing intolerable money from this when it was weekly, so they changed to biweekly. Unless you're in an area where land for landfills is extremely tight, and pop. density is high like in major cities on the coasts, curbside recycling is window dressing, a "feel good" solution causing more waste than saving. It's not a matter of Nashville being behind San Jose at all, just reasonable economics for the local situation. The political entities there are saying to you to combine a trip to the store with a trip to the depository and save fuel. I do this with glass since Houston does not take glass at the curbside.

Mr. Brown informed the audience that the City of Houston now has a comprehensive mobility plan and a comprehensive drainage plan in place. A "Green Building Code" will be getting adopted, though he did not go into details of its contents. There are definitive plans for Interconnected Green Belts and flood control plans. At the same time, CM Brown lamented that the City has no source of money for flood control.

Mr. Brown is convinced that new resources for transportation infrastructure funding will be available at the federal level. He reemphasized that Houston needs a plan.

Mr. Brown supports the Texas Triangle Bullet Train connecting DFW, Austin & San Antonio, and Houston. He says that costs will be $21 billion, a figure I'll believe when I see it. He said that Southwest Airlines is probably dropping their opposition to such a plan because there is no money to be made on short haul air traffic. As was to be expected, Mr. Brown emphatically supports dramatically increased light rail and commuter rail expansions. Of course he would because he will be dead before he has to ask taxpayers to bail out Metro when the cost overruns come and bus service goes to pot to continue rail service. All this for a form of transportation that will probably never achieve more than 10-15 percent of work trips no matter how high the price of fuel becomes.

One item I should interject here about a Texas triangle train. One needs to remember that such a scheme will only be built within the boundaries of Texas. As such, people should not expect that a financially strapped federal government, which will be feeling the full brunt of the baby boomer entitlement burden coming within the next decade, to fund such a scheme simply because you are asking that 49 other states fund it without getting anything in return. It will need to be done either privately or be done from the confines of the Texas Legislature.

CM Brown says Dallas is 10-15 years ahead of Houston when it comes to rail, but he failed to mention that rail has done nothing to improve traffic congestion, which is as bad as Houston's. He also didn't talk about the recent massive escalations in rail costs which have sent shockwaves throughout the Dallas political classes and have driven Dallas's rail expansions into the ditch. He said Houstonians will not tolerate eminent domain for new roads. That's good to know because if we are going to have the much ballyhooed 3.5 million new residents show up by 2035, then we will probably have another 2 million or more vehicles on our roads.

Mr. Brown says that Houston must be pro-growth and development, as only 15 percent of new area population and 23 percent of new area jobs are landing in Houston proper, as the people and jobs are going outside city limits. Strangely, moments later he proclaimed that "there is a great migration where people are moving back to the central city". The creative classes want an exciting, vibrant lifestyle and we need to improve the "Quality of Place". I suppose that we are to have no more of those quiet, boring, suburban bedroom communities with good schools and lots of open space which might attract new residents.

Mr. Brown said we have reactive and complaint driven government, where for example a developer says they need a pair of lanes for their new development in order to make it work. This is not efficient, Mr. Brown proclaimed. Instead, "we need to do things like figure out where the high density development is supposed to go". Mr. Brown didn't mention the idea that developers might be the ones whose job it is to figure out where high density development might go, nor did Mr. Brown go into details as to why a developer might need a pair of road lanes to get their new developments to work.

Transportation planning: Area planning will require overlaying TX-DOT's plans, TIRZ maps, and the city's plans. Houston will soon have a classification of city streets, which he says have led to "insipid neighborhood layouts", though Mr. Brown did not go into detail as to what constituted insipid neighborhood layouts. Mr. Brown is not happy with current transportation modeling at H-GAC, claiming it is primitive. Other cities have "much more advanced" modeling.

Mr. Brown then said a major goal of Houston's comprehensive mobility plan is to substantially reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled ! He said Houstonians spend $12,000 per year in auto expenses. He derided that Houston is a cheap city to live, saying that despite cheap housing costs, Houston is very expensive, partly because taxes are high. There is a trade off between housing and transportation costs. "We need to find a balance", presumably through even more planning. Major Thoroughfares are to be rationalized, efficient, and neat. Mr. Brown did not go into any further details as to what the City was going to do to compel its citizens to not travel so many miles, regardless of what their means or travel desires were.

Mr. Brown has traffic calming on his agenda, as well as road dieting. In case you need translations of these terms, these are part and parcel of the Smart Growth agenda, terms which mean that roads need to have lots of money spent putting various barriers in the way for pedestrians, which in turn cut down on vehicle speeds and mobility. Road dieting means cutting down on road lane miles and redeploying them for bikes and walking. In other words, Mr. Brown wants to make Houston more automobile hostile, build up traffic congestion, and make it slower and more difficult to get around so that people will walk more. In other words, this means making Houston look like London.

If you need a clarification of what "road dieting is", imagine this. Westheimer inside 610 Loop is mostly two lanes in both directions with no medians. Now then, imagine taking the outer 5 feet off of the outer two lanes and redeploying them for (seldom used) bike paths. That wipes away one full lane off the street configuration. Then with the remaining three lanes, use the center lane as a turn lane and put an occasional pedestrian island on it. This leaves us with only one full lane for vehicle traffic in either direction.

Don't laugh. I went to a Metro meeting some months ago on the Wheeler / Richmond rail alignment where Metro is looking at allowing only one lane of traffic to operate in either direction during off peak time travel hours. All this in the name of "promoting a pedestrian realm".

Here are just a few of hundreds of photos I took of London when I was there in 2007:

1) This photo shows a 300+ year old neighborhood where there is only on street parking and which only has one lane for cars.

2) This photo is a window ad at a real estate firm where two apartment flats are for sale. The first is for $1,850,000 and the second is for $1,500,000.

3) This apartment was going for $850 per week. The apartment below was going for $800 per week, which is about the average apartment rent in London right now.

The difference between carrying a 30 year $150,000 mortgage at 6 percent in Houston and a $600,000 mortgage in London (the average price of a home in London is about 300,000 pounds) is $32,400 per year, enough to purchase and maintain 5-6 cars per household. My colleague whom I went to London to backfill for is a Scotsman who lives in Aberdeen. He cannot afford to move to London because the UK government takes too much of his salary away in taxes and the City is too expensive for him, his wife, and their 3 kids, even though he is probably making $100,000 per year and would be living in a national capital which has a legendary public transportation system which is heavily subsidized.

Mr. Brown says that Dallas has a comprehensive development plan, but strangely, in order to come up with this new plan, they had to do away with antiquated zoning which was getting in the way of the new plan. Mr. Brown didn't mention stories like this or this when talking about Dallas's latest plans.

Houston does not do fiscal impacts on development says Mr. Brown. People are fed up with taxes and we need to promote development. My take on these remarks is that these studies are often used to justify whether "development pays for itself", presumably meaning that if a developer spots a market for single family homes somewhere and wants to build them, the City could then stop this development on some theoretical grounds that the infrastructure will be too costly to implement and that the development will not contribute enough tax monies to justify planners permitting its construction. In other words, such grounds could be used to deny where people live, where development is located, what type of development it is, and its attendant satisfaction of market participants on the grounds that this development is somehow detrimental to municipal finance of all things. In other words, such a device could be used to hinder development, if that development is presumed to be of the kind that is somehow not to be desired.

The questions started: One engineer who had spent his entire career in traffic engineering, talked abaout the traffic and transportation department, which was dissolved in the 1990's, but is now in PW&E and part of a giant bureaucracy. Gonzalo Camacho was also there. He said that 30 percent of early morning rush hour traffic is school traffic. People move to the suburbs for better schools and cheap housing.

Mr. Brown's response: "We need a Marshall Plan for schools and health care!" Great - yet another plan. That must have been the twentieth time Mr. Brown used the word plan in his talk. He lamented that the City spent lots of money in the Clinton Park area to revive it and make it desirable to live there, but then HISD closed the elementary school so parents won't want to live anywhere near there. Of course the answer to this planning error requires yet more coordination and even more planning so that these mistakes don't get made again.

So there you have it. Mr. Brown fully intends to implement the entire tool set of "Smart Growth" policies to make Houston more congested, full of green belts, with lots of planners doing lots of comprehensive planning which will probably make your life as a Houstonian more expensive and inconvenient. Rising costs will also drive more people out to the urban fringe, regardless of what people's attitudes are towards accomodating new growth. Rising housing costs may stem from an increasingly inelastic and unresponsive housing market, as well as pouring more resources into expensive rail transit projects which are far away from where most people live and work, and do not go where people want to go.

And so it was. This is the City that Peter Brown and his friends want to have. I drove home to put some cotton swabs in my ears to stop the bleeding and started writing. Tomorrow's another day.

Sigh...

Wizard

KHOU-TV covers the Floodway Ordinance

In an act that borders on serendipity, KHOU-TV's Jeremy Diesel ran a story the day before tax day on the City of Houston's Floodway Ordinance. Diesel's story can be read here.

Amongst the property rights disasters include the loss of $38 - $70 million per year in tax revenues. O'Connor and Associates pegs the City's property regulatory takings at $1.9 - $3.5 billion. Diesel says that the loss to Houston could be bigger than the entire tax base of any city in Harris County except Pasadena.

The Wizard first told this story back in June 2007. It only took Houston's paper of note four months to catch up on the story.

The Wizard spoke to Pat O'Connor and told him that information in real estate markets on the effects of the Floodway Ordinance changes were not well known because the City of Houston made this ordinance change in secret. And one wonders why - pray tell - would the City do that? This is alluded to in the report published by KHOU-TV and which can be read here.

Look for the Floodway Coalition's Nancy Wilcox to speak at the upcoming American Dream Coalition conference on May 17, 2008. The Wizard knows that lawsuits are pending...

Wizard

HPRA member makes the Wall Street Journal

This past Wednesday, December 12, 2007, HPRA member Brooks Porter was featured in the Wall Street Journal in a story entitled Whose Beach Is This Anyway? Now we humble property rights advocates here in Houston have to deal with the fact that one of our members is world famous!

Amusement aside, as can be read from the story, Mr. Brooks and his staunch hold out neighbors have been fighting a property rights battle for some years now. At stake is the fact that Mr. Brooks purchased a pair of beach houses 25 years ago, but over time the Gulf of Mexico has slowly eroded away the beach at a rate of several feet per year. Now their homes lie within the vegetation line, ergo they are on the beach which is open access as per the 1959 Texas Open Beaches Act. Some of the holdouts basically want the State of Texas to buy them out, while others absolutely refuse to move at all. They say that State action to move the Brazos River has altered water flows which have greatly hastened beach erosion. Meanwhile, the Open Beaches Act apparently makes little provision for issues like beach erosion.

But as one might expect about the political classes, the Great State of Texas isn't about to pay up for a fully valued condemnation, something I have often discovered is the case when governments face the prospect of having to actually pay for swiping things away from people. As can be denoted from the story, the State is willing to pay money for relocation costs only.

Needlessly making life annoying for the beach home owners is the fact that the Texas Surf Riders Association asked (and was allowed) to join the suit on the side of the State. It seems the Surf Riders group has done rather well for itself over the years suing various property groups. The accompanying film shows a member of the Surf Riders complaining about rebar and septic tanks left on the beaches, but rebar was put in place by villages and those septic tanks could be found from anywhere and put on the beach for dramatic purposes.

Moreover, I have an incredibly hard time understanding how it is that the Surf Riders would get wound up by this. Unless the homeowners would actually try to define away the entire beach as their own property (something not talked about in the story), then as an interested bystander, it seems to me that both groups could co-exist. The homeowners could get their homes, while the Surf Riders and beach goers get their beach access. What's the problem?

As an advocate of property rights, I have a hard time understanding how the State cannot cough up money for a full condemnation buyout of some of the hold outs who may accept a full buyout offer. If the Act also makes little provision for erosion (and I have to admit I have not read the Act while writing this), then the issue needs to be sorely revisited before more people get caught up in problems like this.

Then there's a philosophical issue that certain groups say that property rights are defined and granted by society to members of that society. If that is the case, then I ask such people a rhetorical question. That would be that if property rights are bestowed by some act of noblesse oblige by society, then it would seem that property rights can be swiped away by society by effectively defining them away, can they not? That indeed is what is going on here and in every place where zoning is in effect.

Wizard

MetroRail: The $3 billion limousine

So the other day, I found myself watching the local municipal channel and saw the hearings on the Metro board decision to railroad Richmond and Wheeler Avenues. This is part of the proposed 30.1 mile expansion of the current Main Street rail line, which itself cost $520 million and not the advertised $324 million (and of which Frank Wilson immediately asked for another $104 million to upgrade). The advertised price of the expansion is $2.2 billion, but other documentation I have in my possession (and of which I will write about below) states that another cost estimate will be $2.6 billion (including the estimated 300 million for the Northside Intermodal temple). Either way, for further purposes, I will go with the $3 billion for the 37.5 miles of rail since nearly all transportation infrastructure projects have cost overruns.

So what to make of all of this? The point of this article is to make some rough back of a napkin comparisons of what the opportunity costs of spending $3 billion on 37 miles of rail verses what could be done with that amount of money with alternative forms of public transportation. It is also to air my thoughts on this whole mess.

Addendum edit - December 8, 2007: Please read my updated entry on Metro's $3 billion $4.7 billion limousine.

On August 8, 2007, the Examiner News, one of the Houston Community Newspapers, carried a story about a transportation solution that was implemented for the needy (one day access can be purchased to access the story) which are served by the Spring Branch Family Development Center of Houston and interviewed its director, a man by the name of Richardo Barnes. As it is, the SBFDC services immigrants studying English to improve themselves, single mothers and those who are otherwise struggling financially.

Mr. Barnes tells of how he has been on a crusade to get Harris County Metro to implement a series of bus routes to better serve the Spring Branch area. He correctly notes that the agency - scandalously in my view - does not run a regular bus route along Hillcroft, which turns into Voss road as it goes through Memorial, and into Spring Branch. Hence the agency does not even have a way to connect would be patrons from the heart of the Galleria to Spring Branch. It also does not have a direct route running along Chimney Rock, which turns into Wirt Road as it reaches Spring Branch. More to the point, Mr. Barnes believes that the Spring Branch area would better be served by a circulator route. I grew up in Spring Branch and cannot agree with him more. Instead, the agency makes sure that the routes in the area make it to the nearby transit center.

So what has Mr. Barnes done instead? Well, the Examiner article goes on to say that his Center received an anonymous donation of $60,000 to purchase a bus from Texas Bus Sales. Said Barnes,

The bus goes where people need to go and the schedule is made up based on their needs. "Sometimes they have to compromise a bit," he said. "If several people need to go grocery shopping, we ask that they go at the same time."

"The trip takes about three hours," he said. "Our bus can pick them up and have them here in 20 minutes."

Barnes went on to say that there are more than 250 people who have signed up for the bus service and that they pay $10 per month. Their monthly fee barely pays for gas, however one might ask how much does it cost per month to maintain the bus?

The question of what to do here could use some reasonable framing. In Metro's National Transit Database profile for both 2004 and 2005, the agency states that the 7.5 mile MetroRail line costs $14 million per year to operate. This is more or less in line with the annual operating costs of other rail lines, which often take about 2-5 percent per annum of original capital costs to operate. Or, I should say that they do in their early years, until it comes time to do major maintenance of switchgear, signaling, wear out on rail cars, and so on. Still, a reasonable estimate will be that in its early years of operation, the 37.5 miles of trains will cost some $60-70 million - give or take some millions - per year to operate. Bear in mind that the agency has been stating that the ticket revenues for the train have been less than $2 million per year. This matters because that implies the agency has not been even coming close to collecting the annual operating expenses needed to operate the Main Street train, much less having those same passengers pay for the capital costs of building the train. This in turn leaves open the long run specter of the agency having to break its 2003 Metro Solutions bond election promise that it would not have to raise taxes in order to implement its plans. However, what rail fans are counting on is that once the rail tracks are in place, there will be - how shall I say - facts on the ground, which will force matters in the future and for which people will say that we have sunk those costs, we can't just tear them up now!

Moving onwards. The same NTD profiles state that for Metro to operate its 1,000 buses (the agency has over 1,400 buses in its fleet, 20% plus of which are spares), cost $263 million in 2005. This implies that the annual cost per year to operate a bus is some $250,000. This might seem outrageous, but maybe not. If you pay a bus driver $50,000 - $60,000 total compensation (wages, benefits, health care, 401k) per annum, that it would take 2 bus drivers to operate a bus for 18 hours per day, then thrown in fuel costs and maintenance, then that figure may well be accurate. I do have it on good word that "typical" buses operated by mass transit agencies get about 3.5 miles per gallon, bearing in mind that buses are the ultimate stop and go vehicles when operating in urban areas. Throw in the fuel costs have gone up about $1 per gallon since 2004-2005 and you are probably looking at another $20,000 per year (for $270,000), assuming that the bus runs 180 miles (10 mph for 18 hours) per day at 3.5 mpg.

Now then, believe it or not one of my biggest complaints against Metro as it has been run all these years has nothing to do with rail. It has to do with how it spends money on buses. The latest transit industry hybrid fuel buses cost $450,000 - $550,000. They do get some 20-30 percent better fuel economy, but that is absolutely absurd to think that this is a bargain when you can look at the Texas Bus Sales website and find used buses for as little as $4,500!

And where would you deploy such buses? This is another part of my complaint. Going back to the 2004 and 2005 NTD profiles for Metro, one will notice another metric. This one is the unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue mile metric. For the year 2005, one notices that Metro has 81.546 million unlinked trips for buses, while traveling 41.555 million miles. This equates to Metro buses carrying an average of 1.96 passengers per vehicle revenue mile traveled. That is statistical language for saying that Metro's buses run empty most of the time, something that should be obvious to anyone who spends time watching those buses go by. What makes the issue even more scandalous is to then view double attached buses run empty.

Moreover, even the 1.96 passengers per vehicle revenue mile is statistically skewed, probably with a very interesting kurtosis, by the fact that the agency does have a number of very productive bus routes, such as the #82 and #53, both of which operate on Westheimer and which I often see with nearly full buses everyday since I live right off of Westheimer. The #2 Bellaire is another route which gets good boardings. This anecdotal evidence should leave little room for doubt that a handful of very productive routes achieve much higher passenger per vehicle revenue mile metrics.

I also should bring up the Main Street rail line here, while on the passengers per vehicle revenue mile metric. One might notice that the Main Street train achieves much higher (about 14) passengers per vehicle revenue miles than does the bus fleet. Bearing in mind what was said about the bus fleet above, one also has to remember that the Main Street train was placed on the corridor which had the heaviest concentration of buses and boardings patronage. As far as I can tell, there were some 25,000 - 30,000 boardings along the Main Street corridor (some argue much differently) before the train was implemented. It would therefore make sense that the train would get high levels of passengers per vehicle revenue mile because the agency already knew that the Main Street corridor represented its highest and best corridor for ridership. In other words, the agency picked off its lowest hanging fruit. Now, in wanting to build out trains to other corridors, it will be spending vast sums of capital on successively lower performing routes, including the #50 Harrisburg whose entire route achieves a mere 4,500 boardings per day and which has few other routes around it which can be truncated towards it. I should state here that some people I know who live or work along the corridors have tried spending entire days counting the number of people on bus routes and have told me that these numbers are full of - well, you know what.

What would make vastly more sense for agency bus operations would be for Metro to actually match bus vehicles to the demand curve for its services. Small cheap buses could be deployed on vast majority of routes which have fewer than 5,000 boardings per day. According to my spreadsheet, only 17 of Metro's 133 bus routes (including shuttles and local routes) achieved an average of more than 5,000 boardings per day in FY 2006, the year of Metro's highest ever ridership. Such vehicles would most certainly get much better fuel economy than the massive buses that the agency operates today, indeed my research into the matter indicates that many of these vehicles can get 12 or so miles per gallon. The agency should continue to operate the current bus fleet on its routes of heaviest patronage and in fact could consider the idea of operating double decker buses on its heaviest routes such as Westheimer. However, as we shall see, even that idea might not even be needed if I were in charge.

So let us circle back to the question of what the opportunity costs are of spending $3 billion on rail, along with an estimated $60-$70 million per year on basic maintenance. An alternate idea of what we are looking at looks something like this. The agency could otherwise (but cannot as we will see below) purchase 500 buses and add them to the existing bus fleet. Of these, 70 (or 14 percent) could be used to augment the existing buses that are on Metro's bus routes of more than 5,000 riders, giving them four more buses running on them. The other 430 could be used on all other routes. The 70 buses on Metro's heaviest routes could be similar to those running already, costing the above mentioned $450,000 apiece. The other 430 could be from a company like Texas Bus Sales or other fleet vendor and could purchased at a cost of $60,000 each. This would result in a capital outlay of a paltry $60 million.

So what to do with the other $2.94 billion? One idea would be to take that sum of money and have Metro invest in 30 year U.S.Treasury bonds, which are currently yielding 4.6%. Investing $2.94 billion at 4.6 percent would yield $135.2 million per year, which could be employed for bus operations. The agency collects a mere $50 million from bus fares. If improved bus services were to yield a mere $15 million in additional bus fares, that would bring us up to $150 million for bus operations. Since we have estimated that bus operations are some $250,000 per bus per year (and which we could bump up to $300,000 per year), then we should be able to sustain the estimated extra 500 vehicles on the road.

So what could we do with those extra 500 vehicles? One of my favorite pet peeves is what happened to the #18 Kirby route. The #18 Kirby is one of the casualties of the hugely expensive rail centric transit system. The #18 used to get some 1,500 boardings per day in the late 1990's, but that figure dropped to the current 1,000 boardings per day after the frequency of bus service was sliced in half when Shirley Delibero burned through Metro's cash horde to build the Main Street rail line. All routes could get more frequent service, cutting down some of those horrific wait times that people have to suffer through. Many routes now have bus service that runs every 45-60 minutes during off peak hours. Entirely new routes could be devised, including ones which run from the Galleria along Voss and Chimney Rock to Spring Branch. Mr. Barnes would get his circulator routes with very little fuss, but he won't get a thing anytime soon by dumping all that money to run rail down streets like Wheeler, a street which Metro, in its entire history, has never had a bus route run down. Having never, in its entire history, run a crosstown bus which connects the University of Houston and TSU directly to Westheimer, West Alabama, or to Richmond, the agency and rail fans now politically demand that a $800 million train be laid down which does this. The agency loudly proclaims that college students are a big market of users for public transportation. If that is the case, then why has the agency never bothered to run a bus route directly across town before?

Are you worried that the world is about to run out of oil soon? Great! With $3 billion on hand, why doesn't the agency go out on a limb and ask the Tesla Roadster folks to manufacture 24 seats buses which run on lithium ion electric batteries? Surely they could do such a thing for less than $500,000 per vehicle? We may have cellulose ethanol available to us soon anyway, but if you are someone who believes that civilization is about to come crashing down because we are exhausting economical oil supplies (and for which you believe that there are absolutely no substitutes), then you might want to ask yourself why are we spending billions of dollars to run light rail to airports of all places?

Other benefits of a bus based public transportation scheme would include not having to tear up streets and roads along the corridors, which have deeply upset those who live along them. Residents who happen to live within a 1,500 feet radial of a proposed train stop would not find the deeds to their homes under the shadow of future condemnation because of their proximity to a Metro train stop. Metro may or may not condemn their property, but one needs to remember that Metro is not the only player in this game. Metro has formed a public private partnership with Washington Group International and I have some very good intelligence that WGI has made some - how shall I say - very interesting proposals to Metro regarding what might go on around the Intermodal Transit temple and around train stations. Without going into too much detail, there is a very strong argument to be made that this entire project has absolutely nothing to do with transportation, but does in fact have quite a bit to do with the politicizing of land use via real estate redevelopment. The building of rail lines represents, from the view of the economist in me, a massive concentration of capital along narrow strips of territory. The only way in which one can justify doing something like that would be because there already is a massive concentration of other capital directly in the area.

But I digress. What would ridership have been like with all these extra vehicles on the road? That is a good question. Metro achieved 68 million boardings in 1982. The agency achieved 82 million boardings in 1990 and 101 million in the year 2000. This steady increase of ridership over time was snapped after the light rail line was built. The latest 2007 figures show Metro with 97-98 million boardings even after 500,000 residents have been added to the county population.

It is quite likely, in contrast, that given population increases that the agency would have continued to slowly but steadily improve boardings. As things are, the agency is projecting to have some 120 million boardings after rail is built, but spending a whopping $3 billion to get a mere extra 60,000 net boardings per day (about 3 freeway lanes of passengers in SOV vehicles) is quite a feat. Indeed it is conceivable, based on past trends, that the agency could have achieved 115-120 million boardings by now without ever having spent a dime on rail.

The reason for the relatively paltry 20 percent gain in overall boardings for having spent this kind of money is because of what I wrote about above concerning the fact that Metro is not even collecting operating costs of the rail line, much less capital costs. Since the operational costs of the new rail lines will not be covered, that will force another truncation of bus routes towards the trains, cutting bus service to the wider area. My back of the napkin calculations are that Metro will have to cut back bus service by some $50 million in operational monies per year, which makes me think that about 20 percent of current bus service will be slashed after the trains are built. One also might think that Metro promised in the 2003 Metro Solutions ballot that it would improve bus service by 50 percent, but Metro stated a while back that there was no demand for an increase in bus service. That in turn makes one wonder why it was that the agency made such a promise and how is it exactly that the agency "knows" that the demand curve for extra bus service has been saturated? Read further down for what I say about politlcal markets and real world markets.

I have a story to tell about Metro telling the public that there is no demand for more bus service. Metro used to run a bus route, the #54 Aldine - Hollyvale Circulator. As one can notice from reading my boardings spreadsheet, the Aldine-Hollyvale route used to take in nearly 1,000 passengers at its peak in 2000. However, the Aldine-Hollyvale was one of the victims of Metro's cuts in bus service. Boardings went down in the early part of this decade, reaching a low of 510-690 patrons per day in its last months of operation in 2004 - 2005. In December 2004 (as part of its service improvements), Metro announced that the route would need to achieve an average of 855 boardings per day in order to justify continuing running the bus route - and I still have the publicly issued pamphlet in my possession to prove it. What the agency did not tell the public was that the route once upon a time actually was getting that kind of patronage! So in effect, the agency, having doomed the route to "fail" to begin with by cutting frequency of bus service, self justified its decision to shut the route down because of its supposed lack of success in drawing patrons and because of high operational costs.

Unfortunately, since we are going to a rail centric network, Mr. Barnes still won't get his routes even after we have spent $3 billion on rail transit, and we should investigate why that is so. The big problem with having the federal government diversion of the 2.8 cents per gallon gasoline tax diverted to transit is that because the way that the rules are written, the New Starts grant money can only be used for capital expenditures. Federal money is not to be used to operations expenses. Moreover, only public transit agencies are eligible for the start up grants. This in turn creates the following, warped incentives:

1) Local governments all over America had huge incentives to buy out any privately operated transit companies which still might have been around in the 1960's and 1970's. In their place, government transit agencies would be created and chartered, if for no other reason than to be eligible to get in line for federal handouts for transit. Who cares whether anyone bothered to take public transportation? What really mattered (and still matters) is that local interest groups get the grant money.

2) Since Congress has geared FTA programs towards capital expenditures, essentially the rules say that "we will give you big capital grants, but its up to you to come up with operating funds." This state of affairs completely warps the incentives facing local political elites,transit agencies, and transit supporters. The game is tilted towards spending huge sums of money on expensive rail lines which may cost dozens of times more money to build, but don't cost quite as much to operate. That in turn creates a ripple effect because very few transit agencies cover their operating expenses. That means that bus service usually is cut and reconfigured towards rail lines since doing anything else makes absolutely no sense at all.

I should say, in the light of what was said regarding Stephen Kleinberg's most recent transit survey, that there is a very big difference between political markets and real world markets. Someone participating in a real world market must come up with ideas that will pay their way on their own merits, otherwise, they are forced to exit the field. That, gentle readers, is a good thing. On the other hand, in political markets, ideas only have to win 50% plus one voter and the idea wins, regardless of what the conseqences are and regardless of whether the idea actually succeeds in doing what people think it will actually do.

If the current Main Street rail line were built in a real world market by a private operator, a good idea of what the train would take to be built would look something like this. Since the train cost $520 million and is costing $14 million per year to operate, the estimated annual carrying costs of capital (at 5% interest) would be $26 million. Add $14 million in operating expenses and you get $40 million per year. A private operator would probably have to pay off a loan at 2-3% per year, so the private train operator would need to collect some $50 million per year (if not more) for the idea to be viable in real world markets. Since the train had 11 million riders in 2007, that would equate to a private operator needing to charge about $5 per person per boarding (Metro would need to charge about $6 per boarding to fully pay its own way in the world instead of $1). Very few would be willing to pay that price to ride the train, ergo that is why you do not see rail being built by the private sector. But what you do see is the Houston Chronicle and rail fans in the political markets cheering on rail building while saying that "there is no demand for the increase in bus service".

One issue hanging out over the horizon concerns the 25 percent general mobility monies that Metro pays out to its constituent municipalities for road building and other transportation projects. This arrangement is set to expire in 2014. In theory, the agency could devote all of the money to improving bus service as promised which could fulfill the 50 percent bus service improvement aspect of the 2003 bond election vote, but that is contingent on the idea that the member cities and Harris County are going to actually come to an agreement that the current arrangement will end. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not a done deal. That issue also cropped up in Metro's Westpark rail line DEIS, as well as the FEIS's for the North and Southeast Corridors. In those documents, Metro claimed to the FTA and to the public that it would have $8 billion in cash on hand in the year 2030. Now let me tell you gentle readers something about myself and that is that I have read an awful lot about politics. If there is one thing I know, that is that no politician or group of politicians are going to let $8 billion in cash pile up without spending it. I do not know what will happen, but that money will be spent somewhere. So why did the agency make such a claim? Let just say that we already have covered that. It's because there are all of those all important federal grants to chase after and who gives a damn about what the consequences of that really are.

So we could have (or could have had) one of two things. We could have $3 billion in rail lines, with about 20-25 percent of the entire year 2000 bus system service cut and truncated. That would have offset any (if there were or are any) benefits which might have been gained from rail. Or were could have added 500 bus vehicles to the year 2000 fleet which was already in existence, which could be deployed anywhere - including some for Spring Branch which would help Mr. Barnes and those disadvantaged souls at the Spring Branch Family Development Center.

More Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, and Hell Storms to follow.

Wizard

Enron Accounting at Houston City Hall

On Friday, November 16, 2007, the Houston Property Rights Association welcomed retired governmental auditor Bob Lemer, author of the TABOR inspired Proposition 2, to give an update on what is happening with the various city charter amendments concerning finance issues.

Before Lemer took to the podium, several HPRA members brought news on a few fronts. One said that he attended a John Culberson related function where the Congressman has lately been active on the immigration front. Culberson flew to El Paso a while back and watched incognito as border patrol personnel waved vehicles to go on by. Eventually Culberson himself stepped in and identified himself, at which point the bureaucrats predictably called out extra personnel and dogs to beef up security. This same person went that Wednesday to a League of Women Voters meeting where Stephen Kleinberg and Gordon Quan complained that the opposite was good - that immigration led to diversity and that diversity is good. Quan said that there are 20 million illegals in America now and that deporting them would take years. Some states of drivers licenses for illegals. Incidently, the idea that racial and cultural diversity is good for civic engagement has taken a very serious hit recently. Not only that, the hit was delivered by one of its longtime stalwarts, Professor Robert Putman.

Talk also drifted to the Astrodome proposal. One HPRA member who is politically well connected, talked to Oliver Luck. Apparently Dome Development officials were hoping for a $750 million redevelopment proposal on the Dome, but that a proposal has not materialized. This gentleman, who has been working with Mike Roselle and Mr. Luck, has reminded them that you cannot do anything to destroy a prospectus on a business deal, which seems to be the strategy that the Houston Texans and Rodeo are trying to do. Instead, this gentleman suggested that the easy way out of Harris County would be to do an economic impact statement showing that the Dome costs $5-7 million per year to operate and to let the impact statement do the talking that the Dome needs to be demolished.

The fellow in question also said up front that bonds are still in play for refurbishing the Astrodome! The claim is that the hotel and motel tax can cover it, but there probably isn't enough money in that fund to float a massive bond for Dome redevelopment - read here for some refresher history about previous public funding of Dome upkeeping. A question was raised as to whether the Houston Texans and Rodeo could actually stop new redevelopment and the contention is that yes, the tenants could do it through their agreements.

HPRA President Barry Klein, who recently completed cancer treatments, attended the gathering today. He took briefly to the microphone to say that there have been polls cited recently saying that the public supports keeping the Astrodome and maybe redeveloping it, but he pointed out that the polls in question do not ask such questions as whether taxpayers were willing to see their taxes go up to support Astrodome maintenance or redevelopment. He also went on to say that Metro's current market share of transportation trips is only about 2 percent of all trips and that the massive light rail build out would not make any dent in this overall pattern of development. Metro's own numbers show that its share of trips is still going to only be 2 percent of trips in 2025. Klein says that what is needed is a public education campaign that tells people about the fallacies of transit, including that it can relieve congestion. He pointed out that he has a file on Metro's commuter rail plans, which they have been planning away on since 1979 and for which they still won't make any sense.

But onto Bob Lemer. Lemer's talk concerned Propositions 1 & 2, as well as City Charter propositions G and H from 2004. All were approved, but all of them are also now in court. Lemer said that Proposition 2 was an outgrowth of something called TaxVote 97, which he contends had a flaw in that it applied the idea of rate of increase in allowed governmental expenditures to inflation and population growth, but did so to all rate structures. According to Lemer, this would have resulted in complex accounting problems. The Proposition 2 initiative was a refinement of that original idea.

Lemer went on to stress that Proposition 2, what he calls the Houston TABOR, does not prevent anything! It merely said that if the City of Houston wanted to increase expenditures by a rate greater than that of population growth and inflation, then the City needed voter approval. But oh my goodness! From the belly aching you heard from the City, the Houston Chronicle, and the allied interest groups, this was just preposterous and absolutely unacceptable!

On the other hand, Proposition 1:

1) Supposedly capped property tax increases to either the lower of 4.5% per year, or to population growth rate plus inflation.

2) Supposedly extended the homestead exemptions which were already in place, and

3) Supposedly kept growth in water and sewer rates at a level below population and inflation rates.

Lemer went on to say that Carroll Robinson, Jeff Daily, and Bruce Hotze joined together and went to an appelate court, first having to ask that the City report the result that Prop 2 passed to the Secretary of State. Then these men had to go back to court asking the court to tell the City to put Prop 2 into the City Charter. Mayor White has not done this. This in turn leads to the question as to whether Proposition 2 will be operative? Mayor White and City Council asked for a summary judgment saying no it doesn't have to be, but the judiciary said no. Robinson, Daily, and Hotze asked for a summary judgment in favor of putting Proposition 2 into effect and the judiciary agreed. Naturally the City has appealed.

Now here was the interesting part of Lemer's presentation. According to Lemer, under Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, the City owes taxpayers money. However, under Proposition 1, the City owes taxpayers about $129 million, while under Proposition 2, the City owes taxpayers only $30 million! That's right gentle readers. The Mayor's plan actually backfired and is turning out to be better for taxpayers than the plan put forth by the opposition.

However before everyone starts celebrating their good fortune, there is a problem with Proposition 1. Namely, Proposition 1 does not have a provision for refunding money and there is no remedy available to enforce the Proposition. This was one of the issues that Lemer was trying to stress during the 2004 elections. CM Toni Lawrence brought this issue up in City Council and the Mayor asked in public, "Do we have to replay money? No! Then we don't do anything." Lemer expects the matter of refunds and enforcement of Proposition 2 to go to court soon. This is not good for a city whose pension bond obligations are seen as being under stress.

A question was asked why it was that Proposition 1 has been more effective so far than Proposition 2? Lemer replied it was because that, though the airports were exempt, as well an enterprise funds (i.e. franchise fees, hotel / motel occupancy taxes), those taxes have been flat over the past few years, whereas property values have been going up.

Another person asked whether it could be construed that Mayor White's actions could be seen as having a fraudulent intent? In other words, if the Mayor put the Proposition on the ballot and did not intend to give any monies back if it were deemed to do so, then could the Mayor be charged with something? Lemer said he did not know. The Proposition was presented as a relief act to be incorporated into the Charter as an amendment. It would be up to the lawyers to see if anything could be filed.

One member of the audience, an attorney, mentioned that the true remedy is actually political in nature, namely that the voters are in theory supposed to vote out the current Council which is reluctant to implement these propositions and to vote one in that will. This gentleman expressed the idea that these Propositions are aspirational in nature. There was also a question of who has standing, but I do remember that Proposition 2 actually said that any Houstonian could claim standing when it came to enforcement of it.

The City has no obvious incentive to enforce both propositions, indeed Lemer told the audience that the City had given Vinson and Elkins $150,000 to fight the appelate battle, a figure V&E blew through very quickly. White will be out in two years, and Lemer thinks that the City will not approve any more money to contest appelate rulings on the propositions, and it is important to remember that City Council as a group is party to these suits.

Barry Klein interjected at this point to remind the audience that when the City goes out and hires a law firm like V&E, the City is also buying whatever influence the law firm can wield because V&E is tied into the establishment and such a big contributor to both political and judicial campaigns.

Mr. Lemer went on with discussing the situation involving Propositions G and H. Lemer pointed out that neither of these propositions acknowledge Proposition 2. They also remove so called "enterprise funds" - meaning money reaped at the airports, water and sewer fees, and other infrastructure from the revenue cap. Proposition H asked for an increase of $90 million regardless of any other caps which may exist. Lemer said that the City is also trying to get drainage monies back into general funds.

Lemer explained to the audience that when it came to the City airports, Hobby and George Bush Intercontinental, that the City is effectively a landlord only. Outside of a few police officers, the vast majority of people who work at the airports work for either the airlines or for other government agencies. What the revenue cap would have done with regards to the airports is that it would have forced a public vote on any airport expansions and the airlines did not want that. Lemer stated that the airport bonds are effectively junk bonds. An obscure piece of legislation allows for the City to authorize up to 5 cents per $100 property tax valuation to pay for airport bonding in the event that the airport system gets into trouble. Meanwhile, Lemer says that the City has been hitting up John Culberson for money to expand and refurbish the airports - while simultaneously demonizing Mr. Culberson about rail at the same time I might add.

Lemer stated that the Mayor's actions effectively say that propositions G&H are in effect, but that Propositions 1 and 2 are not. Logically you cannot have both. Lemer said that Proposition 1 is a hoax on taxpayers and that the Mayor should not continue pretending that it is not. Meanwhile the Mayor has received, without his asking, a substantially lowered valuation on the price of his property, allegedly because he lives in a flood plan. That however only goes to prove that property taxes at the local level are no different than corporate or income taxes at the federal level when it comes to lobbying and favoritism in order to be relieved from their burdens.

On a final note, Lemer recently received a confidential email from auditor at Deloitte and Touche, stating that "the City of Houston has material weaknesses in its internal audit controls", which is layman's language for saying that the financial sector thinks that you have been doing Enron Accounting and cannot effectively trust your books. Lemer stated that if this were to happen In the private sector, heads would start rolling. Lemer asked the auditors for more information on why they stated this, but D&T said that the City was determining the scope of their auditing. Moreover, the City has said in response to recent enactment of tighter GASB and GAAP controls on governmental entities that the City will interpret whether its own books are in compliance with these measures.

As Marshall Sam Gerard once famously said of one train wreck, "My, my, my, my - what a mess!"

Addendum: If blog readers want to listen to the podcast from which this blog entry was transcribed, they can download it here. The podcast is approximately 80 minutes in length and is 18mb in size. I will keep it available until December 1, 2007.

Wizard

The Wizard's idea for reusing the Astrodome.

On the eve of election day 2007, I found myself tonight going over to pay a visit to my fellow Houstonian Tory's blog and reading about his ideas for what to do with Houston's original grand temple to the Sports gods, the Astrodome. I also digested commentary from others who visited his blog.

This of course put the Wizard into contemplative mode. Hmmm. So what to do about the Dome?

We all know the story. This past week the politically powerful Houston Texans and Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo stuck a fork into the idea of reusing the Astrodome as a $450 million massive convention center and hotel. It should go without saying that both parties probably want the Astrodome demolished and I'd have to say that I cannot agree with them more. I have come out before saying that the Dome should be demolished, possibly either for parking space or for possible construction of some sort. Moreover both parties probably saved we peasantry from having to shoulder yet another levy being slapped on our backs by the political classes via having to taxpayer finance such a ridiculous scheme.

But despite of my Libertarianism, I am also enough of a political realist to know that the Dome will not be torn down anytime soon, mostly because the Harris County Commissioners are scared to death of being accused of demolishing the Dome. At the same time, we the peasantry are paying for a $1.5 million per year levy just to keep the Dome in modestly environmentally usable condition.

So what to do? Tory's ideas are going along the right path, along with his back of a napkin financial analysis of any massive hotel complex. The problem is that this is politics and for decades there has been this desperate hope amongst the political classes in this city that somehow they can turn Houston into a convention city. Never mind that the convention business has been dominated for years by Orlando, Las Vegas, New York and Chicago, and that the political classes in dozens of other cities in America have all been building convention facilities in a desperate battle over the convention market scraps despite the fact that trade show attendance has been dropping off.

Tory suggests turning the Dome into a speakers facility in addition to opening up the Dome for festivals. The speaker idea probably isn't too bad, though there are lots of places where speakers can be heard. As for the idea of holding festivals in the Dome, my intuitive feeling about festivals (in addition to those comments made in his replies) is that festivals are more of an outdoors type activity. There is also a kind of ritual to holding festivals. Most festivals are held annually (or semi - annually) at set times during the year. They serve as a kind of marker that we have come full circle reached another season in the cycle of our lives.

However it is along the right track. The idea is a low risk, low cost idea. If it fails, then Harris County taxpayers are not left with an even larger white elephant hanging around their necks. Moreover, we can say that we tried the idea and if it doesn't work out, then we haven't lost all that much.

Which brings me to my idea. What if the Dome authorities were to simply throw the doors to the Dome open to holding weekend bazaars at the Dome? Perhaps they could be held Friday nights, Saturday all day, then Sunday afternoons? They would not be held when the Texans were holding their football games, when other sporting events would be scheduled, nor when the Rodeo was in progress. And come to think about it, isn't the Rodeo itself a festival?

Running with the shopping bazaar idea, parking could be charged at a nominal fee, say $2-3 (or even free), to encourage attendance. Booth fees could be collected, in addition to beverages, though one might think of being careful about this and simply collecting sales taxes on lower priced items. The organizers themselves could be held responsible for cleanup after each weekend. Other ideas would include the possibility that if this idea were to become successful, then expansion would simply be done through allowing new booths to operate outdoors.

The beauty of this idea is similar to Tory's. The bazaars could be held nearly every weekend. Marketing the idea would probably not be too much trouble as everyone knows where the Dome is. This also would have the added attraction of being a low risk idea, which if it were to not be successful financially, then the operation could be shutdown quickly and taxpayers would not be left on the hook for a massive sum of money.

On the downside, I can imagine that some would object to turning the Dome into a marketplace simply on emotional or symbolic grounds. Their hearts might break at the thought of their cherished Dome being used for such tawdry commercial reasons, though it was exactly for commercial reasons that the Dome was put to during the glory days of Nolan Ryan and Earl Campbell. So what's the difference?

Another possible downside might be objections from other flea market or open market operations around town. More tellingly, maybe the Dome authority and the Commissioners themselves might not be happy, on the grounds that they might not be able to reward their campaign contributors with fat contracts from the building of some new fancy facility.

While stewing over this idea tonight, I was struck by the issue that the Dome (despite the fact that I think it should be torn down) at least symbolically means a lot to people in Houston. I have to admit that one of the most special days of my life when I was growing up happened at the Dome. On December 3rd, 1982, when I was a teenager, I along with a few of my friends attended my first rock and roll concert at the Dome. And Who was the band that we went to go see that night, the ones who initiated me and my friends into the joys of concerts and the nightlife? Let me give you a hint - I've already told you the name of that band.

Ah yes. One cannot imagine how emotional that night was for me. In fact I can still remember it nearly 25 years later as though it happened yesterday.

So what is all this nostalgia leading to? Well how about this. If people are so tied up emotionally in a mere building, then if we Houstonians are going to keep the Dome in operation for symbolic or emotional reasons, then why not use the Dome for emotional reasons? How is this for a suggestion: Why not allow Houstonians buy space along the walkways of each of the levels of the Dome where they can put momentoes of their most cherished memories of their times that they spent in the Astrodome? For example, for $200 why not allow a person or a family to purchase a 2 square foot wall area of the Dome walkways where they can etch images or hang photographs along the walls where they can tell stories of their experiences? Why not allow for larger spaces for a higher price, say a 5x5 foot mural space for $1,000? In my case, I would tell everyone of what happened to myself and my friends that night and why the Dome means so much to me. Others might tell of watching the Oilers play the Pittsburgh Steelers during the days of Luv ya' Blue. Maybe some of the old Olier legends like Dan Pastorini or Earl Campbell could add their own memorabilia. Maybe fans could see the famous Monday Night Football footage where a solitary Oliers fan gave the camera the finger on national television.

In other words, why not turn the Dome into a kind of museum where the people of Houston would share their fondest memories of what happened there? Proceeds from the sale of mural spaces could be put into a fund which would be invested in bonds which would draw interest that in turn could be used to help offset the costs of operating the Dome. Since the Dome is 710 feet in diameter, that would mean that each level is 2,230 feet in circumference. I could see 5,000 or more murals decorating each level of the Dome, maybe more if we would allow the concrete walkways to be decorated. I could easily see $5 - $10 million being raised by such an idea. Augment that with parking fees, sales taxes from weekend bazaars and you may actually have a viable operation which would pay for itself.

Enough for now. It's time for me to lie down and face another day.

Wizard

The Houston 2007 elections: Bonds, bonds everywhere

On Friday, October 26, 2007 the Houston Property Rights Association hosted a trio of speakers to talk about several of the ridiculous number of bond issues which have been placed on the November 2007 ballot. Some talk was also given over towards discussing the 16 or so State of Texas constitutional amendments, some of which are also bond and finance related.

Before going any further, from my own personal perspective, I've decided already to go ahead and vote no on all of the bond proposals. Some regular readers of my blog will probably note this as a kind of knee jerk anti-government reaction to all of these proposals. And, I will say that largely you are right. It is quite disturbing to see so many of these things being put on the ballot all at once. That in turn reminds me of a proposal that Tom Bazan made a while back. He suggested that there be a minimal level of registered voter participation in an election for a bond proposal to pass. For example, if there are 100,000 voters in a school district, there should be a requirement that 25 percent (25,000) of all voters participate or else a bond issue automatically fails, regardless of whether a majority of those participating voted for it or not. As things are, it is quite possible for low voter turnout (see final paragraph for more) to cause as few as 3-5 percent of voters in a political subdivision to commit the other 95+ percent of voters to paying for a bond issue.

I have yet to spend a few hours of time wending my way through all these constitutional amendments. As always, even for a knowledgeable, tuned in guy like me, there are, how shall I say, informational issues involved in trying to keep up with all of these matters. Now then, for those of you who fervently believe in Democracy, if a guy like me has a hard time keeping up with all of this, then how do you expect the average Jane or Joe to do so? More to the point, what does that mean for how decisions are made in republics and democracies?

But we will leave these issues and my own voting plans aside for now. What follows is what transpired at the HPRA meeting.

The first speaker was Larry Tobin, speaking on the Port of Houston Authority's $250 million bond proposal.

As can be seen by looking at the links above, Mr. Tobin, a Taylor Lake Village Council member, has long been a watchdog of the Port and has been speaking out against port, or pork bonds. Tobin started his talk by asking the audience if anyone knew the primary difference between the PoH and most of the rest of the ports in America? When nobody raised their hands, Mr. Tobin then told them two things. First, the PoH has mostly liquids as its main source of cargoes, and second that the PoH is the only port in America that does not pay the bulk of its capital costs. Instead, the PoH lives primarily off of the levies of Harris County taxpayers. He stated that, in his view, the Port has practically no accountability. It is not a component of the City of Houston, Pasadena, or any other entity. He said that, "the board is composed of a bunch of flunky appointees that are running this thing."

Tobin told the audience that the really tough questions should come to heel at the Harris County Commissioners Court, but our esteemed Commissioners do not ask the tough questions needed to really turn things around. Tobin continued, saying that we could run the port with private terminal operators, with leaseholds which could cover debt service. He then noted that every time there is a new bond issue to be voted on, the campaigners for the bonds always talk about the jobs, jobs, jobs that will be created if we pass the bonds. Tobin asked the audience, who pays for all this? It's the pigs feeding at the trough.

Tobin told the audience that the cruise terminal operations cannot find new passenger ships for the immediate future, as Norweigan has left and only two ships call every week. However, these terminals can make for nice meeting facilities. Go figure.

Tobin told the audience that the Bayport terminal is not being served by rail, nor will it be for quite some time. He says he has $12 million worth of cranes that are idle and that the Bayport facility is poorly designed. Tobin said we are shipping freight to Barbours Cut to get cargo to rail heads. Additionally, Tobin told the audience that Long Beach has private operators who pay their own way. If they can, then so can the PoH.

Tobin said originally the PoH came before the Harris County Commissioners and asked for a $500 million bond issue, but the commissioners apparently didn't ask the PoH exactly what all this money was needed for. They seem to have simply gotten scared over the price tag of that bond request at an election where many other bond issues were on the ballot. The Commissioners simply cut the bond issue in half to $250 million and put it on the agenda. Tobin said we need to remove the levy off of the Harris County property owners who have $586 million in debt service to carry for 30 years, along with this bond issue.

Next came a debate over the 2007 $805 million HISD bond issue between City of Bellaire Commissioner Bill Borden and Ron Brunner, two Republicans active in local politics. Borden told the audience that the Harris County Republican Party formed 4 committees for studying the various bond proposals on the 2007 ballot. The HCRP came out neutral on port bonds, in opposition on SBISD bonds, in opposition on Cy Fair bonds, and neutral on HISD bonds. After going on with making normative statements concerning public schools in general, Borden then asked why HISD does not have in its budget money set aside every year for repairs or maintenance? Does it ever have intentions to set up a reserve fund for repairs?
Borden told the audience that HISD does not do this, but instead accused HISD of letting schools fall apart, then hitting up the public for bond issues for grand reconstruction projects. He noted that HISD keeps telling the public that there will be no tax rate increase, but asked what about the levels of taxes due to rising appraisals?

Borden asserted that HISD has a credibility problem. One issue he brought up is that HISD has a few schools where there are few nearby students living in the neighborhood. Borden suggests that HISD sell land if possible and use the proceeds to help build schools somewhere else. Borden also raised the issue of whether property owners should be the only ones who are allowed to vote in such bond elections.

Addendum: I should take a moment out here before going any further to address an issue which has plagued the HISD bond election. One prominent group which has been fighting the bond issue is the black community, I think for reasons that more than a few of schools in areas of town which have predominantly black residents are slated to be consolidated or closed.

I knew this was going to happen. I can tell a story here which happened in 1985 in SPISD. At the time, the SPISD district was experiencing declining enrollment of students because of the demographic passing of the baby boomer generation into young adulthood and the raising of the Generation X group, which was a much smaller cohort. I am one of those so called Gen-X types.

The result of this was that the sitting SPISD board of the day decided to close two public high schools for reasons that they were more expensive to operate. This reasonably rational decision was greeted with threats of lawsuits on the part of various parent groups whose kids went to some of the schools because the parent groups whose kids went to those schools were going to do everything within their worldly power to make sure their school did not get shut down! The result was that the district ended up closing two schools whose parent groups had not organized very effectively. You ended up with two public high schools that were only about one mile away from each other, while others were bussed for miles to attend their school.

This is the sort of stuff you get when you decide to use politics and the arm of government as a means of educating kids. The usual fighting over who is going to get what breaks out, and that is exactly what leaders in the black community are fighting over. They might understand that demographics is a reason for shutting down schools since HISD is expected to see a modest decline in enrollment, but people are forgetting that this rational fact is running straight into politics. "Go shutdown or consolidate some schools, but what? Y'all are going to shut down my school? You people are not going to shutdown my school!" And so the fighting starts, with possible lawsuits to be seen over the HISD plan until it gets resolved.

Continued: Ron Brunner, a local GOP precinct chair, spoke in favor of the HISD bond proposal. He first started off by saying he has no kids in HISD schools, but went into the debate open minded. He spoke with Diane Johnson, Harvy Moore, Sylvester Turner, Carol Mimns Galloway, and HISD Superintendent Abe Savedra.

Brunner stated that the bond issue is for capital improvements and cannot be used for teaching funds. In 1997, the HCRP rejected the first of these massive HISD bond proposals, which helped lead to its defeat. What the HCRP said was that the 1997 proposal was massive and that HISD was asking for a blank check. Brunner noted that HISD said nothing in the 1997 proposal about where the district intended to spend the bond monies.

Brunner then went on to tell HPRA that HISD came back in subsequent bond proposals that denoted line items where and which schools were to get rebuilt and refurbished. The first $678 million proposal passed and in 2002 the district asked for another $700 million, which passed without too much controversy. Brunner noted that there has not been mismanagement of funds. He challenged the group to name news scandals or corruption in HISD bond monies. He said that HISD has not been spending $80 - $100 million on football or athletic fields as has Cy Fair ISD.

Brunner stated that the real key to these proposals is to hold the bond issuers' feet to the fire. The schools that were listed have been the ones getting redone. The schools (sadly) are getting security mechanisms installed, new science labs and computers. The current HISD policy is when repair or renovation costs come near the costs of outright replacement, then they replace the school. 134 schools are on the list.

Brunner contrasted the HISD approach with the SPISD approach which he says is a band aid approach. He stated that HISD's maintenance budget is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is questionable for a district of this size.

Brunner went on to talk about the upcoming State Constitutional amendments, stating that State amendments 2, 4, 12, 15, and 16 should be voted against. This includes the Proposition 15 $3 billion Cancer Institute vote. Brunner stated that this should not be construed that we are against cancer or cancer research, but that this allows the Legislature to get into the cancer research business which there is plenty of work going on to begin with. He noted this is a grant and not a loan, ergo it will never get repaid. The monies are also not line itemed, as it is an open grant. Brunner also noted amendment #12 is a $5 billion open check to Tx-DOT for which there is no prohibition for use in the Trans Texas Corridor.

Questions were raised by the audience, such as why is HISD letting the schools fall apart, then asking for the authority to issue bonds? Another interesting question was whether it is necessary to build new schools to have a quality education? In other words, when has a particular building been the driving force in a great education? Another person mentioned that there seems to be a very contestable assumption that more money means a better education, which in putting that money into buildings takes away from the stress behind education.

Bill Borden mentioned that the cost to educate an HISD student is $4,200 per student which he says is higher than that of a private school. HISD has boasted that it has greatly increased the number of advanced placement student, but failed to mention that 70% of those advanced placement students come from two schools - Westside and Bellaire. He advocates looking into breaking up HISD and also looking into how HISD handles its statistics. He also was critical of the issue that HISD does not budget very much money for maintenance.

The meeting ended with more commentary by Mr. Tobin. Tobin said in response to a question that the Port of Houston wants general obligation bond issues. That way, if they can float a general obligation bond, then he asserted that the Port Authority can build down on Pelican Island, as the island is not within the navigation zone. Tobin said that we may be seeing a changing set of economics in the Port soon, since he characterized the Port as being in the cul de sac of the Gulf of Mexico. In 2005, Kansas City Southern purchased controlling interest in Grupo Transportacion Ferroviaria Mexicana, possibly for use with the Trans Texas Corridor. Ships would not sail to Houston, but rather land in western Mexico, then transport overland.

And so it was. It was an interesting meeting, but early voting ended this evening as I was writing this. The turnout during early voting was light and turnout on election day is also expected to be light. Meanwhile we await the fate of those bonds, bonds, bonds.

Wizard

Houston Metro Rail: Frank Russo's big payday

And so it was that Houstonians woke up to the news that the Metropolitan Transit Authority decided that, at the added cost of, well who knows how much money, that the agency is going to aggrandize itself via building 30 more miles of light rail. I will do some analysis sometime within the next few days.

Of course the boys at 801 Texas Avenue cheered at the news, noting that 60,000 jobs were going to be created at its peak. This is almost certainly tacking on a zero onto the number of jobs that might be temporarily created. If 60,000 jobs are to be created and, say for argument's sake that each job pays (with benefits) $50,000 per year, then the labor costs alone for the project would run $3 billion. The numbers can be massaged around, but you should get the picture. It is notable that the Hearst boys were very careful in their editorial not to make claims that the project would do anything to alleviate traffic congestion.

But analysis about that are to come later this week. Today we are going to talk about one person who already has found employment with Metro, courtesy of current Metro President Frank Wilson. That man's name is one, Mr. Frank Russo. Details about Mr. Russo's current employment can be downloaded here. This is a Power Point presentation that is 3.1 mb in size.

Addendum edit: It has been pointed out to me that several of the pages in the contract are missing. That is because there were several pages in the contract which involved dealing with issues such as the fact that Mr. Russo was to follow federal laws not discriminating against race, creed, sex, ethnicity, and so forth in hiring subcontractors, if any were needed. There were other - what I would call generic clauses in the contract, such as that Mr. Russo was supposed to comply with other laws which I did not see worth posting.

Also, it was pointed out to me that the contract does not exactly point out the scope of duties that Mr. Russo was supposed to be performing. Curiously, the contract is quite vague about that very question and I find that I cannot answer that question.

At point, Mr. Wilson stipulated in the contract he awarded to Mr. Russo that he would make $1 million over the first two years of his employment with Metro, at a rate of $300 per hour. The contract was amended this past April, where Mr. Wilson bumped up Russo's pay by $10 per hour and increased the contract ceiling to $1.1 million. Mr. Russo's employment can be extended beyond the inital period, but we will not know on what terms. Metro has an option to help pay for automobile expenses. but we will not speculate about any possible kickbacks between the two men.

So what have Mr. Wilson and Mr. Russo done to earn such pay? Mr. Wilson and Mr. Russo have been together for a very long time, indeed Mr. Russo has been following Mr. Wilson around even before the people up in New Jersey salted them up before sending them down to Houston, much as Mr. Wilson's predecessor Shirley Delibero was before him.

The Frank and Frank show has not been the cleaner of operations, but their history together represents iron triangularism at its finest. While in New Jersey, Mr. Wilson was involved with two rail projects, the South Jersey Rail line and the Hudson Bergen rail line. The Hudson Bergen line currently is 8 miles long and carries about 30,000 boardings per day. The Hudson Bergen project went three times over budget and is carrying about half of its originally projected ridership.

However, that matter was much overshadowed by the events surrounding the South Jersey Rail line. It's a bit hard for me in far away Houston to suss out the details, but it seems that the genesis of the South Jersey rail line was that it was a politically demanded project in the sense that since the folks up in northern New Jersey got a rail line, then gosh darnit, we folks in southern New Jersey better have one too. Based on such political calculus, one might consider looking at the Metro Rail map and drawing your own conclusions.

What resulted with South Jersey appears to have been was an absolute disaster. In fact the project is such a disaster that it is notable that the Wiki entry listing the light rail line riderships of various lines across America lists the South Jersey project at #22 in ridership. The South Jersey line's cost, originally thought to be $314 million, soared to $1 billion. The project was initially thought to have a miserly 9,000 boardings per day, but that figure was revised to a mere 5,900. Current ridership is claimed at 3,600 - 7,350 per day. A single, typical interstate freeway lane handles about 20,000 vehicles (including freight trucks) per day and more than 25,000+ passengers. Metro has 10 bus routes (cost per bus is about $300,000 - $400,000) which carry more passengers than that billion dollar line.

One week after Wilson pushed through approval of the South Jersey line, he resigned his post to take a job with Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, where he eventually became company president and secured at least $72 million on contracts with the line. As for Russo, he worked in a job created by Wilson in New Jersey, then went to work for Raytheon which did work on the South Jersey line. The entire South Jersey rail line project was such a disaster that the New Jersey State Assembly decided to start calling people to the mat.

In the time honored way of politics, when disaster strikes the best way a political figure can make sure they can continue visiting disasters on the public is to make sure they get as far away as they can from the site of where their previous disaster took place. Hence Mr. Wilson, tarred and feathered, got lucky and found himself a job in Houston where he doesn't ride the HOV canyon buses from his suburban home into downtown where he works (because like for 95-99 percent of the population, it isn't worth his time to do so), though some of my upper middle class co-workers - who would otherwise not be bothering taking public transportation - do, if only to avoid traffic jams. We will not talk about Wilson's taking $250,000 of travel, courtesy of BART in 1992, or his E-Z Pass disasters. As for Russo, in addition to his big money payday in Houston, he is taking his public private partnership schtick back to his old stomping grounds in California.

Sigh. My analysis of Metro's plans for light rail come later this week.

Wizard

An HPRA luncheon with the Houston Taco Truck Lawyer

On Friday, September 21, 2007, the Houston Property Rights Association welcomed Houston trial attorney David Mestemaker, who is representing Houston area mobile food vendors in a federal lawsuit challenging new state laws which have enabled the City of Houston and Harris County to pass new stringent regulations surrounding the operations of taquerias.

Mestemaker, a personable fellow perhaps in his 50's, opened his talk by saying he first came to Houston in 1980 from Michigan. He got a job in the oil business, working for Tenneco. The company sent him to law school, but the company was sold just as he was completing his school work. Mestemaker mentioned that he has been practicing law for 18-19 years, but that the taco truck lawsuit is the first time he has had an opportunity to claim a United States Constitutional claim. Mestemaker mentioned that he would only have about 1 hour to speak to the group, as he had his (very noble) weekly appointment to read to the blind. He said to the group that when he first received the call that he was dreading the idea of speaking to such a group, thinking that he would be speaking to a bunch of landlords who would be telling him that their clients needed to get their trucks off of their property. He said not to get upset if anyone was offended. We at HPRA instead gave him our usual cold water welcome we give to our guest speakers and I informed him we were equal opportunity offenders, ergo he later on admitted that he had a great time speaking to us.

Mestemaker said that the taco & mobile food truck Constitutional claim was based on the 14th Amendment, specifically its due process and equal protection clauses. Mestemaker said that Constitutional claims are often very complex, but broadly the issue is whether a statute or ordinance is, either on its face or in its application, biased towards certain groups? If so, then such laws are violative of the 14th Amendment.

Mestemaker said that the new state statutes enabling local ordinances to be passed were originally authored in March 2007 by Duane Bohac and Kevin Bailey. As one can see by reading the legislation, the statues apply only to counties with a population of 2.8 million or greater - i.e. Harris County. Mestemaker said that representatives received substantial campaign contributions from the Houston area restaurants and associations. However a quick lookup on the Internet revealed that, though yes Duane Bohac received at least $3,800 worth of such monies, that was less than 2 percent of the $222,000 he raised during the period leading up to the 2007 State legislative session. So take that as you will. Kevin Bailey received a lot more money from labor unions and both Bohac and Bailey received more contributions from home builders than from food vendors.

All the same, the issue is still before us. Mestemaker said that the ordinances state that the mobile food trucks have to have written permission to be on a piece of land or property, that there needs to be a toilet within 500 feet of the business, and that they need to be inspected everyday.

A short time ago, a hearing was held in the court of U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas. Justice Atlas asked the Harris County representative what they intended to do to enforce the new rules. Mestemaker told HPRA that the Harris County attorney said something to the effect that "this is an unfunded mandate and if they (the State of Texas) will not send us any money to enforce it, then we won't do a damned thing about the matter." Ms. Atlas then asked the City of Houston attorney what it intended to do and the CoH attorney said several things:

1) The CoH will empower the Houston Police Department to inspect and ticket taquerias - something Counsellor Mestemaker wondered whether the rank and file of HPD would really care to be doing when real criminals are roaming the cityscape.

2) The City intends to enforce the rule that a bathroom must be within 500 feet of the taqueria.

3) The building owner who has the bathroom where the taco truck is parked must have a signed notarized statement authorizing anyone can use that bathroom. More on this particular rule in a moment.

4) The mobile taco truck must be inspected everyday.

5) If the truck owner intends to be on a piece of property for 90 minutes, then the owner must have written permission to be on the owner's property. More on this later.

The City lawyer was asked by an AG lawyer in one hearing what would happen if violations would occur? The City attorney said that

1) A fine would be imposed.

2) Their medallion (which acts as a permit) would get yanked.

3) A felony charge would be slapped on owners and operators.

4) Then finally the City would shutdown a truck which continued to violate ordinances.

In Mestemaker's words, the City's attitude was one of "it's just a minor thing", no big deal. There may be a different point of view from the point of the truck operator or owner.

Mestemaker said that there were an estimated 17,000 restaurants in Harris County and only 43 full time food inspectors. In comparison, there are an estimated 1,500 taco trucks or trailers operating in Harris County, ergo that makes the taco trucks about 9 percent of all the food establishments in the Houston area. About 500 of these are licensed and are operating in the City. More are unlicensed, while others are admittedly downright illegal. Meanwhile, there are a total of 15 commissaries in Harris County which the taquerias get their food and utensils from, as well as functioning as places where trucks can get cleaned. 14 of these are in the City, while only 1 is in the County. Also, only one of these commissaries is open 24 hours per day.

As things stand today, the taco trucks are supposed to be inspected once per year, if an inspector shows up (and that can happen at any time), or if there is a report that they are in violation of an ordinance. These requirements are not too terribly far different from those facing fixed location restaurants, but one big difference between taco trucks and fixed location restaurants - and this gets back to items #3 and #5 above - is that the bathroom on the premises of fixed location restaurants must be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In other words, the ADA compliant bathroom must be accessible to those with handicaps.

Some HPRA members at this point brought up ideas. One member asked what was the difference between a Taco Bell with a drive through window doing after hours business, but whose restaurant was closed? Not much it seems. This is an issue because many of the taquerias in fact do walk up trade and have no place to sit down. Ergo, there would be no need for customer toilets.

Mestemaker went on to say that prior to the new ordinances, the requirements for the trucks were that they needed to have a wastewater tank which had a capacity of at least 33 gallons. This is because such trucks do not have a grease trap, something that normal restaurants are required to have. These tanks could be serviced at a commissary or via vacuum truck whose purpose is to clean clogged grease traps at fixed location restaurants and to clean tanks for mobile trucks.

Mestemaker went on to describe the demographics of who actually operates these mobile food trucks. A small number are operated by blacks, who mostly offer barbeque type fare on their menus. Some are operated by Asians who offer Chinese food, but about 85 percent of the trucks are operated by Hispanics. Mestemaker said that in January 2006, two elected officials, CM Toni Lawrence and Duane Bohac, made statements to the effect that, "these taquerias are springinig up like daisies and are making us look like a third world country." So, yes there is a contention that there is a racial motivation behind the enactment of these ordinances.

As noted above, Mestemaker said the County passed an ordinance saying a bathroom had to be within 300 feet of the taqueria, while the City requirement was that a bathroom had to be within 500 feet. The trucks can no longer be cleaned by a vacuum truck, but now has to go to a commissary for cleaning. As noted above, there are 1,500 trucks and only 15 commissaries. During ealier court hearings, Mestemaker asked a City witness on the witness stand how long an inspection takes and the reply was an inspection takes 20-45 minutes per vehicle, so you do the math. Imagine a commissary is open 16 hours per day. Can all 1,500 trucks get inspected in an average day? That aside, my notes say that the commissaries pay for the inspections, which I would imagine would imply that the truck owners themselves would ultimately bear the cost for these inspections as I would think that the commissaries would pass on the cost of the inspections onto the truck operators (I did not get this part of the story clearly). That leaves these truck owners having to drive for perhaps 30 minutes to the nearest commissary, then wait in line for their daily inspection, then pass the daily inspection before they can go home for the day.

One HPRA member asked whether these rules are in effect for trucks operating in San Antonio, Richmond, Victoria, or other urban areas in the state? The answer of course is no (from reading the statute), which begs the question of why are these rules in effect for trucks operating only in Harris County and Houston? Are the trucks in Houston any dirtier than those operating elsewhere, or is the incidence of sickness resulting from patronizing these places any worse than in other areas in Texas?

CM Toni Lawrence said to Counsellor Mestemaker that City ordinances have been on the books since 1999 regarding inspections. Mestemaker told the audience that the ordinances that have been on the books have to do with the operating of wastewater tanks, not the requirement of everyday inspections. Mestemaker went on to ask why is the solution of wastewater tanks still not viable and why can't they still ply their business? Mestemaker asked City Council whether there had been any reports of sickness from patronizing the taco trucks in the past 5 years. The answer was no.

Mestemaker told the audience that most property owners have a kind of symbiotic relationship with the taco trailers (not necessarily trucks). Many collect rent from trailer owners and sell gasoline to them. They are happy that they are there, but they are not happy with the new requirement that the mobile food units need written permission from them to operate because of the fact that the ADA approved bathroom requirements are stiffer for a restaurant than for, say, a gas station. Mestemaker did say that some of these facilities are of a semi-permanent nature, complete with water meters and have leases with the property owners.

When Mestemaker was approached by the taqueria owners about taking on the case, he told them that they could not afford him, but he has been proven wrong. These people have come on strong because they know their livelyhoods are at stake. Mestemaker said that there are an average of 3 employees per truck, which means that 4,500 people's jobs are at stake here. Many of these trucks are operated (but not necessarily owned) by single mothers and most of these trucks are not making a great deal of profit from what they do. These trucks do not carry a great deal of food because they regularly replace their food stores from their commissary visits. The freshness of their food stores and the fact that they do not store their food supplies for long helps to account for the fact that patrons almost never get sick from eating the food on offer.

Mestemaker said he has few problems with the requirement that taquerias have written permission from property owners to be on their land. However he did bring up the scenario of whether a new construction site which has the lunch truck roll up would be able to satisfy such a requirement? Also, some of these trucks operate on parcels of land which have not had paid any taxes for many years and, if one were to look at the HCAD website, there may be doubt as to who may be the title holder or owner of the property in question. In other words, the land is probably vacant. How would one secure permission to operate on such premises? One HPRA member then asked, almost in outrage, why should this be a City requirement? If he owned a piece of property, then if he didn't want them there, then he (as the property owner) would evict them. No government intervention would be necessary.

One HPRA member who happens to be a practicing attorney asked about the 14th Amendment claims surrounding this case. Mestemaker said that the precedent was founded in 1886 when the City of San Francisco passed an ordinance prohibiting the operation of laundries in wooden buildings. They had to be operating in brick and mortar ones. Ergo, it was alleged that the ordinance violated the 14th Amendment in its application by denying a same playing field. The United States Supreme Court ruled that if the effect of a law denies equal footing, then its gone. Mestemaker says that these ordinances and statutes, in their application, chill the ability to do commerce and force taqueria owners to spend several hours per day - every day - of their time in complying with them. Furthermore, neither the City nor the County specifically asked for empowerment from the State to enact them.

Mestemaker has talked to many people about the matter, including fixed location restaurant owners. The general consensus about the matter amongst the public seems to be that if people aren't getting sick or if these mobile food trucks are not dumping wastewater down sanitary drains, then leave them alone. The other matter at stake is Premises Liability Law. Mestemaker said that if you are a property owner, but that something happens on your property without your permission, then you are not liable.

One HPRA member said that the politicians in question are really trying to follow the wishes of their voting constituents. In other words, there are plans being made for areas where the taquerias are numerous and that the populace in those areas do not want them operating there. What are the politicians in question supposed to do? Another HPRA member though said that this sounds like one of those matters where we just have to do something about those people.

Finally, there is a hearing on the suit on October 24. December 1 is when the ordinance is supposed to become enforceable. Mestemaker wrapped up his story by telling of something that happened at the end of one hearing. The Houston Chronicle reporter asked if if he knew whether Homeland Security was here? Mestemaker said no, was he on the watch list and would he not be able to fly anymore? This was because some 60 truck operators showed up for the hearing. They were, in Mestemaker's words, the nicest and most well behaved people in the court room, but our government pulled out the stops and rang the fire alarms in reaction.

I will say here that more than 20 years ago I worked for a Domino's franchisee for 2+ years. The company operated (and still operates) an area wide commissary off of 610 North Loop where dough, meat, card board delivery boxes and vegetables are all distributed by truck for standardization purposes. If you every happen to see an 18 wheeler with the Domino's logo on it, then that truck is on a run from the commissary delivering food orders to company stores . Each of our stores were inspected maybe 2-3 times the entire time I worked for him. I had to attend a City mandated restaurant sanitation course.

Having stated all of this, I will say that the entire idea that these trucks must get inspected every single day is absolutely preposterous on its face. Instead of the public paying for the burden of having government employees going out to perform what are perhaps annual inspections of restaurants, we will have effectively turned the tables by having the taqueria truck owners and operators bear the burden of having to report for a daily inspection. This is a classic example of using governmental regulatory powers to shut out your competition, using the usual rationale that we need to protect the public. One might want to read these threads from Blog Houston. One HPRA member suggested that Mestemaker talk to the Institute for Justice which works on economic freedom type cases.

I will wind up this rather lengthy epistle by saying that this case has drawn considerable attention throughout the country. Mestemaker has given interviews in Spanish. KPRC, the Chronicle, and the New York Times have all done stories on the issue. Mestemaker told HPRA that he has not had more fun as an attorney than he has had in his entire career, on the account that he genuinely believes that he is right and that he has gotten himself involved in a rather weighty issue here.

So stay tuned!

Wizard.

Shutting out the competition - Ron Paul and his quest for the Presidency

I don't write too much about Presidential politics, but two events prodded me to do so. First was that British PM Tony Blair announced he was stepping down from power on June 27, 2007, an issue I will not write about now. The second was the bizarre reaction of some in the Republican Party to Congressman Ron Paul's suggestion that U.S. foreign policy as was conducted in the Middle East in the years leading up to September 11, 2001 was a factor in the decision by Al Queda to strike U.S. homeland targets.

This write up on Reason Magazine has a stark rundown on the overall situation. Briefly, Mr. Paul had a confrontation with former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani in a public debate over the matter. Giuliani said that he had never heard of that before. Hmmm...

I will leave this epistle with a copy of the Reason commentary comparing the statements of Cato Institute scholars verses statements made by leading figures in the Bush Administration.

Cato personnel:

Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."

Ted Galen Carpenter:"The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."

Bush Administration officials:

Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

• Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."

• White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."

• OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

Mr. Paul came in third in a text message poll conducted after the debate. Sadly he lags in the polls. Mercifully though Mr. Paul is not being subject to the time honored practice of using government as a means of shutting out of the competition, in this case via banning him from participating in future debates or by drumming him out of the Party. Still, Mr. Paul may well be prescient with his notion that the Republican Party will not win the Presidency in 2008 by pursuing the same old foreign policy which the Bushies have been following.

History shows that once Presidents get America stuck in wars, it is usually up to their successors to get America out. This happened with Johnson in Vietnam, where Nixon ended up getting America out. It also happened in Korea where Truman got us in there, but Eisenhower got us out. Based on this, I have felt Mr. Bush will make sure that America stays in his military adventure until he leaves office and leave the job of devising an exit strategy to his successor.

There are other reasons I have felt that Bush would stick out Iraq until he leaves office. One is that the war bleeds away money from other government programs. It also is a matter of point that it is nearly impossible to ever get a politician to say that they did the wrong thing. A while back Senator Robert Byrd said that he had been wrong about America's changing attitudes towards Civil Rights in the 1960's. Otherwise, he had made the right decision on every one of his 10,000+ votes he had made as a Senator. Wow! All I can say is that is not a bad track record. And I thought I was wise and powerful...

Wizard